4 ms·

Endocannabinoids Sculpt Sex Differences in Juvenile Rat Social Play

tachyonbeam 8y ago
TL;DR: The article points to explanatory mechanisms that explain how androgens (testosterone) cause differences in the amygdala (fear and anger regulation center of the brain) before birth. These differences go on to cause difference in play behavior later in life. It seems to me this kind of science is currently politically inconvenient. It points to gendered behavioral differences that have an innate cause.
- mettamage 8y ago
  Gender != Sex You can still analyze based on sex.
  - gjsman-1000 8y ago
    To be fair, throughout most of history (and even on most legal documents), Gender = Sex. But that is a whole different debate.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      No, not really. There have been nonbinary systems of gender throughout history. Maybe, the history you were taught, though.
      - iamthirsty 8y ago
        > There have been nonbinary systems of gender throughout history. Saying "because it existed previously [therefore it is more valid]" is a poor argument, and ignores the current common law system which has used gender & sex interchangeably. Also, it sounds like the "history you were taught" failed to mention the separation of gender & sex is a relatively new idea in modern times[1]—and ignores biology, which is anthropologically disingenuous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir
        danharaj 8y ago
        I dont know what you think I was arguing. I was replying to > throughout most of history (and even on most legal documents), Gender = Sex Which is literally not true.
        iamthirsty 8y ago
        ...Did you even read what you quoted? > throughout most...most legal documents He's not saying all, he's saying most—which is true. Native Americans didn't quantify gender but they also didn't have legal documents, which in common law countries and their predecessors used gender and sex interchangeably.
      - dogma1138 8y ago
        No not really outside of myths and eunuchs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender While gender and biological sex can be disconnected under certain conditions for the majority of the population this is not the case.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Gabriel_Martin 8y ago
  To me, it appears that you just want to pigeonhole the summary into something convenient for your beliefs? (for context original comment read: "It seems to me this kind of science is currently politically inconvenient. It points to behavioral differences that have an innate cause. This is well-known to be the case across mammals, but it's currently fashionable to claim that among humans, gender is purely a social construct. What science is telling us all, if we're willing to listen, is that there very much are bioligical reasons why men and women tend to behave differently on average. I personally think that better understanding this is a good thing: it's better for us all if we understand what makes us who we are.")
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- woodruffw 8y ago
  Extrapolating normative claims about how humans ought to behave from a study on rat fetuses react to hormones is a massive logical leap. The notion that sex exists is not particularly controversial in either the sciences or the humanities. What is controversial is (1) its confabulation with gender, and (2) normative appeals on its basis.
- abugheratwork 8y ago
  > ... it's currently fashionable to claim that among humans, gender is purely a social construct. I'm sorry, but who do you know that thinks testosterone is a myth?
- danharaj 8y ago
  You're the one who brought the politics with you into this thread :^) Ok, let's say the amygdala is different between men and women. Now, give me a quantitative model that explains observed social differences derived from that. The issue people take with biological essentialism is that it uses the plausibility of genetic/developmental differences driving sex differences to dismiss or outright deny the very obvious reality of coercive social forces that also definitely drive sex differences. It is a "gender of the gaps" argument that draws ire: "this difference might be physiologically inherent to sex, so I don't think it's an issue worth investigating". But you're not making that argument, of course.
  - tachyonbeam 8y ago
    No, I'm not making the argument that there aren't coercive social forces. Peer pressure is a real thing, and I've had to endure it, just like everyone else. In my opinion, what social pressure tends to do is exaggerate existing biological differences, enforce conformity (pressure you into behaving more like others). I'm not arguing that this is a good thing either. I didn't like that kind of social pressure growing up. The argument I'm making is that pretending that typical male/female behavior is exclusively a product of our culture is wrong. It doesn't have to be all social, or all biological. It most probably is a mixture of both (just like in every other nature vs nurture debate). If we understand the biological root well, then we have a more solid basis for understanding the social forces that operate on top of that.
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    > The issue people take with biological essentialism is that it uses the plausibility of genetic/developmental differences driving sex differences to dismiss or outright deny the very obvious reality of coercive social forces that also definitely drive sex differences. This is a huge strawman, and fallacies seem to be part of a lack of intellectual rigor from people who object to discussing biological differences. Why not flip your point on its head: can you show me a model of discrimination that focuses purely on the social component, and shows that the results we see with, eg, the wage gap result purely from social components — or have a social component at all? Because what I see is frequent dishonesty — discussing the “wage gap” but not “hours gap” or “risk gap”, for instance — and the denial of inherent biological differences has become dogma to people pushing false social statistics, because an analysis of those differences would show them to be liars. It’s just gaslighting to demand a rigor from people advocating biological differences that’s never been shown by the cultural differences crowd — we have massive evidence of biological differences in evevery system of the body, including the brain; we have no quantitative models for how culture impacts outcomes. (Actually, we have a bit: it seems to be that more liberal countries express greater gender variation between jobs, because there’s less social pressure to accrue power, eg, fewer women go into programming in better off countries. This is what you’d expect, if there’s an underlying difference in biological preference.) The objection to your position is that it’s an anti-scientific, anti-intellectual one that drives you to public dishonesty, such as the fallacies and double-standards made here. It’s entirely political people don’t want to talk about this — sex based differences might imply the ratio of, eg, CEOs is skewed for the same reasons the ratios of top athletes are.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  It sounds like you're bringing up a personal axe to grind. I happen to theorize that a lot sex differences are biologic myself, but I think your comment is more venting than a relevant comment on the article at hand.
- brians 8y ago
  We already knew men are taller on average. If an explanation can replace “amygdala” with “height” and lose no plausibility, I prefer to set it aside.
mzs 8y ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190301160901.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190301160901.h...

TL;DR: The article points to explanatory mechanisms that explain how androgens (testosterone) cause differences in the amygdala (fear and anger regulation center of the brain) before birth. These differences go on to cause difference in play behavior later in life. It seems to me this kind of science is currently politically inconvenient. It points to gendered behavioral differences that have an innate cause.

mettamage 8y ago
Gender != Sex You can still analyze based on sex.
- gjsman-1000 8y ago
  To be fair, throughout most of history (and even on most legal documents), Gender = Sex. But that is a whole different debate.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    No, not really. There have been nonbinary systems of gender throughout history. Maybe, the history you were taught, though.
    - iamthirsty 8y ago
      > There have been nonbinary systems of gender throughout history. Saying "because it existed previously [therefore it is more valid]" is a poor argument, and ignores the current common law system which has used gender & sex interchangeably. Also, it sounds like the "history you were taught" failed to mention the separation of gender & sex is a relatively new idea in modern times[1]—and ignores biology, which is anthropologically disingenuous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir
      - danharaj 8y ago
        I dont know what you think I was arguing. I was replying to > throughout most of history (and even on most legal documents), Gender = Sex Which is literally not true.
        iamthirsty 8y ago
        ...Did you even read what you quoted? > throughout most...most legal documents He's not saying all, he's saying most—which is true. Native Americans didn't quantify gender but they also didn't have legal documents, which in common law countries and their predecessors used gender and sex interchangeably.
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      No not really outside of myths and eunuchs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender While gender and biological sex can be disconnected under certain conditions for the majority of the population this is not the case.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Gabriel_Martin 8y ago
To me, it appears that you just want to pigeonhole the summary into something convenient for your beliefs? (for context original comment read: "It seems to me this kind of science is currently politically inconvenient. It points to behavioral differences that have an innate cause. This is well-known to be the case across mammals, but it's currently fashionable to claim that among humans, gender is purely a social construct. What science is telling us all, if we're willing to listen, is that there very much are bioligical reasons why men and women tend to behave differently on average. I personally think that better understanding this is a good thing: it's better for us all if we understand what makes us who we are.")
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
woodruffw 8y ago
Extrapolating normative claims about how humans ought to behave from a study on rat fetuses react to hormones is a massive logical leap. The notion that sex exists is not particularly controversial in either the sciences or the humanities. What is controversial is (1) its confabulation with gender, and (2) normative appeals on its basis.
abugheratwork 8y ago
> ... it's currently fashionable to claim that among humans, gender is purely a social construct. I'm sorry, but who do you know that thinks testosterone is a myth?
danharaj 8y ago
You're the one who brought the politics with you into this thread :^) Ok, let's say the amygdala is different between men and women. Now, give me a quantitative model that explains observed social differences derived from that. The issue people take with biological essentialism is that it uses the plausibility of genetic/developmental differences driving sex differences to dismiss or outright deny the very obvious reality of coercive social forces that also definitely drive sex differences. It is a "gender of the gaps" argument that draws ire: "this difference might be physiologically inherent to sex, so I don't think it's an issue worth investigating". But you're not making that argument, of course.
- tachyonbeam 8y ago
  No, I'm not making the argument that there aren't coercive social forces. Peer pressure is a real thing, and I've had to endure it, just like everyone else. In my opinion, what social pressure tends to do is exaggerate existing biological differences, enforce conformity (pressure you into behaving more like others). I'm not arguing that this is a good thing either. I didn't like that kind of social pressure growing up. The argument I'm making is that pretending that typical male/female behavior is exclusively a product of our culture is wrong. It doesn't have to be all social, or all biological. It most probably is a mixture of both (just like in every other nature vs nurture debate). If we understand the biological root well, then we have a more solid basis for understanding the social forces that operate on top of that.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  > The issue people take with biological essentialism is that it uses the plausibility of genetic/developmental differences driving sex differences to dismiss or outright deny the very obvious reality of coercive social forces that also definitely drive sex differences. This is a huge strawman, and fallacies seem to be part of a lack of intellectual rigor from people who object to discussing biological differences. Why not flip your point on its head: can you show me a model of discrimination that focuses purely on the social component, and shows that the results we see with, eg, the wage gap result purely from social components — or have a social component at all? Because what I see is frequent dishonesty — discussing the “wage gap” but not “hours gap” or “risk gap”, for instance — and the denial of inherent biological differences has become dogma to people pushing false social statistics, because an analysis of those differences would show them to be liars. It’s just gaslighting to demand a rigor from people advocating biological differences that’s never been shown by the cultural differences crowd — we have massive evidence of biological differences in evevery system of the body, including the brain; we have no quantitative models for how culture impacts outcomes. (Actually, we have a bit: it seems to be that more liberal countries express greater gender variation between jobs, because there’s less social pressure to accrue power, eg, fewer women go into programming in better off countries. This is what you’d expect, if there’s an underlying difference in biological preference.) The objection to your position is that it’s an anti-scientific, anti-intellectual one that drives you to public dishonesty, such as the fallacies and double-standards made here. It’s entirely political people don’t want to talk about this — sex based differences might imply the ratio of, eg, CEOs is skewed for the same reasons the ratios of top athletes are.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
It sounds like you're bringing up a personal axe to grind. I happen to theorize that a lot sex differences are biologic myself, but I think your comment is more venting than a relevant comment on the article at hand.
brians 8y ago
We already knew men are taller on average. If an explanation can replace “amygdala” with “height” and lose no plausibility, I prefer to set it aside.

mzs 8y ago

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190301160901.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190301160901.h...