Why? I disagree with him on the matter, but that's not the point we were discussing here.

Here's my view on the topic: there's scant biological evidence that women are intellectually less capable than men, and there's a lot more evidence that they underperform on, say, standardized tests because of cultural effects. So, personally, I'm leaning towards "Let's assume we're equally capable, until we've ruled out all or most cultural effects influencing the result".

You don't have to see it like that. You can have your reasons to believe women are less smart than men by nature. That belief still allows for two different paths: one where you go violently about bringing women down, and one where you only make your own choices based on the assumption above, i.e. the non-violent path. The line separating the two paths is not always completely clear, there's a gradual difference, but as a general distinction, it remains valid in my opinion.

That's the violent vs. non-violent sexist distinction I have in mind. "Violent" meaning, more or less, the same as "intolerant" in this context. And I know plenty of people who think that, as long as you have the right opinion - say, that women and men are equally smart - it's okay to be intolerant of the opposing views.

Here's the short version:

I consider being tolerant more important than being right, because the latter is heavily subjective anyway, despite what we tell ourselves to make it look like our rightness is righter than the other guy's rightness.