Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Gender as an anti-concept

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

If I surgically alter a cat to have the appearance and biological functions of a dog, is it now a dog? I don't think so. It's a cat altered to seem like a dog.

The meaning of a concept is its referents, not its definition. The definition is there to tell you what is being referred to by telling you the genus and differentia of the referents.

If a cat was altered so that it had the genes of a dog, every appearance and function of a dog, such that it was absolutely indistinguishable from an organism that was born as a dog by any means actual or imagined, then surely it would in fact be a dog. Please justify why a 'man' or a 'cat' should retain its original identity from birth regardless of any subsequent reconfiguration of its constituent matter, when it does not retain its identity from when that constituent matter was a star or a tree, and why this is different to how a butterfly loses its identity as a caterpillar when it goes through metamorphosis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Those pronouns are stolen. Return them to their correct defintions. He - a male, man, boy She- a female, woman, girl Therefore a man cannot steal that 'she' and misuse it in calling thems

Sorry, this person you were talking to is just wrong. How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it so.

What will a man in the women's room be charged with? Indecent exposure? I thought it was well established that such laws are not objective. If the man is charged with peeping, then firm evidence for t

But I'm not going to to pretend that they're the gender I find physically and spiritually attractive when they're not.

This still relates to my question. What does it mean for someone to be male, besides their sexual parts? I have no issue with you saying that you find a particular sex to be attractive, much like any other physical appearence preference, except strong enough to be a deal breaker. But to say you find someone's sex to have a spiritual attraction with it? That doesn't make sense to me. There isn't anything I notice about males and females *by their nature* that makes their sex spiritually attractive. What inherent "femaleness" makes a female more attractive for you than a male? Or, similarly, what makes you think of yourself as male (a question directed specifically about your own self-identity)? In your two posts, you seem to imply that regardless of the physical changes made with hormones and surgery, a male to female transgender person is still undeniably male in some way, meaning that any male has some inherent spiritual feature. Note that I'm not asking in physical attribute terms, but as you phrased it, spiritual terms.

A large part of being a woman is that she grew up as a little girl. All of the truly formative years of her self concept were spent being, and being reacted to, as a girl and a woman.

The whole topic of gender possibly being an anti-concept is about this mainly. Wouldn't it in fact be *bad* to raise someone according to a strong sense of gender identity - a concept that varies depending on a culture? The experiences between a little girl or boy are only different due to how their parents or teachers taught them, or see them as. Just because a culture thinks males and females fit into different roles doesn't mean they should be raised any differently. If on the other hand you think that gender identity is going to be important regardless of the culture, I know of no evidence for that.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have known tough, hard-bitten ladies and gentle, sensitive men.

I found deep similarities between a given man and a woman, and huge differences

between any given man, and another man.

The question I often asked of myself and friends was "Is there any fundamental

reason - apart from the obvious physical, and parental-social conditioning ones -

for a man and a woman to be dfferent?"

I think volition, character and individualism trump gender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if a man identifies himself as a woman, in terms of "self concept"... and if he changes every vestige of physical presentation (were that medically possible) to that of a woman... you still wouldn't recognize him as a her, would you? :)

No, I wouldn't. The differences that had already accumulated would be too much to be unrecognizable to me in most realistic scenarios that I can imagine. To be clear, I'm not saying they can't recognize themselves differently. Just that I wouldn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If on the other hand you think that gender identity is going to be important regardless of the culture, I know of no evidence for that.

I would recommend this article as a primer on some of the inherent differences seen so far.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/men-women-different-brains1.htm

With those sorts of differences to begin with, I think it's too much to expect that people would ever be able to forgo the appropriate epigenetic responses. Obviously, some elements of gender roles are fairly arbitrary, like the color pink as a preference, but the more fundamental and meaningful differences, like those found in communication styles or sensitive periods for language acquisition, would be pretty unavoidable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences that had already accumulated would be too much to be unrecognizable to me in most realistic scenarios that I can imagine. To be clear, I'm not saying they can't recognize themselves differently. Just that I wouldn't.

Well, okay. What "differences" do you expect will have already "accumulated"? What are the telling marks, such that if you met a woman (who had been a man), who is indistinguishable physically from any other woman (down to a chromosomal level, which is my sci-fi conceit here), and who never told you that "she" had changed gender, you would be able to identify her as actually a man?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So obviously you could write some sci fi situation where they don't just change every aspect of their body, but even completely alter their brain structure so as to match the brain structure and even memories of a natural woman. In that case, though, it really would be a completely different person at the end. No way to argue against that. Assuming though that they are biologically female in all other ways, changing everything but their original brain, then I would expect to see quite a number of differences indicated by those brain structure differences. So...less multi-tasking, more singular focus on specific things, particular word patterns, non-verbal communication cues and awareness, attention to motion and movement, reflex responses, that sort of thing, would all lead to a more masculine energy. Obviously I could be aware of any number of those (and other) things at different times, but they would all come up circumstantially.

To clarify, I am not claiming that I couldn't be fooled. Especially in the sort run. One more argument against casual sex. ;)

Edited by aequalsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

The studies cited in there I would really need to take the time to look at and read. I've heard of studies indicating that men have more gray matter than women. Taken as is, that could indicate that how people are raised has impact on how their brain functions, with a corresponding physical change. I wonder if white/gray matter studies have been performed with infants. My question applies to all questions about brain architecture, meaning that I'd ask the same about the limbic cortext being larger in women. Cross-cultural studies would help a lot as well.

Another issue I have is mentioning how men relied on one small area of the brain to complete a task, while the majority of women used both sides of the brain. This is misleading. I've heard elsewhere that really all the brain scans in those studies indicate is that those areas are more active than other areas, not that other areas are inactive. I don't know if the studies could indicate exact levels of activity in a brain; only judgments of less or more may have been possible. Why certain areas are at least more active probably could be explained by learned thinking habits picked up over time.

Mentioning studies is fine, but at least for now, I'm wondering about some real life examples. I don't have any examples to offer except totally cultural ones. Concepts about masculinity and femininity need not require neuroscience knowledge to find any essentials that may exist. Also, gender is more like a second-level concept relating to character traits, so even supposing some of the stated differences are true, it's a separate claim to say the differences lead to notable character traits (that is, not really perceptual like a person's sex is, but requires some reasoning beyond that level).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So obviously you could write some sci fi situation where they don't just change every aspect of their body, but even completely alter their brain structure so as to match the brain structure and even memories of a natural woman.

Well, I don't think I was stipulating brain structure or memory alteration, so to better suss this out, let's say not. We're talking about sex change and hormone therapy, but no actual alterations to the brain itself or to memory.

In that case, though, it really would be a completely different person at the end. No way to argue against that. Assuming though that they are biologically female in all other ways, changing everything but their original brain, then I would expect to see quite a number of differences indicated by those brain structure differences. So...less multi-tasking, more singular focus on specific things, particular word patterns, non-verbal communication cues and awareness, attention to motion and movement, reflex responses, that sort of thing, would all lead to a more masculine energy.

I find this questionable at best. I've known a number of women who've shown greater or lesser degrees of "feminine energy" or "masculine energy" (if, indeed, any such thing actually exists independent of societal conventions -- and I'm not yet convinced on that score) and I certainly don't know that I can draw any generalizations with respect to things like "multi-tasking," or "non-verbal communication cues and awareness." Certainly I don't think this has much -- if anything -- to do with what I find attractive.

Are you saying that you believe that any man who has undergone the Total Sex Change under discussion (again: not including the brain/memory, but including everything else) would necessarily exude this "masculine energy" -- that you would notice (perhaps subconsciously) that their "attention to motion," say, was indicative of a man (and not just a more "masculine," but perfectly "natural," woman) -- and that this would pose a problem for you?

I... I don't know. This is all sounding more and more like... magic to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. Can you think of an example(doesn't have to be true) that would qualify as a real life example?

Even anecdotal, such as "women are more empathetic". It's something I observe to be generally true, but I think it is sufficiently explained by a cultural influence rather than any gender tendency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that you believe that any man who has undergone the Total Sex Change under discussion (again: not including the brain/memory, but including everything else) would necessarily exude this "masculine energy" -- that you would notice (perhaps subconsciously) that their "attention to motion," say, was indicative of a man (and not just a more "masculine," but perfectly "natural," woman) -- and that this would pose a problem for you?

I... I don't know. This is all sounding more and more like... magic to me.

No, not magic. Those traits are just some of my extrapolations of what some of the mentioned brain differences would lead to. Maybe a more specific example. The Fusiform face area is much larger in female infants than males. Also that females tend to use more parts of their brain(on both hemispheres) to analyze faces. Also with a much larger limbic system they are more quickly able to process emotions they experience and witness on others. Also that both males and females from infancy up prefer to look at female faces. Because they are able to be aware of more, faces are more interesting to them. So they stare at faces more. So parents and other adults hold them more because of the eye contact paired with preferences for female faces. So they talk to them more. So they develop faster, linguistically, than males. They are relatively good at it so they prefer activities which involve interpersonal interactions and gain a good deal more experience as well as several estrogen baths along the way, further reinforcing this tendency towards empathy and linguistic capacity. Providing them an increased capacity to anticipate and understand the needs

That's not the whole story, of course, but that is, roughly, my current understanding of the way genes, hormones, and experience build on one another toward general tendencies of sex based behavior.

There are certainly exceptions and crossover with borderline cases but exceptions and malfunctions ought not be the standard by which a concept is defined except as an indication of the widest point the concept can stretch to, of which, I'd argue, transgendered people would be an example.

This is anecdotal, but a few years ago I went on a date with a "reforming lesbian"(her words) and despite physical attraction, could not muster up a bit of sexual interest. Her mannerisms and intellectual/emotional responses were just kinda male. There's probably a better word than feminine energy, but I don't know it. But I suspect that it would feel quite similar in your transsexual example above. As a straight male, I am more attracted to feminine women(up to a point) and lesbians and transexuals would usually fall further down that scale than is interesting to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even anecdotal, such as "women are more empathetic". It's something I observe to be generally true, but I think it is sufficiently explained by a cultural influence rather than any gender tendency.

I disagree that cultural influence is sufficient. Obviously. I suppose if you had a mad scientist bent you could unleash an unfriendly amount of pressure on a female infant to improve her spatial skills, or badger a boy long enough to keep him from moving around so much, but I wouldn't recommend it.

I teach in a Montessori school and spend a good deal of time trying to stretch the underused abilities of 2-6 year olds, so no harm in trying, but these propensities are really strong and happen before anyone has had much of a chance to genderize them. It's not that it has no effect, but they in no way make up for those differing capacities. It's very much a "lead the horse to water..." sort of a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See my comments. I agree things can be 'masculine' or 'feminine' e.g. dresses = feminine and ties = masculine because these things tend to be found in people of the corresponding sex. These things contribute to one's femininity/masculinity. But as you say, neither necessarily makes a person 'female' or 'male' gendered. How do you determine if someone's gender is male or female? Is it when someone has more traits/habbits that are masculine/feminine than they have traits/habbits of the opposite gender? But how do you count them all? What about traits/habbits that some people think fall into one camp and others the opposite, or that some people think are gendered and others neutral (e.g. body hair - is it masculine to have body hair because biological females tend to remove theirs, or is it gender-neutral since biological females have body hair naturally)? Aren't some more important (count or 'weigh' more) than others? Does intensity matter e.g. it's not whether you like pink but how much you like it? How can we really pin down traits/habbits that are gendered e.g. we might assume a great interest in clothes is feminine but what greater archetype of masculinity is there than the very sartorial James Bond? How can you objectively answer all of these questions and construct a gender definition of 'male' and 'female'? Rand says the definition of a concept (in this case 'male' and 'female' in the sense of gender) must have an essential defining characteristic. What is this?

This falls perilously close to the Continuum fallacy ( "Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.") , and would be an example of it if the conclusion were drawn that masculinity and femininity were invalid because of the difficulty in defining the terms. Just because something is hard to pin down with words is not a proof that it is invalid. Related are the "fallacy of the beard" and the "shape of a blackberry bush" as examples of concepts the defy exact definitions.

In the Objectivist approach some concepts are first level, meaning they are integrations of percepts. Just as with beards and blackberry bushes, to define masculinity and femininity one would have to point to examples that exist in the world from which the similarities and differences referenced by those concepts are abstracted. Some knowledge is non-propositional, meaning by its nature not fully expressible in words.

Like many other first level concepts, we can circle back around and revisit first level concepts with a scientific understanding of causation. Scientific understanding doesn't help with separating beards from non-beards but it does inform us about the shape of blackberry bushes as following from the genetics of blackberry bushes. With masculinity and femininity a current plausible theory is that they highly correlate with and are indirectly caused by the hormones testosterone and estrogen in both the measurements of absolute concentration and their ratio to each other and that both the present values of these measurements and their history over time especially during developmental periods before and after birth. The hormone explanation is more helpful than the XX or XY chromosome difference because although all men have the same chromosome types they do not all have the same hormone levels. Furthermore it is these hormone levels that are manipulated in sex change patients and they do have the expected effect in causing certain changes to occur. Hormones specific to pregnancy also change women's bodies and personalities. although to what degree motherhood informs our concept of femininity is also vague.

(I will say that "femininity is unrelated to motherhood" and "only mothers are feminine" are both wrong.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not magic. Those traits are just some of my extrapolations of what some of the mentioned brain differences would lead to.

On the subject of these brain differences, just so it's somewhere here in the thread, you know, I did go to that article you'd linked. Here's some of what it had to say (emphasis added):

Men also have approximately 6.5 times more gray matter in the brain [...]. Women have about 10 times more white matter [...]. This difference may account for differences in how men and women think.

Have we established that these "differences" exist in the first place? Don't know. But if they're there, then this difference in brain function "may" account for them.

In this way, a woman's brain is a bit more complicated in setup, but those connections may allow a woman's brain to work faster than a man's

Some women even have as many as 12 percent more neurons than men [...]. This [...] may be one reason why women tend to score higher on tests that involve language and communication [...].

All right. So there are observable differences between men and women's brains -- let's grant that. And these differences may result in "differences in how men and women think"... or they may not. Further:

But the density of women's neurons, much like the size of a guy's brain, isn't any sort of magic bullet for predicting intelligence. [...] [M]en use gray matter, and women use white, but they're also accessing different sections of the brain for the same task. In one study, men and women were asked to sound out different words. Men relied on just one small area on the left side of the brain to complete the task, while the majority of women used areas in both sides of the brain. However, both men and women sounded out the words equally well, indicating that there is more than one way for the brain to arrive at the same result.

So, here's at least one striking example which shows that this variable internal processing may not actually result in significant (or even observable) differences.

There may be subtle differences in how even the most equality-minded among us treat baby girls versus baby boys. [...] If there are differences in people's brains, it might be due to how society has shaped a person, with neurons and synapses pruned away as the brain deemed them unnecessary.

So, this article concedes that, even granting these differences in brain structure, and even allowing that they might (though do not necessarily) matter in terms of word pronunciation and similar, these differences might not even be strictly on account of sex qua man's nature, but on account of... societal roles and expectations!

To counter this, the article continues:

Sandra Witelson, the psychologist mentioned on the previous page, disagrees with that environmental assessment, and she uses an unlikely source to support her belief that our brains are structured at birth: Albert Einstein. Witelson had the opportunity to study pieces of Einstein's brain, and she found its unique structure to be a sort of confirmation that some brain differences simply can't be explained away with social or environmental reasons [source: Hotz]. She didn't look at Einstein's intelligence or accomplishments, but she simply observed that he had a unique brain structure that was likely already formed at birth.

Ah. So some psychologist disagrees that this brain structure can develop over time... and her "evidence" for this is that Einstein had a "unique structure" after having lived the course of his life. This dedicated scientist "simply observed" that it "was likely."

There are so many things wrong here, it's hard even to know where to comment. Should it be observed that if one man has a "unique brain structure," then it's rather questionable whether these brain structures can be reasonably generalized? Or that Einstein's "uniqueness" may serve equally well for an argument that brain structure develops over time (i.e. his genius, and his particular manner of thought, gave rise to developing this "unique" brain)? Or that some psychologist's opinion on what seems "likely" isn't exactly rock-ribbed science?

[W]hen it comes to the stereotype of women underperforming at Einstein's favored subjects of physics and math, that may just come down to slight differences in the brain [...].

So, when a woman doesn't "underperform" at these subjects, but "performs" or "overperforms" (...?), what do we make of it? Is she not sufficiently feminine? Or perhaps she just has a "unique brain," a la Einstein?

To tease this out a bit further, girls may start to discern that boys do better in math classes, and that girls in their peer groups are electing not to take more advanced versions of the subjects. This can cause further drops in female enrollment in math and physics courses: One study showed that female students with math, science and engineering majors were uninterested in attending a summer math and sciences conference after they were shown videos in which the gender ratio was unbalanced, with three males for every one female.

The study used as an example here seems to promote the idea that much of this is societal, rather than biological. I'm not certain that the author of this article understands that.

However, another study demonstrated that this sort of insecurity is all in our heads.

See? The article writer doesn't understand that the *first* study also demonstrates that. I note that the article was written by a "Molly," and I take it that women are simply unable to understand such things. I feel I'm on as solid ground as anyone else pontificating on the supposed differences between genders in making that (tongue-in-cheek) claim. Who here that argues for these differences can gainsay me, and on what possible grounds?

In that study, girls' math scores improved when they were told that the exam was gender-neutral, while white men's scores on the same test dropped when they were told the scores would be evaluated against Asian men's scores. This seems to suggest that we can easily overcome any biological differences, or we can just as easily doom ourselves to fulfilling these prophecies.

Well, perfect. So what was the point again? That women use different areas of their brain to, uh, pronounce words? Got it!

Scientists have more work to do in learning about the human brain.

Finally something uncontroversial! :)

Maybe a more specific example. The Fusiform face area is much larger in female infants than males. Also that females tend to use more parts of their brain(on both hemispheres) to analyze faces. Also with a much larger limbic system they are more quickly able to process emotions they experience and witness on others. Also that both males and females from infancy up prefer to look at female faces. Because they are able to be aware of more, faces are more interesting to them. So they stare at faces more. So parents and other adults hold them more because of the eye contact paired with preferences for female faces. So they talk to them more. So they develop faster, linguistically, than males. They are relatively good at it so they prefer activities which involve interpersonal interactions and gain a good deal more experience as well as several estrogen baths along the way, further reinforcing this tendency towards empathy and linguistic capacity. Providing them an increased capacity to anticipate and understand the needs

And even if we were to grant all of this (which I don't know that I could strictly do, if it were necessary to get into it) in what way does any of this matter?

I mean, it seems like you're suggesting that women... are more empathic (or have a "tendency towards empathy") and increased linguistic capacity? So if I was reading at age 2, testing at the 99th percentile with regards to speech, reading comprehension, and etc. all my life, again, what is that supposed to mean? That I am in that way more "feminine"? Less "masculine"? That women should find my capacity for empathy unattractive? Or do I perhaps simply have a unique Einsteinesque brain? And if I do, can I use it to demonstrate how this continues to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors?

There are certainly exceptions and crossover with borderline cases but exceptions and malfunctions ought not be the standard by which a concept is defined except as an indication of the widest point the concept can stretch to, of which, I'd argue, transgendered people would be an example.

I have known women to have a range of those kinds of behaviors we typically call "feminine," and I have known some who have been quite "masculine," and I've seen those same ranges demonstrated throughout the men I've met. While I appreciate the attempt to pare down the "masculine" and "feminine" to things like "multi-tasking" (are women better at this? or are they poor? I ask because -- and despite living all of my life around men and women -- I don't really think I know which it's supposed to be... which, you know, may say something), I don't yet see that we have any intelligible way of discerning which of these cases are supposed to be "borderline."

As a way to check this out, and based on that article we've gone over, is a woman-good-at-math a "borderline case"? Or is that an example of the normal range of an individual, whether male or female? A man who is empathic? What are we even talking about?

This is anecdotal, but a few years ago I went on a date with a "reforming lesbian"(her words) and despite physical attraction, could not muster up a bit of sexual interest. Her mannerisms and intellectual/emotional responses were just kinda male.

I've also gone out with a supposed "lesbian." I found her attractive and we got on just fine. (Maybe she liked my linguistic capacity; I've been told it's quite big, if you understand me.)

But what I find interesting about this, is that.... in saying that this (100% natural, I assume) woman's "intellectual/emotional responses were just kinda male," aren't you putting the lie to your entire premise that she should have some sort of metaphysical, irreducible womanness that would never be erased, even if she were to have a sex change operation?

Perhaps what you're really saying is that you find femininity more attractive than masculinity (not in terms of "multitasking" -- I don't imagine that it's ever happened in the history of forever that a man kicked a woman out of his bed because her "multitasking" was too stereotypically "masculine" -- but in terms of pink, and lace, and what Disney sells to young girls, and an expectation that she won't do well in math class). And that's fair, and fine. But it is what it is.

There's probably a better word than feminine energy, but I don't know it. But I suspect that it would feel quite similar in your transsexual example above. As a straight male, I am more attracted to feminine women(up to a point) and lesbians and transexuals would usually fall further down that scale than is interesting to me.

I'm also a straight male. I don't expect that my preferences are the standard for all straight men, and in fact most of my life's experience has taught me that this isn't at all the case. In fact, there's a fairly strong stereotype I've encountered that Manly Men like their women blonde, big chested, dumb, frail, helpless, and quiet/dispassionate. I like blonde hair okay (it's one of my favorites, actually, along with brunettes, raven haired, redhead, auburn, and girls who dye their hair in wacky anime flavors... among others...). And I like chests big and small and in-between. But the other stuff is actually a strong turn-off for me.

So what now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what now?

Now, I think you are reading far more into my comments than I intended. I tried to explain that I understand the development of all characteristics as a complex interplay between genetics, hormones, and environment. I see all of them as necessary but insufficient for the development of any and all traits. The dna is there at conception, by birth a massive amount of hormones(directed by the dna) have altered the human in huge ways that will affect their environment and have it affect them back. Puberty will do the same again. Some differences are known to be there at birth, some are not, but I don't see that as very relevant to my position.

That it's not perfectly understood is a given, but I can't imagine that you believe that the scale of differences we do see are insignificant or that they are not pervasively linked to sex. To be sure, early circumstances can affect the size of elements but nothing on that scale that I am aware of. I seem to remember a study on the affects of serious abuse and neglect on the development of (I think) the amygdala, and while significant, even that was nothing like a 700% increase.

I can definitely see plenty of room for disagreement as to the particular effects of those differences. Men possessing 75% of the corpus collosum of women, for example seems to filter a good deal of activity through the left hemisphere, To what extent that(and especially that alone) causes men to operate more mechanistically, if at all is not well understood. It could do that or it could be that some mixture of other brain parts over compensates for women in some way. That doesn't match my experience and I don't think it likely but I wouldn't rule it out.

I'm a little concerned that you think my estimation of some as being more masculine or feminine is a value judgement. If it came across that way, I apologize. I picture some median conglomeration of traits for both men and women as a line bisecting two side by side bell curves. plenty of room for crossover in any particular trait but two distinctively different sets or quantities of sets. So early reading would be a more feminine trait, statistically. Reading by 2 or even 2.5(depending on what exactly you mean by "reading") is exceedingly rare, even for girls, so that could be something else altogether. On average though, girls are at 3 what boys get to by 4 1/2. Conversely, many boys are doing math that I haven't seen girls do. Similar differences exist between gross and fine motor skills. Because of individuation, I would not assume one propensity being opposite of their sex as being indicative of a more feminized brain, but if there were a great number of them, then I would think that.

Also, for the record, I never said that " dumb, frail, helpless, and quiet/dispassionate" were feminine traits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the Original Post:

I wonder if you aren't on to something, actually, speculating that "gender", as it's currently used in discussions of human sexuality, is an anti-concept?

I offer this link (w/ customary cautions about credibility) to anyone interested in pursuing the topic through the literature: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/John_Money

You might have to dig a bit, though, to make a case that Money employed a term (gender) that ultimately served to confuse (corrupt?) the pursuit of truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I think you are reading far more into my comments than I intended. I tried to explain that I understand the development of all characteristics as a complex interplay between genetics, hormones, and environment. I see all of them as necessary but insufficient for the development of any and all traits. The dna is there at conception, by birth a massive amount of hormones(directed by the dna) have altered the human in huge ways that will affect their environment and have it affect them back. Puberty will do the same again. Some differences are known to be there at birth, some are not, but I don't see that as very relevant to my position.

That it's not perfectly understood is a given, but I can't imagine that you believe that the scale of differences we do see are insignificant or that they are not pervasively linked to sex. To be sure, early circumstances can affect the size of elements but nothing on that scale that I am aware of. I seem to remember a study on the affects of serious abuse and neglect on the development of (I think) the amygdala, and while significant, even that was nothing like a 700% increase.

I can definitely see plenty of room for disagreement as to the particular effects of those differences. Men possessing 75% of the corpus collosum of women, for example seems to filter a good deal of activity through the left hemisphere, To what extent that(and especially that alone) causes men to operate more mechanistically, if at all is not well understood. It could do that or it could be that some mixture of other brain parts over compensates for women in some way. That doesn't match my experience and I don't think it likely but I wouldn't rule it out.

I don't understand what we're really talking about here. Are we keeping the context firmly in mind? I'd assume that you mean to demonstrate your position that if you change a man's "physical" appearance to that of a woman's (down to the chromosomes, but preserving the brain and its attendant memories), you're still looking at a man and not a woman. Right?

And you think that this comes down to, what? A smaller corpus callosum?

And the larger context is that this is all taking place within discussions as to the morality of transgenderism; that changing sex somehow represents the war of a man against his nature. And you account this, again, to the corpus callosum? Even if you don't know whether that has any actual effects on whether it "causes men to operate more mechanistically" (if men indeed operate "more mechanistically," whatever is meant by that) or whether it matters to anything at all?

Do you mean to say that if you were presented with a transgendered woman -- such that there were no physical way to tell -- that you could infer, by the way that "she" acted "mechanistically," that she had the... corpus callosum of a man, and was thus actually a man in a woman's body?

Perhaps this continues to "read more into your comments than you intend." I don't honestly know what you intend. But I'm proceeding under the assumption that you have something meaningful to say, and that you mean... er... that meaning :). So let's allow the rubber to meet the road (as we should in every discussion). I'll start you off, and you can complete the sentence:

"If I met this theoretical transgendered woman, though there were no physical way to tell, I would know that she was actually a he, because..."

When you complete that sentence, make sure that you don't refer to characteristics that a "natural woman" with a "natural woman's brain" might also possess (even if that would make her "masculine" and unattractive in your eyes), because that will do nothing to demonstrate your case. We're looking to isolate those things that a natural woman must have, on account of being a woman, and that a transgendered woman would necessarily be without.

I'm a little concerned that you think my estimation of some as being more masculine or feminine is a value judgement. If it came across that way, I apologize.

No apology necessary. And no, I wasn't reading any value judgement into your masculine/feminine dichotomy. Are you referring to this?

So if I was reading at age 2, testing at the 99th percentile with regards to speech, reading comprehension, and etc. all my life, again, what is that supposed to mean? That I am in that way more "feminine"? Less "masculine"? That women should find my capacity for empathy unattractive?

I'm not talking about value judgements, but I am asking those questions. I evidence qualities that you've said (or at least suggested; if I may generalize to your "side" of the debate, not much is actually being said) are "feminine." Supposedly, women should have greater linguistic capacity (whatever *that* means), and yet by every measure that I can imagine -- to be frank? -- I don't believe I've ever yet met any woman who would best me on that score.

And also? I'm pretty damned empathic. So what? Does that make me more "feminine"? Does it indicate some "defect" in my brain? Am I at war with my fundamental nature qua "masculine man"? What?

And while I don't find any "value judgements" here, you'll forgive me if I do take this personally? Because I am a man, and I do have a wife, who is a woman, and so these discussions of gender and sex and such do actually pertain to me, and to my life. It's not just a parlor game. Let's say what we mean, be real about it, and damn the rest.

I picture some median conglomeration of traits for both men and women as a line bisecting two side by side bell curves. plenty of room for crossover in any particular trait but two distinctively different sets or quantities of sets. So early reading would be a more feminine trait, statistically.

"Statistically"?

Does this come down to, "more men than women are enrolled in computer science courses, therefore that is 'masculine'"? And the upshot is that an individual woman should be discouraged from pursuing computer science, because that's "not feminine" of her?

I deal in individuals, not statistical abstractions based on who-knows-how-many factors. And woe betide us if we start deriving our morality from such statistical considerations.

Also, for the record, I never said that " dumb, frail, helpless, and quiet/dispassionate" were feminine traits.

And I never said that you said that.

But I *did* say that "there's a fairly strong stereotype I've encountered that Manly Men like their women blonde, big chested, dumb, frail, helpless, and quiet/dispassionate."

I think that this stereotype is as sensible as any others. And hey, if we believe that mathematical prowess is masculine, and a "deficiency" of the same is feminine, then shouldn't it make sense for a man to be attracted to a woman due to her failure to grasp math (because "feminine," and -- you know -- so very sexy)? A woman who doesn't quite grasp calculus is so-so, but a woman who can't add or subtract!? Hawt~!

When we begin to take these ideas seriously, we wind up with absurd results like that. So, you know, perhaps we ought not take these ideas very seriously. (And, I know, I know, "I never said any such thing!" or maybe "No one is arguing that! Straw man! Straw man!" Of course no one here ever would take these ideas of gender seriously enough to embrace their full conclusions. And yet, when you see t-shirts marketed to girls saying "I'm too pretty to do homework" and things of that ilk, you can begin to see the underlying connections.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

When I asked her what the definition of female was, she replied that a female is someone who identifies as female. This is circular. You cannot define something with reference to itself.

Wait, what? You certainly CAN define something with reference to itself, and, in fact, many first-level concepts cannot be defined in any other way. And, in any case, this definition is NOT circular, merely subjective. However, concepts can legitimately be subjective, such as an oenophile being defined as "someone who loves wine". They self-select into that category.

Heck, that's the primary differentiation between sex and gender--sex is a matter of physical record, you can't self-select it. Gender, on the other hand, is largely a psychological matter of self-selection.

Now, it's conceptually legitimate to treat sex and gender as identical/interchangeable terms only referencing the physical attributes (although it's not PC to do so nowadays). It is also conceptually legitimate to differentiate between them, and this is extremely helpful when one wants to discuss, categorize, and deal with certain uncommon psychological states people can have. However, it is a total conceptual hash to try and treat sex and gender as identical/interchangeable terms referring strictly to psychological status. It is *necessary* to conceptualize the physical attributes while the psychological ones may be uncommon enough that it's NOT always necessary to differentiate them by a different concept. This attempt to hijack the physical term altogether should be rejected wholesale. No matter how hard a self-identified female who is not a physical female may try, they will never ovulate, menstruate, or become pregnant.

Also, I'd like to point out that male/female isn't 100% universal sex-wise, because you can have people with, say, XXY chromasomes. What sex are they, exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what we're really talking about here. Are we keeping the context firmly in mind? I'd assume that you mean to demonstrate your position that if you change a man's "physical" appearance to that of a woman's (down to the chromosomes, but preserving the brain and its attendant memories), you're still looking at a man and not a woman. Right?

And you think that this comes down to, what? A smaller corpus callosum?

Of course not. That was one fairly delimited example that I tried to trace through with my best guess of how that one difference would play out on a macro level. It doesn't need to be said that the brain is a fairly complex piece of equipment and that it isn't fully understood. So you can take my example with a grain of salt, if you like, but I would hope that you are not expecting me to convince you that the many large differences in brain structure probably have a significant impact on processing information.

And the larger context is that this is all taking place within discussions as to the morality of transgenderism; that changing sex somehow represents the war of a man against his nature. And you account this, again, to the corpus callosum? Even if you don't know whether that has any actual effects on whether it "causes men to operate more mechanistically" (if men indeed operate "more mechanistically," whatever is meant by that) or whether it matters to anything at all?

My understanding is that having less back and forth conversation between the two hemispheres causes men to tend to filter their thinking through the left hemisphere leading to more mechanistic thinking. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but this isn't a nuerology course so you can feel free to research it further and draw your own conclusions. Like a hermaphrodite, transgendered people seem to have brain structures somewhere inbetween a male and a female, at least with regard to the amount of white matter. If this was found to be purely a matter of genetics, then it wouldn't be a moral issue, for the most part. My guess though is that, in male/female brain differences, some parts are genetic directly, but most are genetic indirectly in that their genes tell their bodies to produce different kinds of hormones and particular times in their development and that those are largely responsible for the differences that do occur. It's a sloppy process, so it seems that individuals can have specific elements that are more "masculinized" or "feminized" depending on what hormone balance existed during the time that that particular brain part was developing.

Related, it's been known for awhile that areas that experience high stress problems, like bombings or war or famine, will produce a higher percentage of homosexual offspring. It's thought that the increased cortisol levels of the mothers alters the hormone balance in utero leading to that variation. So it's quite possible that other sorts of variations could lead to transgendered brains or any other number of differences.

Do you mean to say that if you were presented with a transgendered woman -- such that there were no physical way to tell -- that you could infer, by the way that "she" acted "mechanistically," that she had the... corpus callosum of a man, and was thus actually a man in a woman's body?

Yes, except that, it would be dozens of brain differences and the connected behaviors.

Perhaps this continues to "read more into your comments than you intend." I don't honestly know what you intend. But I'm proceeding under the assumption that you have something meaningful to say, and that you mean... er... that meaning :). So let's allow the rubber to meet the road (as we should in every discussion). I'll start you off, and you can complete the sentence:

"If I met this theoretical transgendered woman, though there were no physical way to tell, I would know that she was actually a he, because..."

What I meant to say, I said in posts 55 and 64. That cultural influence is insufficient to account for the many developmental and behavioral differences between men and women...but to answer your sentence above,

,because...there would be a number of base behaviors that would tip the scale over time. He would, for example, have troughs and peaks of focus with the peaks most often instigated by physical activity, whereas a natural woman would have a more stable level of concentration. He would also tend toward analytical rather then interpersonal thinking in dealing with problems involving people. I don't mean to imply, by the way, that I or anyone else could not be fooled in the short term. I'm thinking more in the context of a ongoing relationship or friendship.

When you complete that sentence, make sure that you don't refer to characteristics that a "natural woman" with a "natural woman's brain" might also possess (even if that would make her "masculine" and unattractive in your eyes), because that will do nothing to demonstrate your case. We're looking to isolate those things that a natural woman must have, on account of being a woman, and that a transgendered woman would necessarily be without.

This is where you are mistaken. There is no "must" in all of this. We're talking about biology, which is the same field that's responsible for the platypus. Obviously exceptions abound with regard to any particular case or brain part, but those exceptions don't invalidate the rule.

No apology necessary. And no, I wasn't reading any value judgement into your masculine/feminine dichotomy. Are you referring to this?

Yes

I'm not talking about value judgements, but I am asking those questions. I evidence qualities that you've said (or at least suggested; if I may generalize to your "side" of the debate, not much is actually being said) are "feminine." Supposedly, women should have greater linguistic capacity (whatever *that* means), and yet by every measure that I can imagine -- to be frank? -- I don't believe I've ever yet met any woman who would best me on that score.

And also? I'm pretty damned empathic. So what? Does that make me more "feminine"?

Taking you at your word, yeah, in those particular ways. If 99.6% of women have 9 times as much white matter as men and 1/7 the amount of gray matter, and you were to for example, have those same ratios, then, your brain would be similar to a woman's in those ways. A is A. That's just an example since what is actually going on with your personal brain, I have no way of knowing or even guessing since I don't know you really.

Does it indicate some "defect" in my brain? Am I at war with my fundamental nature qua "masculine man"?

No and no. Like I said, I have no way of knowing. It could be differences or it could be that you have used entirely different parts of your brain to achieve the same thing at the expense of not using those areas for something else.

And while I don't find any "value judgements" here, you'll forgive me if I do take this personally? Because I am a man, and I do have a wife, who is a woman, and so these discussions of gender and sex and such do actually pertain to me, and to my life. It's not just a parlor game. Let's say what we mean, be real about it, and damn the rest.

I've been saying exactly what I mean. I would guess what makes you think I'm obfuscating is that I am aware of the large number of unknowns in the field and in comes out in the form of more passive writing. There are not many known absolutes regarding this gene, hormone, experience interplay. This is only my best guess as to how it plays out.

"Statistically"?

Does this come down to, "more men than women are enrolled in computer science courses, therefore that is 'masculine'"? And the upshot is that an individual woman should be discouraged from pursuing computer science, because that's "not feminine" of her?

No, and Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. This explains why there are less women in those fields, and why males consistently outperform females on spatial rotation tests and why its almost always harder for girls to learn to parallel park. There is no should involved in this except that one should have a realistic concept of their own personal capacities if they expect to succeed and that one useful shortcut is understanding how your brain functions, which usually includes and understanding of your brain as a woman or man, since their are differences. So, I would recommend that males run for 15 minutes immediately before taking an important exam since it has been shown to increase test scores on standardized tests by nearly 20%. that would be an example of a useful ought derived from an understanding of male brain structure.

I deal in individuals, not statistical abstractions based on who-knows-how-many factors. And woe betide us if we start deriving our morality from such statistical considerations.

That sounds all well and good, but it can't be true. Our brains function primarily by generalizing. We take examples and search for causation. Correlation is a necessary(though insufficient) first step and correlation is a good deal more useful with more examples than less. And anyways,

And I never said that you said that.

But I *did* say that "there's a fairly strong stereotype I've encountered that Manly Men like their women blonde, big chested, dumb, frail, helpless, and quiet/dispassionate."

Right, there's a lot of incorrect stereo types out there.

I think that this stereotype is as sensible as any others. And hey, if we believe that mathematical prowess is masculine, and a "deficiency" of the same is feminine, then shouldn't it make sense for a man to be attracted to a woman due to her failure to grasp math (because "feminine," and -- you know -- so very sexy)? A woman who doesn't quite grasp calculus is so-so, but a woman who can't add or subtract!? Hawt~!

Again, what you're saying does not follow from the premise. There is no determination of value. Maybe in the sense that a highly masculinized brain might balance out well in a relationship with a similarly highly feminized brain, and likewise with a less masculinized or feminized brain, but that's a lot of conjecture.

When we begin to take these ideas seriously, we wind up with absurd results like that.

No, we don't. You do. I come to quite reasonable expectations of behavior that play out pretty consistently.

So, you know, perhaps we ought not take these ideas very seriously. (And, I know, I know, "I never said any such thing!" or maybe "No one is arguing that! Straw man! Straw man!" Of course no one here ever would take these ideas of gender seriously enough to embrace their full conclusions. And yet, when you see t-shirts marketed to girls saying "I'm too pretty to do homework" and things of that ilk, you can begin to see the underlying connections.)

I do take them seriously, but I avoid logic mistakes like the above, where you stereotype stereotypes, assuming that they all have arisen from the same mistaken premises and are all therefore equally invalid. This is getting off topic, but stereotype is really just a smear word for the process of induction. Everyone stereotypes all day long. Buildings with "Einsteins" on the side usually sell bagels. If you get robbed at gun point in NYC 86% of the time it will be a black male between the ages of 16-35. 13% of the time it will be a Hispanic male of the same age. Oranges that are green on the outside are usually more bitter. These things are true and useful stereotypes. "All bitches is just hoes." Not really useful unless all women really do have sex for money which I know they do not. Jumping from the robbery statistic to "therefore all black people are criminals" would also be a mistake because it doesn't follow.

As an aside, this line by line kind of conversation is really difficult for me to stay on track with. To the extent that you could consolidate your arguments for me, I would greatly appreciate it. I realize that sometimes there's that one sentence or fact that needs special attention, so I don't mean to say never, but I doubt every line I pop out deserves that much merit. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, this line by line kind of conversation is really difficult for me to stay on track with. To the extent that you could consolidate your arguments for me, I would greatly appreciate it.

I'll try.

,because...there would be a number of base behaviors that would tip the scale over time. He would, for example, have troughs and peaks of focus with the peaks most often instigated by physical activity, whereas a natural woman would have a more stable level of concentration. He would also tend toward analytical rather then interpersonal thinking in dealing with problems involving people. I don't mean to imply, by the way, that I or anyone else could not be fooled in the short term. I'm thinking more in the context of a ongoing relationship or friendship.

I don't believe that you would ever be presented with a physical woman, but detect "troughs and peaks of focus" and etc., so that you would ever determine that it was actually a "man's brain," and therefore actually a man. I don't think you would simply be fooled "in the short term"; I think you would never know otherwise.

And maybe you would conclude (though I question that even this is certain) that this is a "masculine woman" to some extent? But masculine women such as that apparently exist in nature, as in your previously provided personal example.

This is where you are mistaken. There is no "must" in all of this. We're talking about biology, which is the same field that's responsible for the platypus. Obviously exceptions abound with regard to any particular case or brain part, but those exceptions don't invalidate the rule.

I don't know if "exceptions don't invalidate the rule." I think if we have a proper "rule," then we've pretty much eliminated "exceptions." For instance, "all men are mortal." Is there an exception to that rule? If there were, then it wouldn't be true that "all men are mortal," and we shouldn't say that "all men are mortal."

If you're proposing gender "rules" that don't necessarily apply to anything or anybody, such that anyone is apt to be an "exception to that rule," then I guess there's not much to argue about...

Taking you at your word, yeah, in those particular ways. If 99.6% of women have 9 times as much white matter as men and 1/7 the amount of gray matter, and you were to for example, have those same ratios, then, your brain would be similar to a woman's in those ways. A is A.

Hang on.

I am a man. So my brain is "what a man's brain is like." A is A. Whether my brain is "similar to a woman's" is irrelevant (which woman, anyways?), except that perhaps men's brains and women's brains aren't ultimately very dissimilar.

Besides, what claims did I make about "white matter" or "grey matter"? Can you point any out? I spoke of behavior, and my supposedly abnormal development for my gender, which you thought pertinent to "masculine" vs. "feminine." But I think it's hog wash entirely.

This is getting off topic, but stereotype is really just a smear word for the process of induction.

I don't agree. I think "stereotype" in this sense is a recognition that the "inductions" some people make with regard to skin color, gender, economic background, etc., are wholly inapplicable to individuals. I.e. "every Asian that I've met is good at math; all Asians are good at math (the induction); my friend is an Asian, and therefore he is good at math (the deduction)."

We deal with individual human beings, rather, as individuals -- and not instances of a type -- because they are individuals.

But if you would say that, well, when I think that "all Asians are good at math," that usually works out for me (because statistically perhaps it would), and those exceptions I find "don't invalidate the rule," then I think we've taken some huge missteps and are bound to make mistakes accordingly.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to post
Share on other sites
We're talking about biology, which is the same field that's responsible for the platypus.

Nitpick: We're talking about neuroscience. Biology is related, yes, not the focus of analysis here.

If 99.6% of women have 9 times as much white matter as men and 1/7 the amount of gray matter, and you were to for example, have those same ratios, then, your brain would be similar to a woman's in those ways.

Where did you get the 99.6% from? Is it made up to prove a point, or do you have evidence that the number is that high? In what way does this *lead* to genderized behavior?

I think "stereotype" in this sense is a recognition that the "inductions" some people make with regard to skin color, gender, economic background, etc., are wholly inapplicable to individuals. I.e. "every Asian that I've met is good at math; all Asians are good at math (the induction); my friend is an Asian, and therefore he is good at math (the deduction)."

I agree. What counts more is causality. Pointing out, for example, that most crimes at gunpoint committed in NYC are by black males. The cause probably has nothing to do with anyone being black. Perhaps the neighborhoods where those crimes are committed are predominantly black and very poor. I'm guessing at possibilities here, but I am quite certain in any case that the supposed accurate stereotype here may be based on totally false premises, but only works out by mere correlation. Stereotypes may stem from something valid, but are themselves invalid.

The "Asian's are good at math stereotype" can be explained by things aside from being Asian. It's well known that East Asian languages have a type of structure very conducive to mathematical thought, thus those who grow up speaking East Asian languages will be better at math than those who grew up learning English, all things being equal. Cultural features can inform what may lead to mathematical ability, too. If an Asian-American kid has parents that are Chinese immigrants, it would make sense that language will be part of their life growing up, so they'd be good at math. The same kid would have a brain scan that will reflect this ability. Now, if you grab an Asian-American raised by non-immigrant parents that aren't attached to Chinese culture any more than American and don't speak Chinese around the house, I'd bet that they'd be pretty average at math, and not intrinsically better than anyone else. One friend of mine is really good at math (for a career field that needs math a lot) and lived in China for 8 years when she was a child, which reflects the "stereotype", but there is reason to believe that her math ability reflects what her first language was. Also interesting because it quite clearly violates the idea that men are better at math than women. I would say that *maybe* femaleness or maleness affects ability, but compared to factors like language and games played while growing up, the causality is weak at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try.

I really appreciate it.

I don't believe that you would ever be presented with a physical woman, but detect "troughs and peaks of focus" and etc., so that you would ever determine that it was actually a "man's brain," and therefore actually a man. I don't think you would simply be fooled "in the short term"; I think you would never know otherwise.

I disagree. I teach 2-6 year olds, and even at that age this particular difference is very noticeable. There's really no way that I can prove it to you, so I'm content to let it go though.

And maybe you would conclude (though I question that even this is certain) that this is a "masculine woman" to some extent? But masculine women such as that apparently exist in nature, as in your previously provided personal example.

That's certainly possible, but if there were a large number of these sorts of differences, in that world would lead me to suspect otherwise. Again, not a provable point, so there's not much value in debating it.

I don't know if "exceptions don't invalidate the rule." I think if we have a proper "rule," then we've pretty much eliminated "exceptions." For instance, "all men are mortal." Is there an exception to that rule? If there were, then it wouldn't be true that "all men are mortal," and we shouldn't say that "all men are mortal."

That's a separate thing. I agree that rules can always be refined and bettered with more information, but the fact that there are exceptions does not affect the rule unless you demand that the rule includes the word "all" at the beginning of it. If I say, "let's go swan hunting! Keep your eyes open for any large white birds." The fact that its possible that they can very occasionally be black or that someone dyed a couple swans blue doesn't change the usefulness of looking for a large white bird.

If you're proposing gender "rules" that don't necessarily apply to anything or anybody, such that anyone is apt to be an "exception to that rule," then I guess there's not much to argue about...

They do apply. The fact that some small percentage of n can be outliers does not affect the vast majority of cases.

Hang on.

I am a man. So my brain is "what a man's brain is like." A is A. Whether my brain is "similar to a woman's" is irrelevant (which woman, anyways?), except that perhaps men's brains and women's brains aren't ultimately very dissimilar.

Sure, except that they are.My guess is that you are probably not an outlier but are simply overcompensating by using other areas of your brain to accomplish similar tasks better. Sociopaths can become quite good at dealing with emotions by having to sort of learn to have them deliberately. (not calling you a sociopath, just an analogy ;) ) Same could be true with language and math skills.

Besides, what claims did I make about "white matter" or "grey matter"? Can you point any out? I spoke of behavior, and my supposedly abnormal development for my gender, which you thought pertinent to "masculine" vs. "feminine." But I think it's hog wash entirely.

I think you are mistaken.

I don't agree. I think "stereotype" in this sense is a recognition that the "inductions" some people make with regard to skin color, gender, economic background, etc., are wholly inapplicable to individuals. I.e. "every Asian that I've met is good at math; all Asians are good at math (the induction); my friend is an Asian, and therefore he is good at math (the deduction)."

We deal with individual human beings, rather, as individuals -- and not instances of a type -- because they are individuals.

But if you would say that, well, when I think that "all Asians are good at math," that usually works out for me (because statistically perhaps it would), and those exceptions I find "don't invalidate the rule," then I think we've taken some huge missteps and are bound to make mistakes accordingly.

. It's a nice equitable thought, but it's not how our brains function. We don't treat each new experience as a first. We organize and categorize everything, including people. We don't spend all day reinventing the wheel.

Also, I think the fact that you keep adding "every" and "all" to each reiteration of my examples is a large part of what makes them so unpalatable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nitpick: We're talking about neuroscience. Biology is related, yes, not the focus of analysis here.

To nitpick further, neuroscience is a subset of biology. I was just choosing not to narrow my options. :)

Where did you get the 99.6% from? Is it made up to prove a point, or do you have evidence that the number is that high? In what way does this *lead* to genderized behavior?

Partially`made up. It was several years ago but I think the brain differences were 100% of males and females with equitable IQ's had these differences, but it was a small samble size...37 maybe?? Anyways, a seperate study found that some transexuals seem to have white and gray matter distributions somewhere in between what would be expected for a male or female...so I was guessing at the percentage of transsexuals and hermaphrodites and subtracting them. I don't recall the name of the study or its authors.

I agree. What counts more is causality. Pointing out, for example, that most crimes at gunpoint committed in NYC are by black males. The cause probably has nothing to do with anyone being black. Perhaps the neighborhoods where those crimes are committed are predominantly black and very poor. I'm guessing at possibilities here, but I am quite certain in any case that the supposed accurate stereotype here may be based on totally false premises, but only works out by mere correlation. Stereotypes may stem from something valid, but are themselves invalid.

The cause is only important in assessing morality or in searching for ways to alter the fact. The fact remains immutable though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...