4 ms·
> It's absurd to think that there would be no gender-related neurological differences Surprisingly enough, that's a widely accepted hypothesis in sociology.
by 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 agoWell, they wouldn’t be gender related because gender and biological sex are different ideas. To many people, anyway.
- nisuni 8y agoSince 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 agoYou 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 agoHonestly 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.