5 ms·
It's because the evidence has been sharply contended for centuries, with an immense amount of outright false information and unreplicatable information being pu
by fao_ 5y ago
It's because the evidence has been sharply contended for centuries, with an immense amount of outright false information and unreplicatable information being published in the 20th century, Fausto-Sterling's book Sexing the Body goes over this in a lot of detail and I would absolutely recommend it if you want to go further.
It digs into how we even section up and divide and measure brains in the first place -- this is suspect on many levels, for example, she cites that one paper that was huge in the 1980s uses 1800s openly-racist phrenology-based diagrams to section up the different areas of the brain. None of this is taking into account neuronal density, or any other such metrics.
Hell, there's outright a feedback loop where (for an example of one such feedback loop) what hormones your body is producing/you are taking, has huge impacts on how the brain functions and signals at a fundamental level -- changing hormones physically alters the brain, and there is some evidence in the literature that trans people (for example) have the physical characteristics of the 'opposite sex's' brain. Fausto-Sterling cites rat behavioural cases from the 90s where a single application of testosterone changed the rat's behaviour enough that the testosterone levels went up permanently, because the behaviour caused the rat's body to start doing that.
None of this is as easy or as clear cut as any article on the subject can describe, or even many graduate student books) describes and it is blisteringly difficult, and that isn't even taking into account the meta-science at work here where it is impossible to figure out nature versus nurture, and how much our own society changes our behaviour and changes our brains.
Related information is, there's a good twitter thread I replicated on imgur, that goes over in-depth about how the female/male scale does not accurately describe modern bio and neurochemistry (i.e. it has to be split up into many, many more discrete categories, more like a bimodal distribution) and actually is wildly inappropriate for certain drug interactions as it can cause incorrect predictions: https://imgur.com/a/qmIiULb https://imgur.com/a/qmIiULb
- notheretoo 5y agoDid you just link a screen cap of a Twitter rant and call it “related information”. Do you think that adds credibility to your argument? It doesn’t.
- bluthund 5y ago> openly-racist phrenology-based diagrams to section up the different areas of the brain. What was racist? Was the picture inside some black face caricature? If so, was the actual scientific part inside the racist drawing accurate?
- fao_ 5y agoThe actual scientific diagrams were made with the purpose of 'demonstrating that bipoc are inferior'. It was outright phrenology, done in the 1800s, and has literally no basis in modern science!
- bluthund 5y agoCrazy. Do you know where to find the diagrams?
- fao_ 5y agoWell cited in the book I referenced (It's amusing to me how many people attempted to call me out on 'psuedoscience' and how I'm at -1 on the original post, despite the book I cited being a well-known, well-respected, and blisteringly well-cited authoritative work that covers both biochemistry and neuroscience. The dogma here and lack of scientific knowledge is incredible). Pages 199 - 136 covers it and the root problem of "how do you divide up the brain in the first place, in an accurate and meaningful way" which turns out to not be as easy as it sounds (obviously) and is certainly not as easy as neuroscientists apparently treat it. You can find the original papers from the 1800s and 1980s in the bibilography.
- type0 5y agoI see that you are upset, but try not to spread pseudoscience
- fao_ 5y agoIt's scientific fact, all rigorously cited in the literature, but thank you for your concern.