The latest book by geneticist and science writer Adam Rutherford is, according to the author, a “weapon”; specifically, one that will “provide a foundation to contest racism that appears to be grounded in science.” It follows in the same tradition as two other recent
It is difficult to have any useful discussion in which the term "racist" or "sexist" is involved. The question of whether or not person A is racist or if comment B is sexist is nearly impossible due to the ambiguity of these terms. The expanded definition is on purpose because racist is not a term to explain. It is a political bludgeon to shame. It is well known that there are differences between men and women in their average psychological profile. Is acknowledging this sexist?
Similarly for the term racist. The Georgetown professor was fired and considered a racist for saying that she was distraught that students at the bottom of her class were African American. Mentioning this fact itself is considered racist. If she were however, to say "Our university is failing black students because of racism and systemic oppression. Look at the rates of students in the bottom of my class and that drop out of the university. We must fix this problem and fight racism", I don't think she would be considered racist. There is no coherent use of this term currently and it should be abandoned.
The reality is that there are competing views of the world to explain differences in outcomes between races and sexes. One says that another group is holding the other down or historical injustices have a lasting legacy. This explanation is always not bigoted. The other says there are cultural or genetic factors. This is always regarded as bigotry by the progressives who hold the other position.
It is interesting to note that rarely do progressives say people like Charles Murray are merely incorrect. They frequently attribute motive. Many could tell you that the Bell Curve is incorrect because it is racist without even reading the book. The default assumption among many progressives is that socially undesirable conclusions are de facto wrong. Not only that, but they are so baseless that only morally bankrupt people could believe otherwise. Notice how this book is not called "How to Argue with a Hereditarian" it is already attributing some moral failing to the interlocutor. Since people who become convinced of conservatism or hereditarianism do not believe themselves to be evil people but only truth-seekers, they feel frustrated when treated like this.