4 ms·

If your ideology is that any measured sex differences in the brain should be automatically interpreted as 'innate' facts about men and women, rather than -say-

by pryce 7y ago

If your ideology is that any measured sex differences in the brain should be automatically interpreted as 'innate' facts about men and women, rather than -say- the cumulative result of a combination of gene expression (including sex chromosomes), developmental biology and (in anything other than newborns) socialization, then you're still imposing an ideology on the available data. 'Blank slate theory' simply isn't what feminists are arguing; they are arguing that our society has a woefully poor record of hastily ascribing traits to a kind of biological determinism, and further claims of that type should be heavily scrutinised.

MrScruff 7y ago
I believe at least some of the studies mentioned were dealing with rats rather than humans. I didn't read anything from the sourced article that overstepped the bounds of what could be said from the research. It seemed like all the interpretation was being done by the non-scientists.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
They're not just saying they should be heavily scrutinized. At least some are saying that it's flat out bad science to acknowledge the differences, or perform research into the subject at all. They're denying science for ideological ends. It's pretty much the same thing as conservatives with climate change. They don't like what science has to say, so they're trying to shut it down. I'm generally pro-feminism, but no 'side' has a monopoly on bad opinions.
frotak 7y ago
Observing physical differences is not imposing an ideology. The physical differences exist today and are exhibited based on biological genders. That does not preclude that these differences are unduly influenced by environmental issues (including socialization). However denying that they exist (which is what Cahill is objecting to here) on the basis that the cause might be environmental and not "innate" just means that the ability to understand and treat neurological disorders in females decreases. The reality is that there are differences. The cause of that reality can be complicated and nuanced and not inescapable. but as the change in societal standards is quite slow all that's happening is a disservice to an entire half of the population.

by pryce 7y ago

MrScruff 7y ago

I believe at least some of the studies mentioned were dealing with rats rather than humans. I didn't read anything from the sourced article that overstepped the bounds of what could be said from the research. It seemed like all the interpretation was being done by the non-scientists.

TulliusCicero 7y ago

They're not just saying they should be heavily scrutinized. At least some are saying that it's flat out bad science to acknowledge the differences, or perform research into the subject at all. They're denying science for ideological ends. It's pretty much the same thing as conservatives with climate change. They don't like what science has to say, so they're trying to shut it down. I'm generally pro-feminism, but no 'side' has a monopoly on bad opinions.

frotak 7y ago

Observing physical differences is not imposing an ideology. The physical differences exist today and are exhibited based on biological genders. That does not preclude that these differences are unduly influenced by environmental issues (including socialization). However denying that they exist (which is what Cahill is objecting to here) on the basis that the cause might be environmental and not "innate" just means that the ability to understand and treat neurological disorders in females decreases. The reality is that there are differences. The cause of that reality can be complicated and nuanced and not inescapable. but as the change in societal standards is quite slow all that's happening is a disservice to an entire half of the population.