In her commentary on Buss and von Hippel (2018), Fine (2020) makes 2 primary claims. First, she argues that Buss and von Hippel’s methods and data do not support their conclusions. Second, she argues that Buss and von Hippel made unsubstantiated accusations of ideological bias regarding Fine (2017), thereby creating unnecessary barriers to constructive scientific debate. In this rejoinder, we acknowledge some of her methodological criticisms but provide additional analyses of our data that support our original conclusions. We also expand on Buss and von Hippel’s criticisms of Fine (2017) to clarify why we regard her work as ideologically biased and why we think concerns about bias should be more commonplace in scientific debate.

In this study, individuation (individuated vs. nonindividuated) and goal type (agentic vs. communal) were manipulated to examine STEM professors’ receptiveness toward male and female prospective students’ e-mail requests for meetings. E-mails were sent to a sample of 1,879 STEM professors who had previously recommended their female students for a career development workshop. Findings indicate more receptive responses toward female prospective students, more receptive responses from male professors, and an interaction between prospective student gender and goal type; male prospective students received less receptive responses when they mentioned a communal goal (vs. agentic); however, female prospective students received responses similar in receptiveness, regardless of goal type.