I read parts of the article linked in the OP, it's somewhat grueling reading. The writer argues from a prone position:
Lastly, Watson notes a Stanford social psychology study which shows that “stereotype threat” can be a powerful force in demotivating people. I couldn’t agree more. I have often argued for 50% female representation at secularist and skeptical events for this exact reason, even knowing that it is likely that fewer than 50% of available speakers at any one time are female. I am not sure what this point has to do with evolutionary psychology, however. I’m familiar with no research or researcher who maintains that stereotypes aren’t capable of being very harmful to society.
I suppose his critique of Watson has some value as the type of thing that people in that community will respond to, so it has to be written this way, although I myself have little patience with the mannered, passive-aggressive nature of academic critique. When you let feminists, leftists, and other intellectual frauds roam freely, any critique no matter how verbose will be pointless. They're not interested in reasoned discussion, so why do you think it will stop them? The problem is in having such low intellectual standards for academia in general, which gives uneducated narcissists like Skepchick the idea that they deserve to be listened to. (Imagine a five year old holding up class because learning the alphabet was "poopy".)
So he doesn't attack the root cause, he instead engages in this pathetic debate with her nonexistent arguments like the weak, ineffectual profnerd he is. Sorry, Clint, Dawkins, Pinker, did you really expect that you could allow leftist identity politics to run rampant on campus and it would never come back on you? Academia has been in a sorry state for decades
, and you've all let it happen because you flattered yourselves that your liberal credentials were sufficient. Well good luck with this new breed of attention-whoring academic jester, who doesn't give a damn for your standards of discussion and evidence. Maybe it will dawn on you that this is what unopposed liberalism leads to.
Still, Clint soldiers on and puts together a long list of errors, which is like writing a book length critique of The Daily Show's liberal bias. Clowns don't care, Clint, they just want to clown! If you're going to bother with them, you should be briefer and more scathing. Those are the only cuts they feel.