Gender stereotyping and Autism

Post Reply New Topic

Recently there have been many news stories showing ‘scientific’ demonstrations of innate differences between the sexes. These tend to reinforce keeping the status quo (you never hear about women being innately better at mathematics) and justify using this ‘neurosexism’ to halt or reverse current programmes to promote women in science/maths/the boardroom etc. These stories have always infuriated me (particularly as the experimental data behind them often seems flawed and open to many interpretations, yet gets national coverage, unlike a lot of good science) but also because it seems to me like a con to prevent true equality taking place.

I recently read a book by Cordelia Fine called ‘Delusions of Gender’, which shows how a lot of this ‘pseudoscience’ is in fact statistically flawed, based on prior assumptions of brain function that are unproven and can easily be explained by societal expectations and influences. For example, studies often measure gender brain differences when doing certain tasks, see that genders perform slightly differently on the task and conclude the brain difference causes the ability difference when in fact there is no evidence of causality, the knowledge of what the brain is doing whilst processing a certain task are hazy at the least and often the statistics are only supported with a p value of 0.05, which means this result will happen by chance once in every 20 experiments (and of course the many studies where no gender difference is seen are either not published or are published without mentioning gender so it is difficult to compare the data).

In addition, the expectations of society can influence ability of individuals in extremely subtle ways – for example just requiring people to note their gender before doing a maths test can apparently reduce the overall score that women achieve on the test compared to women who haven’t been reminded of their gender, as can having an excess of male students doing the test. (A similar thing is seen with race or class – black students do worse if they are ‘reminded’ of their ethnicity, students from exclusive private schools do better if ‘reminded’ of their exclusivity). Given the plasticity of the brain, this type of result is not surprising, and it is likely that many gender differences could be overcome if it weren't for societal prejudices. In those cases where there are differences, they are likely going to be small differences in average distribution, which means stereotyping one sex as superior to another in a given skill is unhelpful to anyone of the 'inferior' sex who has innately very high ability. And of course there are significant hormonal differences once puberty hits, which certainly have very obvious physical and psychological effects (particularly relating to sex) but it is unclear whether this can really alter mental abilities or not.

Interestingly, some of the work she reviews is Baron-Cohen's work - he has a theory that autism is an extreme masculinisation of the brain (extreme systemizing). He has a questionnaire which can determine one’s empathizing/systemizing ability and has shown that women are more likely to be empathisers and vice versa for men, although in fact there is a huge amount of overlap even in his studies. However, the questionnaire is leading (i.e. questions such as ‘do you think you are good at …’) and Fine’s book describes other studies which use situations instead of leading questions, where the difference between men and women is much smaller, if at all, indicating how strongly perceived ability due to gender expectations can influence answers.

It occurred to me that if gender is primarily (although not entirely) a social construct imbedded in us from birth (or before), then autistics may just have reduced receptivity to gender expectations, and that although we generally are low empathisers/high systemisers, this is not an extreme masculinisation but in fact a lack of social gender combined with a general shift towards the (gender neutral) systemiser end of the spectrum. I also wonder whether female gender constructions are more artificial than male ones, in that boys are often left to do what they want (although may be encouraged towards sports and discouraged towards ‘feminine’ things) whereas girls are subject to more rigid social expectations (don’t get dirty or fight, be pretty and interested in clothes, makeup, be empathetic and sympathetic etc.) that have been necessary in order to make them subversive to men’s wishes (whether that be not asserting themselves in the workplace, doing the housework or being sex objects). But maybe as a woman I just notice the social pressures (which I do not fit) on women more.

I think there is something to it. Or rather: I wish this was true. Unfortunately it would be unable to be tested except if we could create a cult which has reverse ideason gender and lives away from the world, then has 2 generations of complete isolation.

DUH!



So then half the people, maybe all, should have a sex change? I guess EVERYONE should just be neuter to make them VERY equal there. And smart people should get a lobotomy, etc... Is there ANY way to make everyone EQUAL?



Well, from the standpoint of something like language or math, I agree. I mean I am MALE, so I am supposed to be slow and bad with language, and great with math. NEITHER is true. But there are things that men, and girls or even women, historically have done with apparent pleasure, and even as hobbies. If nurture could do such things, all would be great. But there are STILL problems and they show nurture does NOT work that well!



GIVE ME A BREAK! Females and blacks are smarter than that. Even if they WERE worse than white males, they are as smart as they are, and would want to give themselves a chance. Some BLACKS are led to believe that they are the BEST! PERIOD! HECK, some females are also. The idea that they, even on a subconscious level, would reduce their performance, because they are reminded of what they are, is ludicrous.



Plasticity, ironically, refers to something more permanent than a mere test.



The leading questions are unfortunately required to test many reliably. It isn't a conspiracy.



Well, gender differences obviously go deeper than society. And WHY do all societies seem to have the same type of behaviour, even going back thousands of years? Parents have the SAME gender specific problems with children from a very young age, even if homeschooled.

But WHO CARES? Things worked well as they were for millenia.

It is crazy how women tend to be better with kids, who are more comfortable with them, and women have breasts, but they would want to trade places with the men in those roles. I guess some man genetically engineered them also, huh?

Females are just different. Not better, not worse, just different. So YEAH, they may TEND to not be as good in some things and TEND to be better in others. That doesn't make them inferior. HECK, if I had a wife, I would LIKE her to be feminine, LOVE IT, etc... She could, among other things, fit in areas where I cant and we could BOTH be better for it. That IS what marriage is supposed to be about. To marry something is to make it one.

There is a tradition in restaurants where they will turn a ketchup bottle atop another to combine the ketchup and take two bottles that are near empty and make a full one. THAT is called MARRYing the ketchup!

Gender roles are societal constructs and only exist in so far as we let them. It's not a conspiracy. It's just that humans have the innate ability to categorize and simplify the world around them. This in turn leads to stereotyping. We are programmed to recognize patterns and we extrapolate the information to draw new conclusions. It can be both an advantage and a detriment.

We each carry around certain expectations about what we should be and how we should act. This influences us, whether we like it or not. Black-and-white or binary thinking is common and nobody likes to have their view of the world challenged by all of the "in-betweens". The reality is that people don't fit nicely into labels. But we like to think we do.

I think the idea is that those with AS may not be as willing or able to conform to these societal norms or expectations, so what you may end up with is a more accurate portrayal of what people are like without all of the pretense. How they are viewed, though, is once again, societally determined.

A man that enjoys gardening may be in one culture considered to be masculine and in another, feminine. Regardless, he is just doing what he enjoys. The action is the same, but the difference is in how it is perceived by others. Whether he decides to change his activities to something more "acceptable" or whether he is encouraged to continue will depend on what sort of feedback he receives from others or how much he cares about what others think of him. It will also depend on other factors like location or time period, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the action is the same, but it's all about how it is perceived or categorized. Human variation is always there to mess up our clear cut labels. But just because our labels don't strictly exist don't make them any less important to us. They can and will affect how we think and act.

Hi MerryMadScienstist, I read her book too- loved it!

I can't stand those godawful studies on gender differences. They're such a f*****g waste of time. Last one I read was even in the New Scientist mag! Something about how a group of about 40 female-to-male transexuals had a different brain to a group of 1000 women.. ergo women think differently from men...

Ah, here's the gem: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... e-men.html

I wouldn't mind, but's like a bloody ecosystem of misinformation: some bad study is made, gets quoted by a pop-science mag which in turn gets quoted by the daily mail or woman's rag... becoming 'fact'.

I think there are differences (at least when speaking of genetics and hormones and the like), but they aren't absolute and they tend to get blown completely out of proportion.

One study does not equal fact.

I completely agree!

Or you could just look at different cultures. Which do have different results. Pink used to be for boys, while blue was for girls. American doctors are stereotypically male, while Russian doctors are stereotypically female. Native americans were matriarchal. Biology seems to have been invaded by women in most western countries, though (as every science) it used to be male. Oh, and you know why science was male? Because it was known women were bad at it. Just like science proved blacks were closer related to monkeys than humans.

Science isn't neutral.

Syrella, I don't know... at least I'm capable of having an "uncertain" box. Or realize that "most likely" doesn't mean "certainly". Or that it's none of their buisness. NTs should be able to learn that, at least the last one. I mean, if it was just a matter of patterns you'd be a bit surprised at a man in a skirt, but no more than that. It takes a lot more to start harassing him. While with women, no one today cares whether she wears a skirt or pants.

I think I get what you're saying.

First off, a skirt is just an article of clothing and we can say that skirts aren't specifically male or female. Scottish kilts, anyone? But how society perceives them today is definitely colored a certain way. Because skirts are considered to be women's clothing nowadays, a man wearing a skirt definitely sticks out.

And you're right, simply noticing a difference isn't enough to start harassing someone.

But if that person happens to stand between you and your otherwise perfect man vs woman dichotomy (for example you start thinking that his wearing a skirt means your own masculinity is being called into question simply by association), then you might be offended and feel you need to do something about it. Whatever the case, it's obviously driven you to action.

Mind you, some stereotypes may protect us too. If you see a guy coming at you with a kitchen knife, probably your best bet is to get out of there and question later. Who knows? Maybe he is a chef at the local restaurant on his way home from work. Something perfectly innocent. But recognizing these sorts of patterns is the first step towards actually doing something about it. In the process, though, you've just stereotyped the fellow. It may have saved your life, though.

I think NT's or people in general are capable of working past the stereotyping and the labeling. The key step is just being aware of it to begin with. If you're not aware of it, you can't do anything about it.

I guess that x y chromosome thing isn't that significant.

The problem isn't studying gender interferences. The problem is separating good science from bad. It is just as narrow minded to suggest that the difference between the sexes are negligible, irrelevant, social constructs, blah blah blah if you don't have the science to back it up.

Good science strips away subjectivity and bias. I'd like to see more good science on the matter.

Yeah, and you never hear that women are smarter than men either. That's right, our society is totally biased towards men, and no one every says anything in favor of women.

But why do people make those dichotomies to begin with?

Oh, definitely. But there's a big difference between noting a difference and noting something dangerous.

Even if there were psychological differences between most men and most women, what good would come from studies on it? They would just be used to justify stereotypes. People should be accepted as they are, not coerced into boxes.

Oh, and an interesting article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... rentPage=1

There were two studies, and several others done over the past decade. I don't think these two actually make any claims about how men or women behave, but are trying to explain a particular behavior/psychology - that is, the need some transgender people have to transition. That is an empirically observed behavior that may very well have neurological underpinnings (and mounting evidence implies this is so), but it's not about gender differences in behavior or psychology or aptitudes at all, but about how people experience their bodies.

Some may use this study to claim that, but if so they are making claims the study itself never did.

I do think the stories claim that the studies established far greater, more distinct, more separable differences than they actually did. I believe (but could be mistaken) that the white matter distribution for masculinized brains overlaps a lot with the white matter distribution for feminized brains - that is, broad ranges with subtle differences. This type of finding would be consistent with nearly everything else in neurology.



Gender and sex aren't the same thing. Gender is how society socially categorizes people, stating that people with one type of anatomy are men and another type of anatomy are women (and then forcing those who don't clearly fit into these categories into fitting one, but that's another story). This is not a benign process, given that as stated in this thread women do have more social expectations and are typically positioned in some way as inferior to men, which is the point of sexism.

Gender itself is largely a cultural construct that only has a biological basis in that people are assigned genders based on what their bodies look like. "Gender" demands differences, and imposes them. Many of these differences are perpetuated via stereotype threat (women who are told that women are bad at math do worse at math as one example - this has been researched as well). Cordelia Fine's book actually really does go into a lot of detail debunking these supposed differences as well as attempts to root those differences as sex differences.

I didn't see any suggestions in this thread that gender is a negligible, irrelevant social construct. I know that it's neither negligible or irrelevant, as it is so pervasive, but this doesn't mean it has a meaningful existence that predicts male or female behavior, aptitudes, or psychology.

Neither are they fully separable. Attempting to discuss gender without sex is impossible.



Fine. Except that social constructs are a direct result of what? Genetics. We are what we are because our genetics via evolution have brought about a species whose perception and processing invokes the social constructs that surround us. You cannot escape this. Even if social constructs are bizarrely irrational, they still emanate from the consciousness of the human brain which is fully linked to our genetics.



Categorizing by anatomy is incorrect? There are very few clearer distinctions. I have a penis. My wife has a vagina. I have to assume when you use the terms "men" and "women" you are also including the baggage of social gender stereotypes.



This is a challenge to the social constructs, which needs to be made. But it in no way gives any scientific weight to the idea that men and women have the same strengths and weaknesses. What gets confused are the terms "same","different",""equal" and "inferior". Men and women are not the same. Men and women are equal. Women are different than men. Women are not inferior to men.



But never what those bodies do?



Differences exist. Period. Gender is the scope of discussion of those differences. How a society perverts those differences is a different question. Again, you cannot have a discussion over gender issues without having first a sexual difference.



Agreed. The perpetuation of false ideas is a serious problem, But discarding the possibility of gender differences as a necessary social construct is absurd. Men and women ARE different. Those differences cannot be ignored. The social constructs that should be created around those differences should be based on equality. The idea of inferiority should be removed. But you cannot discard the differences.



Which is good stuff.



I brought it into the thread since it is relevant. There is an idea in circulation that gender differences are bad no matter what.



The pervasiveness of gender stereotypes based in nothing more than speculative ideas of gender roles is a serious problem. Using existing gender roles to build psychological theories is bad science. Good science would examine the differences and give good information that would allow gender roles more consistent with what are real and substantive differences rather than imagined and ingrained ones.

Actually, there IS an OLD song about women being smarter!

http://www.lyricsg.com/166019/lyrics/th ... arter.html

But HEY, women are lauded just like men are and were. Madame Curie even got credit! OK, that didn't end well, but a lot of men have the SAME problems!

Actually, it's mentioned quite commonly that women have higher IQs than men. I was being sarcastic in reference to what I saw as an ignorant generalization. As an aside, IQ measures several different areas of aptitude, so it's possible that women have higher intelligence overall, but men are better at one particular area (i.e. mathematics). Another thing you have to remember is that people who are skilled in mathematics are outliers, as most people suck at it, male or female.