5 ms·

It's critically important to admit that there ARE differences in the first place. Something that inexplicably has become taboo to many on the left.

williamdclt 8y ago
Please don't turn that into politics.
yjyofiz 8y ago
> Something that inexplicably has become taboo to many on the left I think the more important split than left vs right is neuroscientist vs non-neuroscientist [0]. It's absurd to think that there would be no gender-related neurological differences, but also unlikely that there are large differences. The answer lies somewhere in between, and the more you learn about the brain, the more you realize how limited our scientific understanding of it is. Also, seeing as how this article is pay-walled and not available on any mirror sights, I suspect that almost no one commenting here has read the article in full. Which brings us yet again to [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
- nisuni 8y ago
  > It's absurd to think that there would be no gender-related neurological differences Surprisingly enough, that's a widely accepted hypothesis in sociology.
  - themarkn 8y ago
    Well, they wouldn’t be gender related because gender and biological sex are different ideas. To many people, anyway.
    - nisuni 8y ago
      Since gender and biological sex are extremely strongly correlated, stating that there are no gender-related neurological differences it's substantially equivalent to saying that there are no biological sex-related neurological differences.
      - themarkn 8y ago
        ... no it isn’t. It’s saying the differences that do exist are related to sex, not gender - any statistical relationship to gender is mediated through the relationship to sex because gender is often correlated to sex ... but there are many people for whom this is not the case. So gender can’t be responsible for physical differences. Only sex, which is physical, could be correlated with physical/neurological differences.
        nisuni 8y ago
        You used the word 'related', implying statistical correlation. My point is: a feature which is statistically correlated with gender is also statistically correlated with sex, since for the vast majority of people sex and gender coincide.
    - dubya23 8y ago
      Honestly I think much of the problem lies here, the definitions people are using for Gender and Sex have shifted and for many, on the right certainly, they mean the same thing while they are distinct to the left. However that doesn't excuse arguments like men being physically stronger and faster solely due to upbringing and not biology.
      - themarkn 8y ago
        > arguments like men being physically stronger and faster solely due to upbringing and not biology. Is that a real example? It seems obviously untrue and I’d be surprised if people really think this. Especially the word solely.
        dubya23 8y ago
        Its a fairly common argument for SJW types.
torstenvl 8y ago
There definitely are differences. A lot of them. In what way do you see this as taboo on the left? Among U.S. progressives, the complexity of sex differences seems to be very important; whereas my experience with U.S. conservatives is the opposite. For example, given the following two statements: "If you have a penis, you are male. If you do not, you are female." "If someone has a female brain but male genitalia, that person should be free to align their gender appropriately." Is your experience really that conservatives are more likely to agree with the second statement? If so, I'd be curious to know where, from a sociological perspective.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nisuni 8y ago
  > Among U.S. progressives, the complexity of sex differences seems to very important The problem is that (some) progressives tend to have the extreme opinion that all differences are due to societal influence, the so-called blank slate theory.
- squish78 8y ago
  Do you mean 'female brain' as in physiologically female? Or chemically? Or psychologically?
- dubya23 8y ago
  You can look up countless instances of Social Science professors and students saying unironically that for instance superior Male performance in sports is entirely due to social upbringing. These people are overwhelmingly on the left politically. James Damore was fired from Google for publishing a relatively straightforward reading of sexual difference research. So yes it is a taboo. I don't think your example demonstrates my point at all. Accepting that there are sex differences has little to do with acceptance of Trans people.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
devindotcom 8y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that there exist biological differences between the sexes. What people question is the conclusions people draw from those differences, such as that men or women must as a consequence be superior or inferior at a given task when the differences are so small that they would easily be overcome by many other more salient ones like training, upbringing, or simply the fact that one person does not represent the average and is not necessarily subject to differences described by it. Just below in this thread someone was thinking this perceptual speed difference might explain men being dominant in e-sports. The amount of confounding variables there is astronomical and the suggestion is that we should set them aside in order to accept that men are biologically just better at games. That's the kind of thought process people disagree with. (I don't mean to throw this other person under the bus, it was likely just an idle thought, but idle thoughts can turn into convictions if not challenged.)
- YouOkOrNot 8y ago
  But it make logical sense to conclude that biological gender differences confer specific advantages to one gender or the other in different tasks or situations. More generally, when there is a salient difference between two things, those two things will often behave differently in a given situation. It just makes sense to conclude that men are better at certain things and women are better at certain things.
- dubya23 8y ago
  But men ARE better at games and they ARE stronger physically and they ARE faster and they DO have better reaction times. We can debate the reasons all day and I'm happy to do so but the problem is that people are denying the basic measurements.
  - kthejoker2 8y ago
    I'm just not sure how relevant Usain Bolt's top speed is to whether women can serve in ground combat roles, to pick a long-standing gender discrimination based more or less on the sentiments of your post.

williamdclt 8y ago

Please don't turn that into politics.

yjyofiz 8y ago

> Something that inexplicably has become taboo to many on the left I think the more important split than left vs right is neuroscientist vs non-neuroscientist [0]. It's absurd to think that there would be no gender-related neurological differences, but also unlikely that there are large differences. The answer lies somewhere in between, and the more you learn about the brain, the more you realize how limited our scientific understanding of it is. Also, seeing as how this article is pay-walled and not available on any mirror sights, I suspect that almost no one commenting here has read the article in full. Which brings us yet again to [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

nisuni 8y ago
> It's absurd to think that there would be no gender-related neurological differences Surprisingly enough, that's a widely accepted hypothesis in sociology.
- themarkn 8y ago
  Well, they wouldn’t be gender related because gender and biological sex are different ideas. To many people, anyway.
  - nisuni 8y ago
    Since gender and biological sex are extremely strongly correlated, stating that there are no gender-related neurological differences it's substantially equivalent to saying that there are no biological sex-related neurological differences.
    - themarkn 8y ago
      ... no it isn’t. It’s saying the differences that do exist are related to sex, not gender - any statistical relationship to gender is mediated through the relationship to sex because gender is often correlated to sex ... but there are many people for whom this is not the case. So gender can’t be responsible for physical differences. Only sex, which is physical, could be correlated with physical/neurological differences.
      - nisuni 8y ago
        You used the word 'related', implying statistical correlation. My point is: a feature which is statistically correlated with gender is also statistically correlated with sex, since for the vast majority of people sex and gender coincide.
  - dubya23 8y ago
    Honestly I think much of the problem lies here, the definitions people are using for Gender and Sex have shifted and for many, on the right certainly, they mean the same thing while they are distinct to the left. However that doesn't excuse arguments like men being physically stronger and faster solely due to upbringing and not biology.
    - themarkn 8y ago
      > arguments like men being physically stronger and faster solely due to upbringing and not biology. Is that a real example? It seems obviously untrue and I’d be surprised if people really think this. Especially the word solely.
      - dubya23 8y ago
        Its a fairly common argument for SJW types.

torstenvl 8y ago

There definitely are differences. A lot of them. In what way do you see this as taboo on the left? Among U.S. progressives, the complexity of sex differences seems to be very important; whereas my experience with U.S. conservatives is the opposite. For example, given the following two statements: "If you have a penis, you are male. If you do not, you are female." "If someone has a female brain but male genitalia, that person should be free to align their gender appropriately." Is your experience really that conservatives are more likely to agree with the second statement? If so, I'd be curious to know where, from a sociological perspective.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nisuni 8y ago
> Among U.S. progressives, the complexity of sex differences seems to very important The problem is that (some) progressives tend to have the extreme opinion that all differences are due to societal influence, the so-called blank slate theory.
squish78 8y ago
Do you mean 'female brain' as in physiologically female? Or chemically? Or psychologically?
dubya23 8y ago
You can look up countless instances of Social Science professors and students saying unironically that for instance superior Male performance in sports is entirely due to social upbringing. These people are overwhelmingly on the left politically. James Damore was fired from Google for publishing a relatively straightforward reading of sexual difference research. So yes it is a taboo. I don't think your example demonstrates my point at all. Accepting that there are sex differences has little to do with acceptance of Trans people.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

devindotcom 8y ago

I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that there exist biological differences between the sexes. What people question is the conclusions people draw from those differences, such as that men or women must as a consequence be superior or inferior at a given task when the differences are so small that they would easily be overcome by many other more salient ones like training, upbringing, or simply the fact that one person does not represent the average and is not necessarily subject to differences described by it. Just below in this thread someone was thinking this perceptual speed difference might explain men being dominant in e-sports. The amount of confounding variables there is astronomical and the suggestion is that we should set them aside in order to accept that men are biologically just better at games. That's the kind of thought process people disagree with. (I don't mean to throw this other person under the bus, it was likely just an idle thought, but idle thoughts can turn into convictions if not challenged.)

YouOkOrNot 8y ago
But it make logical sense to conclude that biological gender differences confer specific advantages to one gender or the other in different tasks or situations. More generally, when there is a salient difference between two things, those two things will often behave differently in a given situation. It just makes sense to conclude that men are better at certain things and women are better at certain things.
dubya23 8y ago
But men ARE better at games and they ARE stronger physically and they ARE faster and they DO have better reaction times. We can debate the reasons all day and I'm happy to do so but the problem is that people are denying the basic measurements.
- kthejoker2 8y ago
  I'm just not sure how relevant Usain Bolt's top speed is to whether women can serve in ground combat roles, to pick a long-standing gender discrimination based more or less on the sentiments of your post.