Sex Differences Are Not Natural

[Trausti]

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/CelieMorin.pdf

How prevalent is this idea? That gender/sex is just societal make believe. It's an astonishing anti-science view. Is it just confined to academic eggheads?

 

[bigfield]

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/CelieMorin.pdf

An academic paper on man-spreading.

:laughing-smiley-014


Morin & Maxfield cite Recio, which is this paper:

A Unified Theory on Homosexual Identity
E. M. Recio, 2000
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...0CECBA3?doi=10.1.1.522.9174&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The problem is that Recio's discussion of Social Constructionist Theory doesn't support M&M's claim. At best, Recio claims that sexuality is socialised:

At its basic level all who ascribe to the social constructionist theoriesbelieve that sexuality is defined in a backdrop of temporal and cultural factors.
In effect, physically similar sexual acts, such as sodomy, have different
meanings and significance throughout various cultures and historical
periods.[9, p. 43 ] A second widely shared belief of social constructionists
is that humans have nothing which is innate, or immutable. Humans are a
very plastic species - in other words, the individual is constructed from the
society and times in which he lives; sexual behaviour is a product of social
conditioning rather than biological factors.

But Recio also discounts Social Constructionist Theory as unfalsifiable:

The major problem with the pure social constructionist theories on homosexuality
is its non-falsifiability. Much like pure Marxism, or pure Freudianism,
it is difficult to ascertain the the truth value of any statement if the theory
is continually being revised with an ad hoc explanation.

So the claim that 'humans have nothing which is innate' is an idea baldly asserted by Morin & Maxfield.

 

[fast]

Unobtrusive? Had they pulled their pants down, they would have noticed a natural, dangling, reason in some that might help explain the differences noted. Even if their sitting positions are not natural (or rather learned through social mimicking) whereby contrary sitting positions might on occasion be mocked as being by a sissy (when men sit in closed positions) or unladylike (when women sit in open positions), there are still underlying natural (or rather physiological) reasons that help explain the evolution of the social side of the equation.

In other words, A is partly the reason for B, so don't deny A just because B is true. Yes, B might very well be the case, but B doesn't preclude A. That would be like denying that someone believes X when it's true that someone knows X.

 

[Peez]

How prevalent is this idea? That gender/sex is just societal make believe. It's an astonishing anti-science view. Is it just confined to academic eggheads?

Among us biologists, the idea that biological sex does not exist is (to put it politely) absurd.

Peez

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know how common the view is, but at least from what I read in left-wing venues, my assessment is that what most of the people who claim that sex and/or gender is a social construct, etc., seem to agree on and care about on this matter (aside from confused and confusing terminology) is that there is no such thing as human female minds and human male minds (i.e., that there is no human sexual dimorphism involving minds). That view seems to be common among left-wingers (in developed Western countries, anyway). On other subjects, there are many opinions, and I'm not sure any of them is very widespread.

That said, that's my assessment based on anecdotal evidence from looking at claims in social science (including philosophy) and just by many random left-wingers on the internet. I don't have more precise data.

 

[J842P]

I don't know how common the view is, but at least from what I read in left-wing venues, my assessment is that what most of the people who claim that sex and/or gender is a social construct, etc., seem to agree on and care about on this matter (aside from confused and confusing terminology) is that there is no such thing as human female minds and human male minds (i.e., that there is no human sexual dimorphism involving minds). That view seems to be common among left-wingers (in developed Western countries, anyway). On other subjects, there are many opinions, and I'm not sure any of them is very widespread.

That said, that's my assessment based on anecdotal evidence from looking at claims in social science (including philosophy) and just by many random left-wingers on the internet. I don't have more precise data.

Actually, in my experience left-wingers seem to have completely contradictory positions on that matter. For example, they claim that transgenderism is a veridical condition (a view which I share), a position that implies that gendered minds do in fact exist. nBut, i the very next sentence they will deny sexual dimorphism in human minds. It is a prima facia absurd position to hold, given well understood phenomena like the differential distribution of hormones and the effect of hormones on behavior. Of course, by "left-winger" I really mean left wing academics in subjects like cultural studies, (continental) philosophy, "theory" and "critical studies" etc.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know how common the view is, but at least from what I read in left-wing venues, my assessment is that what most of the people who claim that sex and/or gender is a social construct, etc., seem to agree on and care about on this matter (aside from confused and confusing terminology) is that there is no such thing as human female minds and human male minds (i.e., that there is no human sexual dimorphism involving minds). That view seems to be common among left-wingers (in developed Western countries, anyway). On other subjects, there are many opinions, and I'm not sure any of them is very widespread.

That said, that's my assessment based on anecdotal evidence from looking at claims in social science (including philosophy) and just by many random left-wingers on the internet. I don't have more precise data.

Actually, in my experience left-wingers seem to have completely contradictory positions on that matter. For example, they claim that transgenderism is a veridical condition (a view which I share), a position that implies that gendered minds do in fact exist. nBut, i the very next sentence they will deny sexual dimorphism in human minds. It is a prima facia absurd position to hold, given well understood phenomena like the differential distribution of hormones and the effect of hormones on behavior. Of course, by "left-winger" I really mean left wing academics in subjects like cultural studies, (continental) philosophy, "theory" and "critical studies" etc.

I partly agree with that. For example, I have argued that if it is true that there is no sexual dimorphism in human minds, people with male sexual organs who claim to be women (and vice versa) are mistaken (e.g., http://rightlyconsidered.org/2016/10/14/jordan-peterson-and-the-pronoun-imperative/#comment-724 ). That would imply that usual left-wing beliefs on the matter are false.

However, that is not in conflict with the assessment that many (I'd say most) left-wingers agree that there is no sexual dimorphism in human minds. They do agree, but what they do not realize is that there is in some cases a contradiction between that view and some other views that they have. In some other cases, though, it's not clear that they contradict themselves, because sometimes they also take gender to be a social construct in some obscure way, and it's not clear what they believe the difference between transgender and non-transgender people is - or they think the difference is something not to do with male or female minds.
In any case, I do agree some of their views on these matters are untenable (though in my experience, even suggesting that the views might not be true will, in most left-leaning venues, result in immediate demonization, vilification, mischaracterization of one's intentions and beliefs, etc., by many people, so perhaps one needs to be cautious).

As for transgender people, the question is whether they are correct, which depends on things such as whether [some, all] transgender people with male sexual organs who claim to be women actually have female minds, or at least female parts of the mind that make the claim that they're women true, if there is such part - which I think is true as I understand the words, but there might be more usages.
It's a question for both scientific research and conceptual analysis. But one can tackle them at one's peril. More precisely, researchers might risk attacks that would hurt their careers if they end up finding something that is in conflict with some ideologies and saying what they found; conceptual analysis one can do on one's own and at no risk, but saying something tends to result in attacks from the left and/or from right, depending on what one says.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm not certain what definition of gender differences we are using. Anyone who has spent any time with groups of small children knows that the behavior of girls and boys begins to differentiate at about the same rate as begin to walk and talk. The causes for this may be debatable, but it's a real observation.

Small humans learn by imitation and this creates patterns which can last a lifetime.

Many years ago, I had helper who was a 14 year old boy. He had been born with a defective heart, which required many reconstructive surgeries and twin pacemakers. The result of this 5 or 6 year ordeal was he spent nearly every waking hour with his mother and very few other people. It was not until he was about 10 that the doctors gave him a positive prognosis.

His behavior was almost a parody of his mother. Everything from his speech patterns to standing impatiently with one hand on his hip. It didn't help that they both had long hair. He looked and acted like a clone of his mother.

Whatever he shared with his mother, he was definitely heterosexual. At that time, we had a 20 year inventory of vintage Playboy and Penthouse magazines. Quite a few were in unsaleable condition and I gave those to him. He treated them with reverence normally reserved for the Dead Sea Scrolls. I believe this is what any psychologist would call "age appropriate" sexuality for a 14 year old boy. I have two daughters and in their teen years, I saw no interest in old Playboys and Penthouse magazines, even though they had easy access to both.

I realize this is a very small sample, but anecdotal evidence has its value. Behavior which we often think of as gender specific, could be learned of imitative, but sexuality is independent of learned behavior.

As for man spreading, somethings can't be helped. The idea that sitting with our knees apart is a problem for women, overlooks that it's just as big a problem for two men sitting side by side. This was not really a problem until mass transit became a reality. Maybe for people in a crowded church, but I can't think of anything else.

As for myself, sitting with my knees together ranges from uncomfortable, to painful. It depends on how my pants fit. If the woman who ends up sitting beside me is upset that our knees may touch, I understand her feelings, but I'm not concerned enough to injure myself because of it.

 

[J842P]

Actually, in my experience left-wingers seem to have completely contradictory positions on that matter. For example, they claim that transgenderism is a veridical condition (a view which I share), a position that implies that gendered minds do in fact exist. nBut, i the very next sentence they will deny sexual dimorphism in human minds. It is a prima facia absurd position to hold, given well understood phenomena like the differential distribution of hormones and the effect of hormones on behavior. Of course, by "left-winger" I really mean left wing academics in subjects like cultural studies, (continental) philosophy, "theory" and "critical studies" etc.

I partly agree with that. For example, I have argued that if it is true that there is no sexual dimorphism in human minds, people with male sexual organs who claim to be women (and vice versa) are mistaken (e.g., http://rightlyconsidered.org/2016/10/14/jordan-peterson-and-the-pronoun-imperative/#comment-724 ). That would imply that usual left-wing beliefs on the matter are false.

However, that is not in conflict with the assessment that many (I'd say most) left-wingers agree that there is no sexual dimorphism in human minds. They do agree, but what they do not realize is that there is in some cases a contradiction between that view and some other views that they have. In some other cases, though, it's not clear that they contradict themselves, because sometimes they also take gender to be a social construct in some obscure way, and it's not clear what they believe the difference between transgender and non-transgender people is - or they think the difference is something not to do with male or female minds.
In any case, I do agree some of their views on these matters are untenable (though in my experience, even suggesting that the views might not be true will, in most left-leaning venues, result in immediate demonization, vilification, mischaracterization of one's intentions and beliefs, etc., by many people, so perhaps one needs to be cautious).

As for transgender people, the question is whether they are correct, which depends on things such as whether [some, all] transgender people with male sexual organs who claim to be women actually have female minds, or at least female parts of the mind that make the claim that they're women true, if there is such part - which I think is true as I understand the words, but there might be more usages.
It's a question for both scientific research and conceptual analysis. But one can tackle them at one's peril. More precisely, researchers might risk attacks that would hurt their careers if they end up finding something that is in conflict with some ideologies and saying what they found; conceptual analysis one can do on one's own and at no risk, but saying something tends to result in attacks from the left and/or from right, depending on what one says.

I think we are in agreement.