Two points of confusion show up often among progressives. Compulsion is not observation, and hypothesis is not morality. That is, it's one thing to say women cannot join the army, and quite another to say that more women than men seem to lack talent or inclination in that direction. Similarly, it cannot be immoral to hypothesize that a group might for evolutionary reasons (rather than solely cultural) be less inclined in a certain direction on average. Scientists cannot be forbidden from forming and considering hypotheses; if they are, it immediately ceases to be science. In short, we can have freedom AND individual differences; we can have science AND politeness and consideration. Break down either AND to insist on only one of that pair all the time, and we've messed up.

Maybe most decent people are still too judgmental for this kind of view to work so well for them, even if it's more on point. That is: I sometimes entertain the idea that groups aren't always as talented as each other in every respect, but I also often entertain the idea that they are, and regardless of the outcome, I'm not going to start hating on people. That is, if I believed all women were less able soldiers than all men (I know for a fact that isn't true, but if I did), I wouldn't convert that belief to being shitty and judgy and freedom-restricting. The same for any other supposed group difference. Buck a trend (or "trend"). Follow your dreams. Be who you want to be. Don't let me get in your way. And I'd like to be on your side.

I don't know the answers. But I do know that forbidding questions is unwise.