Certainly there are physiological differences between men and women, that's not controversial. The question was, if we select males for math ability in the blatant and artificial way I mentioned above, would the evolutionary effects take women along "for the ride" as well, or would it not? It sounds like the answer from those with more detailed knowledge is: we don't know, because mechanisms can be considered that would do either. We're not likely to try the experiment, but my point is simply, if we don't even know the genetic consequences of such a blatant and extreme selection pressure, why should we expect genetic differences in math ability due to the incredibly flimsy suggestions we've seen on this thread?

As long as that is the case, and as long as cultural influences continue to be so obvious, and as long as the reduction of those cultural pressures results in a trend toward equalizing men's and women's math scores, I'd say it's a complete no-brainer that the hypothesis that women are innately and genetically caused to be less adept in math, either on the average or at the top end, is as completely unsubstantiated as the hypothesis that UFOs have been conducting experiments on farmers. That's pretty much all I've been saying.