Research showing that men on average are better at negotiation may mean that making skill at that a factor in hiring or pay has a disparate impact unrelated to business function for jobs where that is not part of the duties, but it doesn't mean that substituting sex discrimination for more direct skill assessment for jobs where that skill is required is either appropriate, efficient, or legal.

Skills not being perfectly evenly distributed by race or sex doesn't justify race or sex discrimination in place of assessment of individual skill. There's second edge you try to portray does not exist.

Here's what you're missing. If there is a sex-based difference in negotiation skill then there's no way that we will have the same outcomes in hiring and compensation between the sexes even in a system where there is no bias.

Up until now, whenever there are different outcomes between men and women the assumption has been that they perform the same. Take a look at the gender pay gap arguments.

That's not what you said before, you suggested that the research could be used to hire men preferentially.

As for your"up until now ", that's not true. Some people assume bias in absence of clear evidence, others assume differences in ability, interest, etc. The research doesn't really provide a clear basis for any particular quantified level of unequal impact, so the people who start off with one or the other assumption in the absence of clear evidence of the source of a particular level of unequal results in a particular form or industry are likely to stay with that assumption even with this research. Neither the justification for deliberate bias you suggested in your first party note the soft on assumptions you now suggest is a result from the research we have.

Won't negotiation be a part of any job that requires interacting with other people?