Watch out for scientific studies that read the evidence to support the belief that what is true of the male is superior.

Says the Vatican, saying something that's the reverse of something I've said so often other people have taken to calling it the "Althouse Rule."

Here I am, back in 2005:

I've said it before, and I must repeat, the rule is: If you do scientific research into the differences between men and women, you must portray whatever you find to be true of women as superior. And when you read reports about scientific research into the differences between men and women, use the hypothesis that the scientists are following that rule. It makes reading the reports quite humorous.

Here's the above-linked article about a piece called "History of Biological Difference" in L'Osservatore Romano:

Be cautious about scientific data that offer to be the sole basis and single explanation for the differences between men and women, the Vatican newspaper said. Different eras have produced different scientific conclusions about sex differences, it said, in part because assumptions were built on the knowledge available at the time.

But past scientific views were also inspired by the particular social concepts in force and were "marked, in general, by a strong 'male-centric' ideological slant, aimed at scientifically establishing female inferiority," the newspaper article said....

The article presented a rundown of different findings, spanning from the 1800s to present day, by scientists in explaining why men and women are different....

Biological views of the difference between the sexes, therefore, "have changed over time, according to the theories and dominant ideologies in each historical context, and the interests of medical research," it said.

Articulating what I might comically call The Reverse Althouse Rule, the Vatican is not disagreeing with what I've been saying. I've been writing about media reports in present-day America, where the bias is toward framing the scientific news as evidence of female superiority. But in times and places where people want to present and promote an ideology of male superiority, one ought to expect the same process to yield science that supposedly finds what people want to find.

I said that back in 2005:

To test my theory about whether scientists are following my rule, try rewriting their conclusions as if they were following the opposite rule. That is, take the same basic data, and write their statements as if they were leaning exactly as much toward portraying what is true of the male as superior.

I remember the days when people would routinely and openly characterize whatever was true of the male as superior, and I'm glad those days are over (at least in the U.S.)....