This paper doesn't sit right with me. To establish rigid, biological
definitions of some of the most debated terms is fine of course, as
long as it makes your own research and writing clearer. What's weird
is expecting others to have used the same definition in their
writing. To use the word "bias" to describe that discrepancy is not
really doing justice to other viewpoints and it seems like the author
has failed to live up to his own ideals:

> The dialectic can remain healthy as long as multiple viewpoints are
allowed and ideas are evaluated on their own merits.

The main point of the paper is to discuss what the author describes as
a feminist bias in academic psychology, which he says systematically
distorts certain domains of research.

The paper then attacks this "bias" from multiple angles, which makes
the paper quite hard to follow. The first angle is that feminism
fundamentally misunderstands the nature of sex:

> The flaws of the sex-gender distinction have led some feminist
> scholars to adopt the hybrid term “sex/gender” (sometimes
> “gender/sex”) as a way to recognize that biological and social
> factors are inseparable [...] Unfortunately, this terminological
> fusion may end up deepening the conceptual confusion. [...] On this
> view, the “sex binary” is a socially constructed fiction; the old
> idea that there are two sexes is simplistic and inaccurate, and does
> not stand up to sophisticated analysis [...] This argument can be
> seductive but has one problem—it fundamentally misunderstands the
> nature of sex.

He goes on to explain why "the biological definition of sex is not
just one option among many equally valid alternatives", but in fact
the only valid definition. "The sex binary, then, is not a fiction but
a basic biological fact".

Here's the definition from the paper:

"From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and
females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small
gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes."

Stating this definition as a fact is very strange. Clearly we used
these terms long before this definition existed, for example.

The section that reviews introductory textbooks is simply confusing.
It states that this "quick survey illustrates many of the trends I
discussed earlier" and complains that some of them are completely
silent on the issue of sex differences, but also acknowledges that
there "there is quite a bit of variation in coverage, and a few
outliers that deviate from the general". To summarize: out of 14
textbooks that the author looked at, some didn't mention the issue at
all, some did but not enough, but some did. I don't find this to be a
clear illustration of the author's points.

The review of journal papers is equally confusing. 19 papers were
selected based on publication year, journal, title and abstract. In
the authors words, the selected papers "reveals a fair amount of
theoretical diversity, but also a pervasive tendency to emphasize
socialization over biology and downplay robust empirical findings as
“stereotypes”. The methodology is extremely unclear. If I got it
right, 19 papers where chosen by the author - some where emphasizing
socializing over biology, and some took an "explicitly evolutionary
approach". Again, not a very convincing way to demonstrate bias -
except perhaps in your own selection.

It goes on. I'd like to write more but I think these issues speak for themselves.