Book recommendation: Delusions of Gender

Post Reply New Topic

"Not for us to say" is an idiom. It doesn't mean the person who said it is trying to censor the discussion in anyway. Rather, they are saying we can't rightly say, because we just don't know. It's not about what you can say, it's about what we can know (or what we do know).

There is a mention of people who are genetically one sex, but their external genitalia is for the other sex. It's not ignored. Though it's not brought up as a topic of it's own because it's really beside the point. The book examines the ideas about gender in many articles and books, and looks at what studies actually show.

And note, there's often a huge difference between what studies show and what newspaper reports about studies claim.

Exactly.

If you read Cordelia Fine's book, you'll find she debunks a lot of research that claims significant biologically originated differences between men and women.

Also, it seems kind of arrogant to suggest that all those animals' gendered behavioral differences are biological, and not, say, social.

I have a book that I haven't quite gotten around to reading yet called "Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars" which I am sure you have heard about...

They should make a book called "NTs are from Earth and Autistics are from Zurg"

A large number of animals are not social creatures like humans, and still exhibit sexual behavioural differences.
Occam's Razor is asking for more proof! (and probably asking me not to anthropomorphise it!)

Hormones alone have strong emotional impact, and those have knock on effects onto some attitudes, perceptions, interactions, and how all of those combine to create the greater individual as a whole.
The vast majority of debunking is based on individuals, not populations.
You cannot (correctly) debunk statistical trends with instances of deviance, it's like trying to use an anecdote to deny a generalisation.
Anecdotes that violate a generalisation only prove that the generalisation is not a rule. But then, if it were a rule it wouldn't be a generalisation anyway. /false-dichotomy

I am not suggesting that animals gendered behavioural differences are all biological, and I specifically said social factors play a huge role as well, so there's no arrogant statement on my behalf.

It is a known fact however, that biology plays a part in gendered behaviour in animals (though social factors contribute in addition).
The arrogance would be in assuming that humans are an exception to this.
Given that humans (likely) have far greater intelligence and social communication than other animals though, the premise that social factors play a larger role in humans than in other animals does seem quite reasonable. The premise that biology is not involved is not reasonable.

Ask most woman that have been on hormonal contraceptives (or supplements) whether that affects state of mind, mood, etc. (here's my anecdote. It does!)
Heck, even the natural hormonal cycle can have a large effect (and even varies person to person).
To assume these biological factors don't influence experiences, interactions, emotional responses and thus affect personal (and emotional) development would be very very unreasonable.

It may also be important to note that genotype, phenotype, and physiology are not always in sync.
Where you say male/female behaviours, you might actually be better looking at oestrogen/androgen influenced behaviours for example.
And these do not perfectly align with the socially defined male/female binary on an individual level. (else, no one would need hormone supplements, and post-menopausal women would have to be considered a third sex!)
Population statistics are generalisations. Often useful, but silly if you take them to heart individually. Gendered behaviour IS population level.

Gender roles, sexual roles, gender performance, gender identity, intersex, sexual differentiation, etc. They are all different things, that's why there are so many (sometimes overlapping) terms in describing sex and gender.

[*reading back* Oh my, wall of text. Sorry!]

I should clarify that Cordelia Fine's book (Delusions of Gender) actually debunks a lot of these sex/gender differences on a statistical - and not anecdotal/individual - basis.

Exactly.




I suggest you shouldn't assume that Cordelia Fine wrote this book based on assumptions. Is it not arrogant to do so? I assure you she didn't do that. She's not assuming anything. And she uses lots of endnotes to show where she got her information. Those who desire and verify it.

She also very much does not deny that there are behavioral difference between men and women. Rather, she's looking at the issue of what the basis of some of those difference are. Differences like career choices, favorite colors, what toy's one likes. Differences that we just don't see in animals.

Regarding animals, seems to me that the vast majority of behavior differences between genders in animals are quite directly related to reproduction, or to getting together to reproduce. Certainly in species where only females, or only males, care for the young there's a huge behavior difference. Humans aren't one of those species. And, as I said, those aren't the kind of differences she's talking about.

I am aware of those differences, and many of those are social; or at the least, socially maintained.
I myself am an anecdotal deviation in terms of career choices, favourite colours, and toys.
I am not saying that many of the socially defined differences are biological, as a (likely quite large) portion of those things are in fact social.

These factors however are frequently overplayed, and almost universally treated as falsely dichotomous.
Just because social factors prevent more even gender splits in certain professions (or behaviours) does NOT mean they do not have some biological basis as well.


This is a valid point, though it should be noted that the differences in most (sexually reproducing) animals relate to reproduction. Nature seems to favour those that reproduce more! (or better offspring!)

Those factors though are also directive, causing many indirect differences.
Mating behaviours of men versus women are certainly different, and those factors also greatly influence the way males and female socialise (both with prospective mates, and with potential competitors for those mates).

Again I feel compelled to raise oestrogen/androgen influences, and on mating behaviour in particular, and suggest that it alone would be sufficient to justify some generalisations about genders. Also note, that many fall outside the 'typical' mating behaviour, LGBT people being the most obvious example. Because individuals do NOT conform to valid population generalisations.
It would be valid for me to say that 'in general, women are attracted to men'. That does not imply that any individual woman must be, or should. Only that if I pick a random sample of women, each is more likely to be male-attracted than not male-attracted.
This specific example is good, because it's reflected widely in the animal kingdom, where there are individuals that have homosexual mating preferences (or pair bonding), deviating from the 'typical' behaviour.

What may also be of interest to you, is the topic of biologically driven cultural evolution.
The concept that biology can impart a slight predisposition that culture then emphasizes.

A possible example of this would be the rather common belief that men are significantly more aggressive (and/or violent) than women.
Most believe this far in excess of statistical evidence.
So something that is likely slightly true (androgens do promote aggression, but personality is likely the biggest factor), becomes enhanced by cultural norms, becomes enshrined in gender roles, and then becomes expressed in gendered perceptions of the general community.
Then, because of the gendered perception, the behaviour self-reinforces itself in men, and is discouraged in women, further widening the gender difference, and thus the perception!

That doesn't mean biology wasn't the initial cause of that gender divide.
Just that the specific biological factor wasn't the sole cause of the end result; Though biological factors likely play into how the people socialise and develop culture in other ways, so the emergent effects of biology on cultural development are nothing short of food for chaos theorists to spend a few centuries trying to understand!

To again draw back to the LGBT example, you can see this effect in action.
Queer culture has developed many different facets, attitudes, and behaviours that don't (or did not, prior to queer cultural development) exist in the wider culture.
There are even studies comparing male homosexual and female heterosexual brain activity, social interaction, emotional responses, coupling, etc.
It's very enlightening, and indicates that biological factors play a much bigger role than social constructionist reasoning tends to imply.

Sometimes too, social factors play against biological, reducing their effect, or reducing gendered differences that may exist biologically.
Social discouragement of early sexual activity certainly reduces (though does NOT eliminate) promiscuous behaviours for example, and tends to do so more strongly towards women.

A great quote that relates to what I'm talking about here.

"The initial organization of the brain does not rely that much on experience... Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises... 'Built-in" does not mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience." (brain scientist Gary Marcus, 2004)

I found it in a video on YouTube I was watching. (Link to spot in the video with that quote.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... axc#t=302s

I really wish people understood that with regards to the autistic spectrum. As I see it, people on the spectrum start out with a different first draft, but they still learn from experience. "'Built-in" does not mean unmalleable."

And, with gender, there's much that's in that "malleable" area. People pick up much of their identity from social clues. Females learn to match their identity to what females are supposed to be. And, remember, we are talking about NTs here. If you are thinking "I'm not like that", you may be right. What's built into our brain is only a starting point.

And, like I said, if you are interested in this, read the book. I'm really not interested in comments from people who think they know what the book says, and try to refute it, without bothering to even look at the book.

The book was not subject to peer-review and its statistics are thus irrelevant.

It is an feminist agenda driven book which will win no respect with anyone other than the ideological adherents of its target audience.

The statistics referenced in the book are from peer-reviewed studies.

It's clear you're not interested in reasonable discussion on this subject, so why participate?