Eugene Volokh trips a little:
Iowa State University bans as "sexual harassment" a wide range of speech, including "derogatory or demeaning comments about women or men in general, whether sexual or not." Saying -- even quite accurately -- that women are genetically less likely to be good at certain things may well be seen as "derogatory or demeaning." (After all, it apparently made some biology professors feel like they were "going to be sick," made their "heart . . . pound[]," presumably not in a good way, made their "breath . . . shallow," and made them "extremely upset.")Of course, saying that men are more likely (whether for genetic or other reasons) to be violent criminals, rapists, child molesters, sexists, or for that matter fools driven by their genital organs would also be "derogatory or demeaning," and thus sexual harassment.
The problem is that derogatory comments are by their very nature are not true, or at least they are highly arguable. Men having genetic superiority is one of those things that there is no evidence to suggest is true. When someone finds the math gene, I'll buy it, but so far, no credible evidence of a genetic element.
Similarly, the statement about men is arguable. Perhaps what the esteemed professor meant to say is that violent criminals et al. are more likely to be men. There's a critical difference.
What about saying that based on statistics someone is more likely to have X or Y characteristic? Such a characteristic may be not due to gender but also appear to be causally linked if one does not take into account societal pressures, family background, etc... I think there is certainly something that can be gleened from these statements, however if we are to be responsible we need to look behind the statistics and find out what something actually "is." If we stop at pointing fingers and assume men are genetically predisposed to violence or that the next female baby born can't set the human speed record, we do ourselves and our society a disservice.