Zachriel's link in a comment section about skin tone reminded me of an odd phenomenon Steve Sailer pointed out years ago: people who believe human behavior is entirely* environmental and cultural are willing to accept and even applaud research that shows differences earlier and earlier in human development. Finding themselves appalled by behavioral and cognitive differences in males versus females and among different races when they show up in kindergarten, they start tracking back, running experiments to see when this begins and what cause it. They accept that it is already present in preschool. They breathlessly report that it shows up even in toddlers. Clever researchers uncover that even among infants boys and girls look at different things, mothers speak to them differently, and Chinese infants are better-behaved and cry less often than European ones. No matter how far back we push the research, it seems, people are different.
They are not willing to push it back to before birth, however, and certainly not nine months before birth. (They acknowledge the possibility of prenatal influences in theory, but then never mention it again in any discussions, not even in recognised categories like Fetal Alchohol Syndrome. Oh that, yeah. Terrible stuff. Now, as I was saying about mother's attitudes to girls versus boys in terms of what they coo when they are nursing, did you know that their nonsense language is softer and at a higher pitch toward girls? It just goes to show...). We seem to communicate a wealth of destructive cultural information in the first few months which takes a lifetime of intervention to undo.
It is bizarre reasoning when looking at 15-year-olds and their problematic behaviors to keep going back, and back, always saying "so it must be even earlier than that, huh" through all the years that children aren't listening to their parents, their teachers, their priests, or their grandparents about anything else are somehow learning all this terrible stuff unconsciously beginning in the first year of life. It must be the TV! Or movies! Except that we reportedly had even more of those terrible ideas before there were even newspapers...
But not just a few days before that.
When what looks at the consequences of those beliefs, however, they suddenly look less bizarre. If children are already responding in horrible sexist, racist, homophobic ways by the time they enter Montessori school at age three, then it just should that we've got a lot of work to do here! The government needs to be involved, we need to have programs for toddlers, we need to get more words being spoken to little black babies, we need to supervise the colors and fabrics children are dressed in, we need to have puppets explaining to them about social attitudes and cute animated characters singing to them! This has got to be a full-court press. There is not a moment to be wasted. Civilisation is at stake. Society needs to find ten times more jobs for people like us to intervene here.
But if those things are present at conception, then there's not a lot for them to do anymore. It means those jobs are useless, and may even run the risk of being harmful. I suggest that is a powerful motivator. People may not think their particular job or prospects are in danger, but folks are extremely alert to what things benefit their tribe and which things benefit some other tribe instead. Their students, their neighborhood, their children - they are all going to need jobs, and mates, and friends, and status. And the sources of that must be protected.
*As I have noted many times, there will be a theoretical acknowledgement that some heritable factors contribute to behavior and ability, but all of their experiments and their reporting about them do not notice that this possibility is even on the table. The genetic is routinely excluded as even a possible explanation among almost everyone in the social sciences, except those who are specifically interested in it and looking for it. I mention this from time to time when a new study hits the news and I feel the obligation to point out once again that the heritable is a clearly possible explanation for x, but in this expensive study of 4,000 middle-schoolers it has clearly not even occurred to these professionals. But it gets tiring. It's always the same.