If my experiment fails to show anything conclusive, I should be open to re-evaluating some of the things I rejected, but I refuse to do it out of zealous belief in my hypothesis.
You are arguing a straw man. The "experiments" in this case are showing ample evidence of biases, so as long as those biases exist the underlying hypothesis can by definition not be falsified.
Perhaps I am not very well read on the subject. My argument was rooted in the attitude I came across when this story was trending (linked at the end of this comment). This research might have been disproved later on, I never followed up on the story. What I was referring to was the readiness with which some were willing to stop pursuing this sort of trial.
My intent wasn't to strawman - if this is in fact non-existent then I concede that point.
Which experiments? I'm not aware of much in the gender diversity 'sciences' that would rise to the level of being called an experiment, except for the sort of neuro-psychology that Damore cited and which he got slated for (because they show biological reasons for differences in subject interest)
You are arguing a straw man. The "experiments" in this case are showing ample evidence of biases, so as long as those biases exist the underlying hypothesis can by definition not be falsified.