Rules of attraction

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, May 7, 2009 02:16
VIEWED: 16249
PAGE 3 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:35 PM

Maybe if you'd slept, you'd be a little less tetchy?

Anyway, I have to run - going to a science fair today, which includes students of all genders and colors. Won't be online. But I certainly will reply when I get a chance.

Hope that study is posted sometime today. Hope you do get some good sleep. Genuinely and really I do.

ETA: Isn't it interesting that, instead of posting the results of all this internet searching you've stayed up to do, you write a long post calling me names, and instead of replying to the substance of my post, you accuse me of lying?

Is this really how you talk science? And you're surprised that I question your ability to be logical?

It won't work. I don't think you're lying and I won't accuse you of it. I will continue to question your logic, and I will carry on a conversation with substance. On my side at least. You can throw tantrums if you like that better.

Kisses!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Maybe if you'd slept, you'd be a little less tetchy?

Anyway, I have to run - going to a science fair today, which includes students of all genders and colors. Won't be online. But I certainly will reply when I get a chance.

Hope that study is posted sometime today. Hope you do get some good sleep. Genuinely and really I do.

ETA: Isn't it interesting that, instead of posting the results of all this internet searching you've stayed up to do, you write a long post calling me names, and instead of replying to the substance of my post, you accuse me of lying?

Is this really how you talk science? And you're surprised that I question your ability to be logical?

It won't work. I don't think you're lying and I won't accuse you of it. I will continue to question your logic, and I will carry on a conversation with substance. On my side at least. You can throw tantrums if you like that better.

Kisses!

Isn't it interesting that I get bored when you lie about what I said (which you did) and insult me from the very first post, but get all high and mighty when you get it back.

That when I tell you I'll get too it as soon as, you call me illogical again because I haven't done it yet.

Frankly I don't find it unusual when I've sacrificed much of my morning looking for actual web links of stuff I didn't see on the web, looking for links you can actually look at without paying £20+ a time for, that I get angry when you insult me further and essentially call me stupid and illogical because I said something that you disagree with, and haven't posted the studies you asked for yet. Clearly I wasted my fucking time.

Do you really think any of the claims you've made of my argument and what I said are even remotely true? And you wonder why I question your ability to read what I wrote? How about instead of complaining that I respond to the (non-existant) substance of your post, you actually respond to the substance of my argument, rather than claiming my argument is something completely different to what it is, and claiming I'm enforcing rules of Women, when I CLEARLY stated the opposite.

Carry on having no substance on your side, and claiming you do. This can't be the way you discuss science outside of this forum, because if it was you'd never have been allowed into university, let alone gained a degree.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Just curious, what is everyone's take on the science behind climate change?

There's too much which isn't understood, and the foundation for MAN CAUSED global warming is fictional, at best.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:15 PM

*Face drop into hands*

Why? Didn't we just have a big drawn out debate where people got upset?

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
*Face drop into hands*

Why? Didn't we just have a big drawn out debate where people got upset?

For it is the doom of men ( and posters of RWED ) that they forget.

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:36 PM

Yay – internet! Sorry in advance, I can tell already that this post is going to be a long one…

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I ignore much of what Rue posted, because much of what Rue posted was just personal attacks, sexist comments about my ability to think because I'm a man, and a lot of "if I don't agree with it, we can just ignore it". When Rue stops distorting and ignoring what I actually said, I'll consider returning the favour.

I too have seen Rue step over the friendly line now and then, so I understand your reluctance to engage. It is a shame though. She had a very good information based post a ways up the thread.

Quote:
And the hypothetical situation where they don't test Men or come to these conclusions (which is pretty much the opposite to reality, but lets run with it) invalidates the findings when done on Women because...

...it shows bias on the part of the researchers. A basic part of evaluating any scientific research is to look into every assumption made along the way. If someone assumes a=6, then does lots of fancy algebra and comes to the whopping conclusion that a=6, it’s not good research.

To stress: It’s not the fact that the hypothetical study ignores one gender that I have a problem with, it’s that assumptions are made in the basic planning of the research. ie Strength training is "natural" in males so we don't need to investigate it, but "unnatural" in females so we'd best look into it. Men would come out on the short end of this one, actually.

Quote:
In fact the correlation does not mean causation thing works just as well for the idea that Men's higher scores are due to social expectations.

I’m trying, but I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. But this is what I meant: You refer to a study where men scored higher than women. That is only one observation, and is presented by you with no background, nothing about the situation behind the test. I can show you an observation of a metal screw that levitates. Taken alone, this disproves gravity, right? Not at all. There’s a magnet beneath it.

And here is where I see the flaw in your logic. You have a set of observations, and you claim to know the “why” behind those observations. You seem to expect me and everyone else here to accept your explanation though you provide no details. Then you get extremely offended when I don’t share your assumptions, disagree, bring in my own counterexamples, and ask for clarification. You have an outburst rather than explain. That’s just not logical to me.

Or it could be the lack of sleep getting to you. That would do it to me too.

Quote:
Well, yes, do you see? Do you see what I'm talking about when I said you're making the same arguments I've already argued about? By devolving my argument down to one of me simply saying "they score higher, it must be genetic". That's not my argument, that's a strawman of my argument. It's a shame you've only looked at Rue's claims of what my Argument was, not what my argument actually was.

You said: “My general point was that Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant. They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons.”

That's what I replied to, and not anything Rue said. I’m not lying, I’m not making up a strawman. You said that. You claimed that the career choices of men and women are based in their genetics. If that isn’t what you meant, please clarify.

Also, I did read your entire post of April 24 06:28. You listed a number of differences between men and women, which I agree with in part (and have stated so in my posts). The things I disagreed with I thought Rue argued better than I could. So I didn’t repeat her arguments, and I won’t force it on you now. Your refusal to accept information because you don’t like the source is your choice. I certainly understand.

Quote:
If someone insists on only taking select parts of your argument, and ignoring the other parts that help support your assertions, then tell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:52 PM

citizen said: “Your different way of looking at it, seems to be a way of ignoring the evidence. Yes if it's random, you'd expect a full range of abilities spread across the sexes, but since there are clear sexual dimorphic trends in the human species, that clearly indicates it isn't random, wouldn't it?”

Of course. I never denied that there are trends. But does the lack of randomness mean that the only possible explanation for gender differences is genetic?

citizen said: “My general point was that Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant. They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons. Even that the differences in the way men and Women's minds tend to work means more Men will be suited to Surgery, and more Women suited to nursing. The end result is that, even without societal pressure, training or bias, nursing will be a profession that includes more Women, while Surgery will be one with more Men.”

How can I accept your hypothesis (about the “wanting” to be doctors or nurses) if you won’t allow me to question your underlying assumption, that “Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant”? BTW - a real scientific discussion is not “They are!” “They aren’t!” I’m trying to avoid that RWED nightmare by asking you for the material you based your assumptions on. Nobody, not Einstein, not the best lawyer in the world, can expect to be believed without presenting the evidence behind their arguments.

citizen said: “That when I tell you I'll get too it as soon as, you call me illogical again because I haven't done it yet.” I called you illogical beside you replied with pure emotion rather than factual information.

Again, I never called you stupid. Illogical… well Would Spock reply as you have this morning?

WWSD?

citizen said: “And you wonder why I question your ability to read what I wrote?”

Not to be repetitive: “My general point was that Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant. They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons.” You wrote it, I read it.

citizen said: “This can't be the way you discuss science outside of this forum, because if it was you'd never have been allowed into university, let alone gained a degree.”

No this is not the way I discuss science outside this forum. In real science, I ask someone for references and instead of having to talk them down when they flip out and call me a liar, they actually just show me their references and we move on.

Chrisisall – what citizen has done here is no graduate school lecture. A grad school lecture would include references, or the speaker would get the hook but fast. A lecturer would also be open to questions as to the underlying assumptions in their research, able to discuss without getting buried in defensiveness. And finally, a grad school lecturer would respect misunderstandings by patiently clarifying their material, rather than making false assumptions and accusing the questioner of lying.

Lordy - just imagine if I'd acted like citizen when I took my quals and defended my thesis! Out on my ear indeed.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Chrisisall – what citizen has done here is no graduate school lecture.
A lecturer would also be open to questions as to the underlying assumptions in their research, able to discuss without getting buried in defensiveness.

Well, it seemed like a mighty detailed lecture to ME.

Look, Citizen needs to read something like: "This study here [*] shows that spacial awareness is equal in men & women, what do you say to that?"
He doesn't respond well to "It's a MAN's study & men can't conduct pure science well, and what you're saying isn't TRUE, etc,"
It seems to me that this is a loaded issue for some, and Cit has a very low irritation threshold for repeating himself, hence the tension.

Personally, snark aside, I'm getting a LOT out of this discussion.

The laughing Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Lordy - just imagine if I'd acted like citizen when I took my quals and defended my thesis! Out on my ear indeed.

Still cutting out and ignoring most of what I based my statements on. Still saying my arguments the simple strawman I see. Good on you, very logical...

Really, since I've had to repeat myself at least three times already, what's a fourth going to do exactly? Someone ignores what you say time and time again, and insists that their simplified shade is your real argument, you get to start talking about lying as far as I'm concerned.

Hell when the first time someone speaks to you, their opening gambit is to start throwing personal insults at you, I think that person is the last to complain about how debates should be carried on. You've got some bottle to complain about insults when you were the first to go there, I'll give you that. You can't even tell the truth about that, you claim that you called me illogical because I replied with emotion. I in fact replied with emotion because you kept insisting on attacking me personally because you have no patience.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Good on you, very logical...

And YOU, young man, have done you part in this snarkfest.

I HAVE A GOOD MIND TO SPANK EVERYONE HERE...except, I don't think I could so easily defeat your gung fu...

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:18 PM

Mmmmmm

Chicken Gung Fu.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Mmmmmm

Chicken Gung Fu.

AURaptor, on the other hand, demonstrates brainworkings unlike male OR female, more akin actually to the common toad.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:53 PM

It ain't easy being green.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:57 PM

LOL, not bad, AU, ya got me with that one.

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:50 PM

Citizen

"Well to be honest Rue, I've not bothered to read much of what you've posted ..."
Your loss. I had a detailed response to nearly all of your points I was interested in (see below why others were not of interest *), and showed them to be unsupported.

"you happily post about scientific studies that support you ..."
And how many have you posted ?

"You've ignored fully half (at least) of what I said ..."
* There is a difference in terminology between the countries, I think. Here, sex means biological sex, gender means self-identified sex (with implications of social roles), and sexual orientation means which sex to which you are sexually attracted. So for example you could have a biological male (sex) who felt himself to be female (gender) who was attracted to women (lesbian). It seemed unimportant to go though an argument based on different terminologies.

"... because firstly it says ~15% dimorphic ..."
Dimorphism is measured differently. Some use stature, span and cubit; some use the measure of bone dimensions with (different weighting given to each in the) averaging; and so on. Other studies I have read indicate 10% dimorphism for humans. I used those figures. But, the GREATER point is that as large apes, humans are FAR less dimorphic that the other large apes, the gorillas and orangutans. Its' hard to argue dimorphism as a large factor indicating something about human behavior when it is clearly not significant.
http://books.google.com/books?id=esDW3xTKoLIC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=% 2Bdimorphism+human+gorilla+orangutan+chart+-afarensis&source=bl&ots=N4Mm- vomoP&sig=yfo6akVoo8a4imXyWTrILGIGnLk&hl =en&ei=NI_zSb_4LJiSswOaz4HyCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10
"Among monogamous primates, the average male is about 5% larger than the average female, whereas polygynous primates display bodily dimorphism over 50%. Human dimorphism in body size is also moderate, with men about 10% taller and 20% heavier than women." (Here they are using height and weight measures of dimporphism.)

"I said that the Great Apes show a trend to increasing sexual dimorphism with size ..."
But by ACTUAL MEASUREMENT made in the real world, humans are the exception to the trend. As was pointed out in the link. Your bad.

***************************************************************

And, I'd be really curious for you to point out where I got personal - and, was that before or after all the undeserved snark you shoveled my way ?

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Its' hard to argue dimorphism as a large factor indicating something about human behavior when it is clearly not significant.

I disagree here. It clearly IS significant IMO.
Look at this from an eminent scientist in the field:

Quote:
Asked how dimorphism impacts human psychological evolution, Dr. Llasisirhc of the Institute of Advanced Biochemical and Neurological Research in Sydney, Australia commented:
"Girls rock, mate, therein lies the difference, eh?"

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:06 PM

And said in that lovely Aussie talk too !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And said in that lovely Aussie talk too !

He MUST be right, then.

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:23 PM

Right'o mate !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Well, it seemed like a mighty detailed lecture to ME.

His original post wasn't bad, but the followup stank.

Quote:
Look, Citizen needs to read something like: "This study here [*] shows that spacial awareness is equal in men & women, what do you say to that?"

If the basis of his stance is some study, and he keeps referring to it, that's exactly what he should do.

Quote:
He doesn't respond well to "It's a MAN's study & men can't conduct pure science well, and what you're saying isn't TRUE, etc,"

Yeah, except I never said that. No one did, really.

Quote:
It seems to me that this is a loaded issue for some, and Cit has a very low irritation threshold for repeating himself, hence the tension.

Like much of what I've seen in RWED, the repetition comes from the fact that he never actually answers the question.

Quote:
Personally, snark aside, I'm getting a LOT out of this discussion.

And I think I'm done with my semi-annual visit to RWED. I guess I need the occasional reminder that these discussions don't actually go anywhere, but just end in temper tantrums and name calling. SO let me end this properly...

To citizen: I see through you pal. You can't find a even a ittle bitty bit of this research you've been going on about, so you weasle out by playing victim and blaming me. Boo-hoo! She called me illogical, I'm taking my toys and going home!

Pathetic.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

RUE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:12 PM

Anyway, I was curious ro see what a 'back of the envelope' calculation would show up in terms of weight dimorphism ammong the larger primates. For the primate data I went to the primate fact sheet at UWisconsin. Oddly enough, they didn't have information on humans (HEY ! Aren't WE primates ????!), so I went to the first website I found that claimed to have that information on people. M is male, F is female, A is average, and % is the percent difference between the two/ averge. Weight is in kg.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets
http://www.articleworld.org/index.php/Human_weight

Pan paniscus (bonobo chimp)
39 M
31 F
35 A
23 %

Pan troglodytes (regular chimp)
50 M
39 F
45 A
25 %

homo sapiens (humans)
80 M
59 F
70 A
30 %

Pongo (orangutan)
87 M
37 F
62 A
81 %

Gorilla (gorilla)
181 M
85 F
133 A
72 %

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Yeah, except I never said that. No one did, really.

"I find a lot of those irrefutable studies on the mental differences between men and women suspect, because they are worked on BY men, in a field dominated BY men because society tells women they shouldn't be interested in math and science, but celebrities, dating, and GOD FORBID, shopping." comes real close.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

homo sapiens (humans)
80 M
59 F
70 A
30 %

30% seems like a significant difference to me.
Rue, look, if women were on average 30% larger than men, that one thing would have changed the face of this planet. Things like "date rape", "spousal abuse" & "war" would have entirely different meanings.

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:42 PM

That's for weight, and that's based on my calculations. To get a number closer to what they would have gotten with their calculations, I probably should have divided by two. But I didn't want to complicate the calculation b/c it might not be obvious where the number was coming from. (But I created another problem, eh ?)

The estimates I've seen for chimpanzees' 'dimorphism' range from 5% to 20%, for humans from 10% to 20%. So my numbers are not within range.

They were just for looking at overall increase in body mass v difference between sexes. There seems to be a clear break between the two kinds of chimps and humans in the one group, and the gorillas and orangutans in the other - though humans are closer to the body weight of orangutans and gorillas than chimps.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

They were just for looking at overall increase in body mass v difference between sexes.

Basically, men are bigger because they need a greater physical presence to make up for their general stupidity to survive.
Is that what you're saying?

The faux huff Chrisisall

RUE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:51 PM

OOOHHHHhhhh - I'm not sure if I want to get into a real answer on this. It involves relative penis size and scrotal sack size and sperm competition and ... stuff.

***************************************************************

Ya' know what I mean ?

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:56 PM

So that IS what yer sayin' (just so we're clear).

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:59 PM

Select to view spoiler:

Waiting for ChrisIsAll to come back and tell me he NEEDS me to explain it. Maybe if I don't give him the idea and sneak away very, very quietly he won't get to it before I ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:59 PM

OH DRAT !

***************************************************************

And that's all I'm going to say.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:01 AM

BYTEMITE

Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Yeah, except I never said that. No one did, really.

"I find a lot of those irrefutable studies on the mental differences between men and women suspect, because they are worked on BY men, in a field dominated BY men because society tells women they shouldn't be interested in math and science, but celebrities, dating, and GOD FORBID, shopping." comes real close.

The laughing Chrisisall

That was me.

I did explain how I misspoke? That the significance of the "man" part of it is that in the context of these studies they'd be susceptible to their social expectations? And that I admitted that women working on the same studies could be similarly influenced?

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

That was me.

I did explain how I misspoke?

Yes, but manbrains stay on the first track, we cannot be derailed!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

KPO

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:09 AM

Quote:
Its' hard to argue dimorphism as a large factor indicating something about human behavior when it is clearly not significant.

This statement baffles me, why is it 'clearly not significant'? I missed where you made that argument. Isn't 10-20% significant?

You don't think there are natural masculine/feminine trends for behaviour like there are masculine/feminine physical trends?

Citizen I thought offered some quite compelling logic and scientific evidence to back the idea of a 'natural' difference in gender roles.

Heads should roll

RUE

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:44 AM

"Citizen I thought offered some quite compelling logic and scientific evidence to back the idea of a 'natural' difference in gender roles."

He made many claims that are either not true or only minimally true. (I had a long post above that went through many of them.)

"This statement baffles me, why is it 'clearly not significant'? I missed where you made that argument. Isn't 10-20% significant?"

In the animal world people try to get at the evolution of animal behavior by looking at physical characteristics.

For example:
There are species where one male mates with many females - I've read it described as the 'harem' mating system. In order to do that there is a lot of male/ male competition with the biggest males generally winning (unless smaller males form coalitions, which sometimes happens). In those species you'll often see vast differences between males and females - 50% or more size difference for example. You'll see it in lions, bears, tigers, cattle, sea lions, elephant seals, gorillas, orangutans, elephants, baboons ... it's quite a long list.

In addition, the males of these species tend to have smaller penises and not quite such big balls, as the top male doesn't have to compete sexually for females, and his sperm don't have to compete with the sperm of other males.

Other species are monogamous, and generally they are fairly close in size, with appx. 5% size dimorphism. (So there is a minimum amount of dimorphism that seems to exist between the males and females in all species. Sometimes though, the female (as the egg-layer) is the larger sex.)

Compared to 50+% dimorphism on the maximum end, and 5% on the minimum end, 10-20% (depending on what you measure) is on the lower end of the scale. In other words - not so much.
(Trying to find a picture of an average male and average female side by side to illustrate, but can't seem to find one.)

(best I can do)

When applied to mating schemes, btw, humans have relatively large penis and scrotal sac sizes, indicating that females mate with many males, and that males live in cooperative groups with other males - and females. (Too long an expl. for me to want to get into it.) Anyway, this is yet another indication that humans don't live in a 'harem' breeding system, and that males and females would not be expected to be very dimorphic (as they are not).

KPO

Sunday, April 26, 2009 2:46 AM

All interesting stuff.

Perhaps we can agree that humans are a 'special' kind of primate with surprisingly low dimorphism (given our size?). 10-20% is still significant though, by all accounts - you point out yourself it's above the minimum 5%. And for all I know the 5% minimum is also significant.

Gender roles within animals are very straight forward and well defined I would say. Human beings are definitely much more complex and adaptable in this regard.

To claim that the human brain is gender neutral, but receives a male/female identity stamped upon it by society, is definitely a stretch. My first question is, why would it evolve to be neutral?

Also, the case Citizen described of an experiment on girls exposed to male hormones developing 'masculine' mental traits was quite compelling on this score I thought.

Heads should roll

WULFENSTAR

Sunday, April 26, 2009 2:52 AM

Ehhh...to simplify things. Chicks are hot, men are strong.

End of story.

RUE

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:43 AM

I went looking for the study he alluded to but couldn't find it. And while I'm sure it's correct, I'd like to see the details to understand where it's limited.

There are differences between males and females (duh !) but they're not as extreme as Citizen made them out to be, not as inborn, not as consequential, don't exist for the reasons he thinks they do, and generally are not born out by the examples he cites.

For example:

Why don't women make good scientists ? Citizen could say that it's because females are less suited by evolution to be thinkers, systematizers. OTOH (and forgive me I don't have the reference) when research grants were evaluated 'blinded' (names and other identifiers left off) females outperformed males on quality and quantity of work. But when names were named, (and sex inferred) females had to submit 9X the preliminary data as males to get the grant. So, by looking at the value of grants given are we to say that women are not such good researchers due to evolution ? Or do we more reasonably say that females face stiff discrimination ?

It's the same with surgery, and, by all accounts of the surveys done by the ACS (American Chemical Society) with chemical engineering, chemistry, biochemistry, materials science and other male-dominated fields. Women understand that they are not welcome. That their road will be made harder than a man's. That they will have to sacrifice much more in their lives to get to the same place. And by and large they say - to hell with it. Citizen looks at this data and claims that it's evolutionary. That women are in general 'meant' to be nurses by nature, not surgeons. Or (one presumes) technicians, not scientists. And it's simply not the case.

"To claim that the human brain is gender neutral, but receives a male/female identity stamped upon it by society, is definitely a stretch. My first question is, why would it evolve to be neutral?"

I'd be more inclined to say that abilities are closer to gender neutral than not, as the raw materials of ability - basic biochemistry - are distributed randomly without regard to sex. For example, I don't think that inborn differences account for the fact that only 5% of all surgeons are women. Because otherwise, you'd have to believe that men and women are 95% different. And how does this stand up ? Genetically speaking, humans are 97% the same as chimps. Do you believe you have more in common with a chimp (97%) that a human male does with a human female (95%) ?

NNNAAaawwwwww ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:20 AM

Or it could be what I said.....

It always crack me up how people try to make things more complicated than then really are.

Maybe it gives them a purpose.

Or something to do.

ETA: You know, if people just remembered what makes us the same instead of what makes us different we would all be better off.

But maybe, it makes us feel important, special.

To be different.

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
[BTo citizen: I see through you pal. You can't find a even a ittle bitty bit of this research you've been going on about, so you weasle out by playing victim and blaming me. Boo-hoo! She called me illogical, I'm taking my toys and going home!

Pathetic.

You can't even put one post together, without attacking people, then cry and whine when you get it back. That's pathetic. As I said, I've found some studies, but didn't find the full text, and clearly said I was still look, clearly said I was putting way more time into the search than you are apparently putting into your attacks and illogical dismissals based on zero evidence. But that's not good enough is it. Because it wasn't there right at that moment that you wanted it, you had to carry on attacking.

Well I see through you too. Right from the outset you had a preconceived notion, and it seemed like my statements went counter to that. You and Rue both have still yet to attack my actual argument, you dance around this little strawman you've got, acting superior when I object to you lying about my statements, personally attacking me and then complaining when you get the exact same thing back, and saying it proves your insults directed at me. Well, if saying the same things back at you proves stuff about me, it does about you too, even if you're not objective enough to see it.

The repetition comes from you misrepresenting my argument, me having to continually set you straight, and you still misrepresenting my argument. It's not that I haven't answered some question, it's that the answer is to say that question has nothing to do with what I'm saying, you you really don't want to accept that answer. Clearly the strawman is far too important to you to give up, being as it is you're only basis for argument and objection. Excuse me if I'm not going to bother setting you straight politely, when it's sure not to stick and you've been anything but logical and polite throughout.

My argument went like this A-to-B via A-1-2-B. You and Rue both have been desperately trying to cut out number 2 from that progression, so that it's A-1- -B, and then said "you're so illogical making that mad leap". Yeah, if I was making the argument you claim I'm making, then I'd agree, but since your claim is well off, I won't. You've stripped out single sentences or even fragments out of the larger context that explains them, then pressed me on some bizarre interpretation that was never what I meant. The only way I could possibly keep you all happy would be to form all my posts out of ridiculous verbose and convoluted "legalese", which is something I'm not prepared to do just because your language comprehension isn't so great.

You talk about how things should work in scientific situations, yet I'm pretty sure that you would be "out on your ear", if you voiced your objection by shouting that they're just plain wrong, and incapable of thinking logically. You expect that you're going to foster good debate by making everyone act in an opposite manner to you I suppose?

You see through me? Better take the mirrors off your glasses because you're way off. But hey, maybe I can see through you, you came in here with a preconceived notion, and anyone who thought otherwise, or seemed to, had to be shut down. Clearly you've not even remotely prepared to consider anything but the voices in your head. No wonder you never find any headway here, because you clearly don't want to make any. You expect to come here, attack me personally, attack me again when I make the effort because it's not quick enough for your toddler attention span, and then you're surprised that I don't treat you and your opinion with more respect than you've even considered treating me and mine.

When you or Rue can actually go at my argument directly and logically, I'll support it, because it's not beholden to me to support the strawman you've created. I've constantly had to set people straight on the strawman Rue started, and you're now holding on to, and yeah, until you

KPO

Sunday, April 26, 2009 2:45 PM

Quote:
I don't think that inborn differences account for the fact that only 5% of all surgeons are women. Because otherwise, you'd have to believe that men and women are 95% different.

I don't agree with this maths, the problem I believe wants statistical analysis. But offhand I would say that the natural male brain only has to excel the female brain by a small amount in a few key skills departments (spatial something, etc.), and that would make all the difference (or most of it) in such a competitive profession.

I'm not denying cultural/environmental pressures/expectations though, and their effect - I don't think Citizen is either - undoubtedly talented women aspiring to some professions meet more obstacles than men. So we have two principles at work here, and the question is which is the most powerful, governing principle.

One thing that swings it for me that there are fairly well defined natural male/female brains is when men for some womb chemistry reasons or other are born with 'feminine' brains. They of course are raised to be boys, and men - but their natural female brain can not be suppressed, even with their male hormones, and in the end they decide to have a sex change. Isn't this how you interpret this phenomenon rue?

Another argument for traditional gender roles is the logic I alluded to before - why would we evolve a neutral brain? Surely humans would perform their neccessary tasks much more effectively if we had specialised hunters/carers, etc. With woman's crucial physical burden to produce offspring and keep the species going, I think it is a strong argument that they should evolve into other roles than 'hunter', because they are not as physically suited (or expendable) as men.

Heads should roll

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't think that inborn differences account for the fact that only 5% of all surgeons are women. Because otherwise, you'd have to believe that men and women are 95% different.

Rue, you must be tired, this really doesn't make sense, unless you were just trying to be funny.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
With woman's crucial physical burden to produce offspring and keep the species going, I think it is a strong argument that they should evolve into other roles than 'hunter', because they are not as physically suited (or expendable) as men.

This makes a lot of sense to me, though.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Sunday, April 26, 2009 6:15 PM

>_> I was trying to stay out of this, because Citizen and I mostly resolved our part of the conversation, but I don't see what doesn't make sense about Rue's comments.

More men are surgeons than women. Supposedly, 95% of surgeons are men.

If men are naturally better at surgery than women, and this is considered to be the only important factor in becoming a surgeon, then at least in this field, there is a 95% difference in the natural abilities of men (when it comes to being a surgeon) compared to women.

Rue's taking it a step further and using that difference in ability as representative of the genetic difference between men and women. Which DOESN'T make sense, I'll grant you, but her point is demonstrating that it doesn't make sense.

KPO

Sunday, April 26, 2009 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
>_> I was trying to stay out of this, because Citizen and I mostly resolved our part of the conversation, but I don't see what doesn't make sense about Rue's comments.

More men are surgeons than women. Supposedly, 95% of surgeons are men.

If men are naturally better at surgery than women, and this is considered to be the only important factor in becoming a surgeon, then at least in this field, there is a 95% difference in the natural abilities of men (when it comes to being a surgeon) compared to women.

Rue's taking it a step further and using that difference in ability as representative of the genetic difference between men and women. Which DOESN'T make sense, I'll grant you, but her point is demonstrating that it doesn't make sense.

Understand the argument but dispute the maths. This to me is like saying, '95% of the people above 6ft3 are men, and only 5% women. Therefore there is a 95% difference in height between the sexes'.

Because the surgical profession is a very highly skilled one and not just anyone can do it. There is a bar that you have to meet, in terms of your natural skills. Like the 6ft3-high bar I held up to the two sexes in the previous paragraph.

Heads should roll

BYTEMITE

Sunday, April 26, 2009 10:46 PM

Here we're talking only two states within a group (surgeons): male or female. There aren't any other "heights" so to speak to interfere with the statistics.

In other words, we're not talking about a range of possibilities (like heights) on top of the male of female state, focusing on the percentage of one state above an arbitrary point in the upper end of the bell-curve, and saying that percentage is representative of the rest.

Therefore, I'd say this is more an example of conditional probability than a bell curve.

I am, however, just taking Rue's word for it that 95% is the percentage of surgeons who are male. I haven't confirmed it.

RUE

Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:14 PM

"I don't agree with this maths, the problem I believe wants statistical analysis. But offhand I would say that the natural male brain only has to excel the female brain by a small amount in a few key skills departments (spatial something, etc.), and that would make all the difference (or most of it) in such a competitive profession."

If spatial ability, like most biological measures, follows a more or less normal curve, then 95% would be (roughly) 2 standard deviations. You would have to show that 1) only people who perform at the top 5% of ability are accepted into surgical residency and 2) females are 2 SD away from males on those skills. I don't think you can show either.

"One thing that swings it for me that there are fairly well defined natural male/female brains is when men for some womb chemistry reasons or other are born with 'feminine' brains. They of course are raised to be boys, and men - but their natural female brain can not be suppressed, even with their male hormones, and in the end they decide to have a sex change. Isn't this how you interpret this phenomenon rue?"

In short - no. Sexual identity (do I feel myself to be male or female), and sexual orientation (do I feel more attracted to one sex or the other) don't have a known cause. (For orientation there are diffrences in brain structure, but that has no known cause.) And which sex you feel like you belong to does not relate to which sex you are attacted to. And it also isn't related to any purported difference in abilities. I know of no study that shows that gay or transgender males for example do less well in spatial ability tests than straight males. Or that lesbian or transgender females do better than straight females on the same tests.

So it becomes problematic to say that there are 'female brains' in males which are female 'just because' (despite male hormones), and that further, those female-brains'-in-the-wrong package are like normal female brains in terms of abilities.

"Another argument for traditional gender roles is the logic I alluded to before - why would we evolve a neutral brain? Surely humans would perform their neccessary tasks much more effectively if we had specialised hunters/carers, etc. With woman's crucial physical burden to produce offspring and keep the species going, I think it is a strong argument that they should evolve into other roles than 'hunter', because they are not as physically suited (or expendable) as men."

The better question would be - why should they be different ? Humans have 46 chromosomes. Only 1 - 2% of all chromosomes - is different between men and women. We are all made from the same basic plan, and in fact, males start out female. The basic biochemistry is the same. All the 96% autosomal chromosomes divide out randomly between the sexes. And indeed, males and females share the other sex chromosome - one X chromosome - the remaining 2% that's the same. Nearly all of life's necessary tasks are identical between the sexes: eating, digestion, energy production, movement ... And when there is no specific pressure on males or females, the sexes, as creatures doing the same things with the same diet in the same environment, end up more or less identical in size. (This is the third time I'm bringing this up - it seems to keep bouncing of the rim with you. PLEASE address this point before you bring up this idea yet again.)

When one looks at species where males and females are VERY different, the driving factor is harem mating. That doesn't seem to be the case with people.

And making suppositions (very unfounded ones I might add, and most likely wrong) about the role of males and females during the evolutionary past is not the way to bolster another supposition. If you look at some of the materials I've referenced and linked, you'll see that humans were VERY dimorphic in the past, and came to be much closer in size during our evolution. That argues that the things that made us people reduced the differences, not increased them. (Also the third time I've bought up the fact that the purpor

RUE

Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:17 PM

Citizen

Which thing have you shown to be true ?

That these differences are genetic and not a result of nurture ?
No.
That they are large ?
No.
That they are meaningful ?
No.
That they are due to some supposed evolutionary pressure ?
No.

NO ONE HERE is arguing that there are no differences. But you simply haven't been able to prove your points. Not as a result of any straw-man arguments on anyone's part. But b/c you haven't met the reasonable disagreements that have come your way.

To make your argument, you have many, MANY steps you need to solidify. But you keep trying to prove one assumption with the next. It doesn't work.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KPO

Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:25 PM

Byte,

I'm breaking down the profession of surgeon into its requisite skills; 3D spatial visualisation and so on - which i'm assuming are scientifically testable and quantifiable. My understanding of this whole argument is that there would be a male bell curve and a female bell curve for the scores of these tests, and they would be spaced a certain difference apart on the same graph (showing men overall performing better).

Agree? Natural attributes being measured, just like heights.

Obviously there is overlap between the two bell curves, and they don't need to be spaced 95% apart for only 5 women out of 100 to make the cut off line.

Heads should roll

RUE

Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:26 PM

"I am, however, just taking Rue's word for it that 95% is the percentage of surgeons who are male."

That is the figure I got for Britain. In the US it is more like 88 - 90%.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:30 PM

"Obviously there is overlap between the two bell curves, and they don't need to be spaced 95% apart for only 5 women out of 100 to make the cut off line."

The female mean would have to be 2 SD off the male mean for that result. And, as I said above, you would ALSO have to show that only the top 5% of ALL applicants are acccepted. In other words - you'd have to show that males and females are subject to the same absolute cut-off line.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Monday, April 27, 2009 12:31 AM

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=info:VWt4pDvGoeEJ:schola
r.google.com/&output=viewport&pg=1

Just for fun I thought I'd post this. In the Dominican Republic there are a number of genetic boys with a reduced ability to make activated testosterone. They are born looking like girls and are raised as girls. During puberty, when overall testosterone levels rise, they become masculininzed. Over time they generally transition to male roles and identities (based on their self-perceived physical appearance).

If sex and gender are supposed to be determined at birth according to prenatal hormones, such a thing should never be possible.

This shows to me that sex, gender, and sex roles are fairly fluid, and not the pre-natal hormonally determined evolutionarily selected things we think they are.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Monday, April 27, 2009 12:38 AM

I figured it was just a poll of surgeons: whose male and whose female.

I read the statistic as "95% of surgeons are male and 5% are female."

Are we only sampling a portion of the population of surgeons?

RUE

Monday, April 27, 2009 12:44 AM

The 5% statistic came from either the surgical residency figures in Britain or the qualified surgeons figures.

The US statistic came from surgical residency figures, showing that the pecent of US surgical residents who are female had gone up ~5% absolute (from ~6% to ~11%) over the last 15 or so years.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KPO

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:11 AM

Quote:
The female mean would have to be 2 SD off the male mean for that result.

Is that so unlikely? Going off some quick internet acquired figures for human height:

Mean male height: 69.3 in.
Standard deviation: 2.8

Mean female height: 64 in.
Standard deviation: 2.8

The female mean is only 1.9 SD off the male mean. See, and yet there's only about 8% difference I believe in the average heights between the sexes - so you see why I challenged the '95% difference' statement? Statistical analysis is everyone's friend.

If you or Bytemite or anyone want to play with Bell curves, I found this which I think is pretty sharp: http://www.shortsupport.org/Research/analyzer.html

Quote:
And, as I said above, you would ALSO have to show that only the top 5% of ALL applicants are acccepted. In other words - you'd have to show that males and females are subject to the same absolute cut-off line.

I don't need to show anything because I haven't made any statements or mathematical pronouncements (not seen any data yet) - I've just challenged yours. And we were agreed remember that there were other factors besides pure natural ability for why there are few female surgeons - I don't want to now be the bad guy arguing that 'male dominance of the surgeon's skillset' is the only explanation.

Heads should roll

RUE

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:24 AM

The 95% difference is area under the curve - talking about total numbers of individuals, and total DNA material, not about continuous measures. Hence, the difference !

Not trying to make you the 'bad guy'. I was using 'you' in the general sense - perhaps I should have used the pronoun 'one' - as in - ''one' would have to ...'

I'm all for SOMEONE doing a statistical analysis on this. Not me though ! I'm having too much fun and too much stress remodeling a 100+ year old home. The thing to do would be to see how different the performance is on a hypothetical critical factor - like spacial performance - and see if the gap in the critical factor and the percentage of female surgeons correlate. And then one would probably have to show that the selection process actually selects based on this gap - because correlation is not causation.

I do take issue with Citizen's idea that females - as the little proto-wyf of man-the-hunter - are just not that biologically geared to being surgeons. There are WAAAAaaaaaay too many gaps in that train.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KPO

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:33 AM

Quote:
If sex and gender are supposed to be determined at birth according to prenatal hormones, such a thing should never be possible.

Such a definitive conclusion - but why?

They may have a 'male' brain, but it's still a child's brain - if a female childhood is forced upon them from infancy there's not much they can do.

Interesting, but fairly inconclusive I'd say. I'd be interested to hear anecdotal evidence of whether these young boys were considered to have 'tomboy' tendencies growing up.

Heads should roll

RUE

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:40 AM

"if a female childhood is forced upon them from infancy there's not much they can do."

I truly wish you would read the things I link. It was really very short - just one page. (Unless of course you're just making an effort to be an ass.)

While they don't mention that these girls chose girlhood voluntarily, they do indicate that these girls IDENTIFY AS girls, UNTIL they fail to develop like the other girls. And so they begin a long transition from feeling like girls, to 'not girls', to feeling like maybe boys, then boys, and then adopting male roles. This process was explicit in the linked summary.

The entire context indicates to me that they feel like girls, and it was not 'forced' on them.

***************************************************************

"If sex and gender are supposed to be determined at birth according to prenatal hormones, such a thing should never be possible."

How you can misunderstand this is beyond me. It should be fairly obvious. If their prenatal and childhood hormone status is female, then, according to Citizen, they should be hormonally-determined females for life, with all the female range of abilities, preferences, attributes etc set in stone. And this is not the case.

KPO

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:59 AM

Quote:
The 95% difference is area under the curve - talking about total numbers of individuals, and total DNA material, not about continuous measures. Hence, the difference !

Hmm.

Quote:
I do take issue with Citizen's idea that females - as the little proto-wyf of man-the-hunter - are just not that biologically geared to being surgeons. There are WAAAAaaaaaay too many gaps in that train.

I don't know that Citizen was working towards that line exactly, he's much more enlightened than me I think. I personally take two things from the 95% statistic - that there are skills involved in surgery which men are more suited to, but also that women face some discrimination/societal pressures, since 5% is so low. Also I've always heard it that women have more nimble fingers.

Heads should roll

KPO

Monday, April 27, 2009 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"if a female childhood is forced upon them from infancy there's not much they can do."

I truly wish you would read the things I link. It was really very short - just one page. (Unless of course you're just making an effort to be an ass.)

While they don't mention that these girls chose girlhood voluntarily, they do indicate that these girls IDENTIFY AS girls, UNTIL they fail to develop like the other girls. And so they begin a long transition from feeling like girls, to 'not girls', to feeling like maybe boys, then boys, and then adopting male roles. This process was explicit in the linked summary.

The entire context indicates to me that they feel like girls, and it was not 'forced' on them.

***************************************************************

"If sex and gender are supposed to be determined at birth according to prenatal hormones, such a thing should never be possible."

How you can misunderstand this is beyond me. It should be fairly obvious. If their prenatal and childhood hormone status is female, then, according to Citizen, they should be hormonally-determined females for life, with all the female range of abilities, preferences, attributes etc set in stone. And this is not the case.

Yeah I scan read the thing, was hoping for anecdotes. The author seemed to back your position I'll give you that.

Quote:
The entire context indicates to me that they feel like girls, and it was not 'forced' on them.

I need a bit more than what someone remembers feeling from early childhood (7- 12 when they started to get confused right?). And I beg to differ, it was forced on them from the fact that that they were dressed in pink dresses and given girl toys from before they could even talk.

Heads should roll

BYTEMITE

Monday, April 27, 2009 3:50 AM

Girl roles such as pink dresses and toys are forced on girls who continue to develop into women too. <_<

I know that doesn't SOUND significant, but being a tomboy, and different like I am, I was kind of aware of it. Other girls tended not to question it.

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If their prenatal and childhood hormone status is female, then, according to Citizen, they should be hormonally-determined females for life, with all the female range of abilities, preferences, attributes etc set in stone. And this is not the case.

Very good point, and strong case for the "fluidity" you mentioned earlier.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Girl roles such as pink dresses and toys are forced on girls who continue to develop into women too.

I was jealous that girls had Barbies AND Kens, and I just had a GI Joes.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:40 PM

Eh... Ken is kind of creepy, actually. So's Barbie, but... Yeah.

Those rictus smiles... ._.

KPO

Monday, April 27, 2009 2:29 PM

Quote:
"If sex and gender are supposed to be determined at birth according to prenatal hormones, such a thing should never be possible."

How you can misunderstand this is beyond me. It should be fairly obvious. If their prenatal and childhood hormone status is female, then, according to Citizen, they should be hormonally-determined females for life, with all the female range of abilities, preferences, attributes etc set in stone. And this is not the case.

Even if they are genetically male? If Citizen has said that I'll leave that to him to defend. I honestly thought you were arguing something different.

To my mind, male or female is in the genetic code (XX/XY right?), and these children were never 'girls'. And there is meagre significance in the fact that they identified as girls (or just assumed they were?) below the age of 7 or whatever.

Quote:
Girl roles such as pink dresses and toys are forced on girls who continue to develop into women too. <_<

I know that doesn't SOUND significant, but being a tomboy, and different like I am, I was kind of aware of it. Other girls tended not to question it.

I don't deny this effect of cultural pressure. I would like the world to be enlightened and allow every individual his/her own personal freedom to choose their life without stigma or discrimination.

When Citizen and I talk about the 'female brain' it isn't to say that every female has it, as no two female brains are the same. I just think that it is possible to discern and separate masculine and feminine mental traits, and that male and female brains tend to cluster around these two poles (with significant amount of outlying and overlapping of course).

As for feminine beauty, that's something I'm still puzzling out - I think more than anything it's a state of mind. As a straight man I don't necessarily think women should be feminine all the time (being yourself is best) but nonetheless it is something I would always like them to have within reach - otherwise it's a shame.

Heads should roll

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 27, 2009 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I would like the world to be enlightened and allow every individual his/her own personal freedom to choose their life without stigma or discrimination.

You sound like a Star Trek fan now, K.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Monday, April 27, 2009 3:07 PM

In some cultures, such as Native American tribes, a person's gender is what they feel they are, not what genes they have or physical form. They don't generally change their form, they just live for all respects and purposes as the gender they believe they are. As such, even someone we consider male might, under that culture, be considered a girl.

So, going by the culture Rue described, they lived as girls, up until they stopped being girls and started being boys. Whether or not someone actively pursued the change, in my opinion they were what they were and are what they are.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 27, 2009 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I was jealous that girls had Barbies AND Kens, and I just had a GI Joes.

Lemmie guess, this was your best friend, growing up, right ?

CITIZEN

Monday, April 27, 2009 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But b/c you haven't met the reasonable disagreements that have come your way.

As soon as someone reasonably disagrees to my argument, and not what they claim my argument is, which no one, least of all you have managed to do yet, I'll back up my argument. But until you show that you're prepared to actually confront my argument, rather than cutting out huge swathes of it, I don't see the point. Not to mention you've already said that any data you don't agree with will be ignored, so it's hard to see how I could ever prove anything, considering you've already implied you'll ignore it. You claim there's lots of gaps in my argument, but from what I see, many of those gaps are where you've just ignored what I've said, back to the A-1- -B thing.

The fact is Rue, you still haven't got a clue what my argument is. You're still yammering on about what "Citizen" will say about this, what "Citizen" will say about that, now I don't know who this "Citizen" is, because it sure as hell ain't me, I can only assume it's some voice in your head. Until either you or Mal can reply to my actual argument, which I've reiterated so many times you'd have to be living under a rock not to have gotten one of the repetitions by now, I see no profit in engaging with you.

Now if you ask me really nicely, I'll repeat myself again, then you can ask me for links to the studies (which I have now, and would have posted if M4P hadn't cried and moaned like an impatient four year old). But if you get my argument wrong again, I might just say Thhbt to you until you get it right or go away.

KPO

Monday, April 27, 2009 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In some cultures, such as Native American tribes, a person's gender is what they feel they are, not what genes they have or physical form. They don't generally change their form, they just live for all respects and purposes as the gender they believe they are. As such, even someone we consider male might, under that culture, be considered a girl.

So, going by the culture Rue described, they lived as girls, up until they stopped being girls and started being boys. Whether or not someone actively pursued the change, in my opinion they were what they were and are what they are.

Hmm ok, I guess you see gender as a kind of 'style' which an individual in an ideal society would be free to choose for his/her self.
I personally think human history has been very tough and cruel, and evolution wouldn't have indulged such free-spiritedness. Given that in those times such a high percentage of women would've died in childbirth, any tribe which sent lots of their potential child-bearers out on dangerous hunting and war missions wouldn't have had the breeding power to survive.

Evolutionary arguments are wonderfully logical and go a long way towards explaining all the characteristics of modern human life and society - if you'll let them.

Heads should roll

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:11 AM

Or they create Social Darwinism style theories that people use to pat themselves on the back with.

But I don't... necessarily disagree with what you just said about using evolutionary explanations. Heck, I did it myself a ways back, to try to figure out explanations for gender roles and sexual orientation.

I think I just kind of disagree with your evolutionary history. Not everyone has to breed to be an asset to a tribe. The population dynamic argument make I'm willing to concede to an extent, but surely the few women who did venture out with the men wouldn't make a dent on the women who stayed behind.

I'm just saying those roles shouldn't be predetermined. And in these modern ages, women are doing a lot more questioning of that predetermination, and right now we have comfortable lifestyles, technology, and enough people to let them.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:59 AM

Have not read the entire thread, yet.
But I find that some here may be disregarding or ignoring, to varying degrees, the factor of chemicals.
The brain is functioning with electrical signals flowing through chemicals. Without the foundation of chemicals and their conductivity for electrons, our mental activity would not exist.
Hormones are chemicals. To persist in a belief that hormones have no effect whatsoever on mental activity, development, acceleration, seems preposterous.
Males and females have different hormonal balances.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Have not read the entire thread, yet.
But I find that some here may be disregarding or ignoring, to varying degrees, the factor of chemicals.
The brain is functioning with electrical signals flowing through chemicals. Without the foundation of chemicals and their conductivity for electrons, our mental activity would not exist.
Hormones are chemicals. To persist in a belief that hormones have no effect whatsoever on mental activity, development, acceleration, seems preposterous.
Males and females have different hormonal balances.

The thing is, though, that no one is saying the have no influence. Not that I have seen.

All I see is a lot of people overstating their "opponent's" position. In both directions.

I would find a polite and open-minded discussion about the influence of genetics/hormones vs. training&socialisation - and how they influence each other - very interesting, but it's all become so aggressive.

RUE

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:03 PM

"... it was forced on them from the fact that that they were dressed in pink dresses and given girl toys from before they could even talk."

It was forced on them b/c they looked like girls when they were born. They had the hormone status of girls. They behaved enough like other girls so that they FELT no different from other girls.

But let's say your argument is true. Doesn't that mean that gender IS socially determined ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KPO

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:36 AM

Quote:
It was forced on them b/c they looked like girls when they were born. They had the hormone status of girls. They behaved enough like other girls so that they FELT no different from other girls.

I'm not convinced by the whole 'identity' argument, because I wouldn't expect children that young to have a well developed sense of identity - certainly not one that they have cultivated in their own mind. It would have to be an in-depth psychological study (which it's not) into the gender identity of one of the 'boys', while still pre-pubescent (not retrospective questioning) - and even then I wouldn't pay it give it too much significance (as you would be analysing the sense of identity of a 7 year old).

Quote:
But let's say your argument is true. Doesn't that mean that gender IS socially determined ?

Hmm, no. I think we've established that gender is to a large extent hormonally determined. Now the question is, are hormones genetically or socially determined?

This study seems to suggest genetically - therefore perhaps of more interest to Rouka than to me?

Heads should roll

RUE

Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:22 AM

"I'm not convinced by the whole 'identity' argument, because I wouldn't expect children that young to have a well developed sense of identity ..."
Basic identity is formed before age 5.

"... as you would be analysing the sense of identity of a 7 year old."
Or a 9 year old or 12 year old. Way to go to overstate the article in order to try and 'prove' your point ! "... began to realize they were different from the other girls in the village between 7 and 12 years of age ..."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, May 2, 2009 3:04 AM

I've heard that homosexuals know they're homosexuals even before puberty. I think some aspects of identity can set in pretty early. And it must be terribly confusing and stressful when identity changes without having any control over it.

RUE

Saturday, May 2, 2009 3:26 AM

Hey Bytemite

I'm not about to tell you how MANY decades ago I was in college ---- but we actually covered that specific population and that specific issue in class. That's how I knew to go looking for that item. Anyway, apparently the people there have a fair bit of common lore about that event. And the cultural attitude seems to be - well, not all girls grow up to be women. Some become men. Not a big deal is made of it --- MUCH much less than being GLBT here.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PHOENIXROSE

Saturday, May 2, 2009 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I've heard that homosexuals know they're homosexuals even before puberty. I think some aspects of identity can set in pretty early. And it must be terribly confusing and stressful when identity changes without having any control over it.

As I said in my long ramble many many posts up the page, I was bi before I hit puberty. I had 'attractions' before it was about sex, and I started having them in kindergarten. So yes, it can set in and be known pretty early.

Anyone here heard about this 16-year-old German transexual? Started identifying as female before the age of four, started taking hormone therapy at around puberty, and had totally completed her sex change byt the time she was fifteen. She has a girl's voice, the early hormone treatment made sure it didn't drop, and she is embarking on a singing career. Oh, and she likes boys, at least it sounded that way.

[/sig]

KPO

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:04 AM

Quote:
rue wrote:
Friday, May 01, 2009 16:22
"I'm not convinced by the whole 'identity' argument, because I wouldn't expect children that young to have a well developed sense of identity ..."
Basic identity is formed before age 5.

"... as you would be analysing the sense of identity of a 7 year old."
Or a 9 year old or 12 year old. Way to go to overstate the article in order to try and 'prove' your point ! "... began to realize they were different from the other girls in the village between 7 and 12 years of age ..."

If I remember right I was proposing a more in-depth study into these kids’ gender identity. Between 7 and 12 is when they start to get confused by other factors so you shouldn’t test kids within that age range – I probably should have said ‘6 year old’. And it still wouldn’t be a good scientific study into; ‘whether these boys naturally identify as girls’, because one other big influencing factor (that you feminists are particularly fond of) - they have been dressed in pink dresses and told that they are girls - which is bound to have an effect on a young, impressionable male mind.

Basically Your linked 2-paged article didn’t have a massive amount of weight – no compelling, well-evidenced, scientific argument… just a brief report and the author’s own interpretation of data we don’t have access to.

You know I want to argue that these kids would be subtly different to the ‘other girls’ because they are genetically male - and this would make their brains develop differently in some respects at least, even without male hormones... but the truth is I’m no expert in this field and I could be underestimating the role of hormones. All foetuses start out as females, up until male hormones kick in, right? If female is kind of a default setting then I have less reason to think that these genetic males wouldn’t identify as girls until some male hormones finally kick in and masculinise their brains.

Heads should roll

RUE

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:38 PM

"‘whether these boys naturally identify as girls’, because one other big influencing factor (that you feminists are particularly fond of) - they have been dressed in pink dresses and told that they are girls - which is bound to have an effect on a young, impressionable male mind."

And then there was the drunk French doctor - who while performing a circumcision using an electric cautery went a little too far - OOPS ! So, they took the rest off, started the boy on hormones, called him a girl and carried on. But he never FELT like a girl. He always FELT different. (In the end he had a sex-reassignment surgery and hormones to make him back to what he was.) There are a number of cases where people have tried to raise boys as girls - even gone to extreme measures - and it is generally unsuccessful.

And then there are the inter-sex children who they used to try and correct early with surgery and hormones given the preponderance of characteristics. Problem is, they often didn't get it right. So now the current thinking is to let them grow up and find out what they feel like before trying to make them one sex or the other.

You really don't know much about the topic, do you ? Instead of learning, which is what you need to be doing, you're just arguing b/c you want to prove I'm 'wrong'. It's all about your feelings about me, and not about the topic - isn't it ?

Troll.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KPO

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:50 PM

Quote:
you're just arguing b/c you want to prove I'm 'wrong'. It's all about your feelings about me, and not about the topic - isn't it ?

No, what would I have against you? It's nothing personal.

You quoted of mine:

"‘whether these boys naturally identify as girls’

The key word is 'naturally'. I'm not saying that these boys definitely wouldn't identify as girls without the cultural influence, your article suggest they would - I'm just saying as a scientist it isn't conclusive because of this extra factor... unfair test and all that.

Right now I'm really more interested in the role of hormones. Your first example is easily solved with the explanation of prenatal male hormones in the french baby (unlike the boys in your article) - due to these the brain had already developed into a distinctly 'male brain', and cultural influences are not strong enough to change it.

Heads should roll

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And then there was the drunk French doctor - who while performing a circumcision using an electric cautery went a little too far - OOPS ! So, they took the rest off, started the boy on hormones, called him a girl and carried on.

If I was that kid I would SO end that quack.

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:18 PM

To this day - no one knows why anyone identifies as one sex or the other - or both, or neither for that matter.

It's not as simple as 'genetics' or 'hormones '. Some genetic/ biological males or females do identify at an early age as the opposite sex, and no amount of social conditioning changes that. Intersex children don't always identify with their predominant characteristics, or with their genetics. And then we have the DR example where girls identify as girls, who later become men and identify as men. (BTW, they don't 'dress their girls in pink'.)

There is no infallible biological test for sexual identity, and no infallible biological predictor. For the most part, genetic/ biological males and females identify, and quite early, as their apparent sex. But not always.

Also, if you want to know how someone identifies, find who they compare themselves to. In the case of the DR people, at first they compare themselves to other girls, then they compare themselves (and their equipment) to other men. Their sexual identity has fundamentally changed.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:23 PM

ChrisIsAll

I wish I could remember what happened to the doctor. It was an infamous case, but I learned about it decades ago, in the same (biological psychology) class where I learned about males born as females. At this point I don't remember. Perhaps a google search would bring it up ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
To this day - no one knows why anyone identifies as one sex or the other - or both, or neither for that matter.

Well. I know.
I was raised on the original Star Trek, so my identification with Kirk is where my sexuality & female-fascination all began. From six I realized my role in this 'Verse as an overly dramatic skirt-chaser.

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:49 PM

Don't let ... it bother ... you. As for ... the overly ... dramatic part - I'll believe it when ... you start ... making odd pauses.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:54 PM

I see that you are aquainted with the Shat.

The laughing Chrisisall

KPO

Thursday, May 7, 2009 2:16 AM

Ok last post for a while, I'll try not to harass you anymore after this rue.

Quote:
It's not as simple as 'genetics' or 'hormones '

What else is there to explain sexual identity? Unless you believe that human beings have souls or spirits or something, sexual identity is in the brain, and the brain is shaped by genes and hormones - what else?

Cases of identity confusion (psychology not matching up to a person's gender) in their most extreme form seem to arise from some kind of biological phenomenon, like a defective genetic trigger which fails to trigger male hormones.

Similarly, I have heard the psychology of male-female transexuals and some gay men explained by the phenomenon of an immune reaction in the womb against 'male-only proteins on a boy fetus'. This would have the effect of feminising the boy's brain. And would explain why some gay men throw like girls.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19960501-000003.html

Quote:
There is no infallible biological test for sexual identity, and no infallible biological predictor.

No test as yet, but don't you think as a scientist that it is all in our wiring somewhere, waiting to be understood? You should find this interesting:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20031024-000002.html

Heads should roll

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3