I agree with the last part. But here OP said "we presume X is not a factor", and then goes on to conclude X is not a factor.
OP requires evidence for biological differences, but requires no such thing for the discrimination theory.
Throwing around "epistomological presumption", "corollary"' and "prima facie" does not make this a scientific argument.
In reality there is plenty of evidence for biological gender differences (and for discrimination). Pinker's "Blank Slate" is a good start if you have time to read 600 pages.
OP requires evidence for biological differences, but requires no such thing for the discrimination theory.
Throwing around "epistomological presumption", "corollary"' and "prima facie" does not make this a scientific argument.
In reality there is plenty of evidence for biological gender differences (and for discrimination). Pinker's "Blank Slate" is a good start if you have time to read 600 pages.