Your suggestion is: A) Men in biology tend to be genius level intelligence B) Women in biology tend to be simply above average intelligence C) Above average intelligence makes a better biologist than genius level intelligence. The obvious conclusion from this rediculous syllogism is that women make better biologists. How is this implication different than people who make the opposite insinuation, that men make better scientists? Aren't you simply engaging in the same sort of prejudice and sexism?

A) I was not addressing any particular discipline, but there were quite a bit more girls in my bio classes than there were in my physics classes. There just just a post about the IQ bell curve that you may want to look at. That being said, IQ is likely not the best way to measure intelligence. B) The biologists I know tend to have middling intelligence for math but very, very good lab skills. C) I suppose you could state it like that, yes. Biology is still not a fully developed science like math or physics because humans have not been doing it as long, and only just now are we starting to fully understand the richness and complexity of biology. Chemistry is about halfway between bio and physics.

There are those in medicine who hesitate to call people with PhDs real doctors, you share with them a level of pretention which makes the rest of us not want to hang out with you twits.

NO. Medicine is not an experimental science, it is a service industry that uses the results of experimental science. You would not want your medical doctor to do experiments on you. The FDA has all kinds of rules about that. All the MDs I've talked to agree with me, as well as the premeds who were my friends and the premeds I taught.