5 ms·

> Considering the fundamental ways that females differ from males this seems totally ridiculous and to me it looks like a striking example of ideological kneeje

> Considering the fundamental ways that females differ from males this seems totally ridiculous and to me it looks like a striking example of ideological kneejerking. Her point is not that there are no differences, it's that those differences are negligible compared to societal influence, and people claims to the contrary are often doing so to rationalize their own place in society. We went from loin cloths to rockets with the same genetic code, yet, those differences are often dismissed in the face of minute differences in genetics/nature. > a culturally imposed straitjacket she continues to completely ignore ... This even proves the point. If you're right, and culture is powerful enough to put someone in a "straitjacket", then it can surely explain many of the differences that many claim to be explained by slight genetic/natural differences.

rijoja 8y ago
My point being that even though the brains are similar at birth, the hormones are bound to have effects on it while the individual grows up. As such ending up with a male or female brain, categorized by the amount of testosterone it have been subject to. Anything else is sounds utterly absurd to me. Had I been suggesting that stress-hormones in teenagers would cause changes in the brain I'm sure you wouldn't fall into this predictable nonscientific dogma that everybody is exactly the same. > This even proves the point You could go even further and say that I was critiquing her for trying to replace one set of cultural dogma with another. Nobody questions the influence of cultures upon human being. Not a discussion that I intended, but is it not a good thing that society prepares individuals with fundamental physical differences in different ways. Wouldn't in a sense a culture that failed to inform it's offspring on the fundamentals of their existence be amoral at best and disastrously inefficient at worst? > We went from loin cloths to rockets with the same genetic code, Did we really, this is an exciting scientific discovery that you've made. Please enlighten us on exactly when evolution in human beings stopped? Last but not least I take great offence of being accused of being someone with the hidden agenda of trying to oppress and control half of the human population, for my own benefit. Had I've been doing this for my own self interest I probably had not dared publicly criticized, what many feels to be a controversial issue.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > My point being that even though the brains are similar at birth, the hormones are bound to have effects on it Okay, so you're now saying that hormones are the major factor differentiating men and women? Larger than society? So from 1920 to 1970, the changes that have taken place between men and women can be explained by changes in their hormones? Similarly from 1970 to today? I suppose it's possible that we could have real genetic and hormonal changes in the human body in the past 100 years (3-4 generations), but it's pretty far fetched. What's far more likely is that society itself has changed. That change has altered the human experience far more powerfully than chemistry can in such a short time period. On short time-scales, recent history alone is enough evidence that nurture is far more powerful than nature.

rijoja 8y ago

My point being that even though the brains are similar at birth, the hormones are bound to have effects on it while the individual grows up. As such ending up with a male or female brain, categorized by the amount of testosterone it have been subject to. Anything else is sounds utterly absurd to me. Had I been suggesting that stress-hormones in teenagers would cause changes in the brain I'm sure you wouldn't fall into this predictable nonscientific dogma that everybody is exactly the same. > This even proves the point You could go even further and say that I was critiquing her for trying to replace one set of cultural dogma with another. Nobody questions the influence of cultures upon human being. Not a discussion that I intended, but is it not a good thing that society prepares individuals with fundamental physical differences in different ways. Wouldn't in a sense a culture that failed to inform it's offspring on the fundamentals of their existence be amoral at best and disastrously inefficient at worst? > We went from loin cloths to rockets with the same genetic code, Did we really, this is an exciting scientific discovery that you've made. Please enlighten us on exactly when evolution in human beings stopped? Last but not least I take great offence of being accused of being someone with the hidden agenda of trying to oppress and control half of the human population, for my own benefit. Had I've been doing this for my own self interest I probably had not dared publicly criticized, what many feels to be a controversial issue.

speedplane 8y ago
> My point being that even though the brains are similar at birth, the hormones are bound to have effects on it Okay, so you're now saying that hormones are the major factor differentiating men and women? Larger than society? So from 1920 to 1970, the changes that have taken place between men and women can be explained by changes in their hormones? Similarly from 1970 to today? I suppose it's possible that we could have real genetic and hormonal changes in the human body in the past 100 years (3-4 generations), but it's pretty far fetched. What's far more likely is that society itself has changed. That change has altered the human experience far more powerfully than chemistry can in such a short time period. On short time-scales, recent history alone is enough evidence that nurture is far more powerful than nature.