BoysToys

My degree is in biochemistry and human health, just fyi. Though i havent completely finished the third year yet.

I'd just like to suggest that actual direct-linked studies might be better evidence than the tabloid-esque reporting that often comes from New Scientist :)

OP, I don't think anyone has said that there are no innate differences between boys and girls, despite that being what you would very much like people to have said.

People have simply questioned the extent to which testosterone increases violent behaviour and pointed out that socialisation is a huge factor. And that regardless of any innate differences children should still be given a wide range of play opportunities because there is a lot of overlap and things are not completely black and white.

But I'm guessing those arguments are too reasonable for you to respond to.

I would really urge you to watch the Alice Roberts documentary. It acknowledges your monkey study whilst also showing the overwhelming social bias.

crappymummy you forgot to mention the patronising tone. I've felt like I've received an unwanted lecture reading this thread.

you have been a bit agressive (and dismissive) towards anyone who challenges your assertions, at one point questioning people's academic qualifications

you are convinced that boys have an innate preference for some toys, and seem disinterested in discussion

I hope you are able to find the validation you seek

Sometimes I wonder what the point of a thread is when in essence the question it asks is "here is my opinion, agree with it or jump off a cliff- AIBU"

why ask, if you are incredibly dismissive of anyone who doesn't share your opinion?

as an aside, I am fascinated by the idea of 'residual testosterone' that may be present in a male animal which has been castrated. If the glands which produce it are removed, or inoperative, from where is this residual testosterone secreted?

However, to answer your slightly childish questions to me. I would surmise that, given that castrated male meat animals gain weight more quickly, both horses and cats would do the same. I am unsure if that is part of animal husbandry in the countries that eat cat and horse meat, so you may be better served asking on a forum in such a place. I find your attempts to paint me as someone who doesn't like either horses or cats to be rather pathetic and view your attempts to initiate a pile on to be puerile and unworthy of what was shaping up to be an interesting discussion. Your need to know what education people who were showing your theories to be incorrect were transparent too. I believe you started this thread to goad, you constantly reframe it to suit your need to be correct and the disingenuous way you respond to posters merely reinforces my opinion.

A long winded way of saying that I shan't be responding to your goading again on this thread, even if you, as you have done thus far, respond to points I have made to others. I do hope that that at least is clear to you.

carol's correct, in farming they band or crush the testicales so they atrophy and fall off. This is done to all but a very few in order to make them fatten up more quickly, so they earn money for the farmer instead of standing about in fields forever costing money.

A few males are kept intact for breeding purposes, females are kept for this purpose as well. Too many intact animals cause problems within the bloodlines, especially in horses and cattle. Because animal husbandry. Any reduction in sex driven behaviours are a by product and not the main concern. Just because scallops didn't answer, doesn't mean you get to be rude to carol!

Dogs, cats and other pet animals undergo a different procedure, where the scrotum is incised and the testes are popped out, ligated and removed. None of these are done in order to prevent aggression. It is done to prevent disease, to help prevent wandering and help prevent theft of valuable pedigree animals for breeding purposes. Aggressive animals tend to be so because they have been poorly trained, this is, in mine and various other poster's experience nothing to do with being castrated.

While testosterone is one of the hormones involved with aggressive behaviour, it's not the only one by a long shot. This need to concentrate on it as the sole cause of aggressive behaviour is odd.

The example of the elevated amount of hormones post rugby is a good one for showing that correlation does not equal causation. There will also be raised levels of endorphins, glucagon and epinephrine present, amongst many other hormones. There will also be depressed levels of other hormones present, the idea that it's only testosterone causing aggression is simplistic and facile. There's also the salient point that several posters have stated that the friend you mention so derogatorily in your OP is in the majority, perhaps her sons only went along with your need to deride her in order to deflect your scoffing from themselves?

You further state that your experience isn't scientific, and yet you have either ignored or made ridiculous statements when posters have pointed out that, on that point at least, you're correct.

AFAIK, in many cultures, bull castration is followed by a meal usually called an euphemism such as Rocky Mountain oysters, criadillas, and so on.

I understood the testicles were not removed, but the vessels above them crushed. This leads to them atrophying away, but not actually removed in the process.
Most castration is to prevent inferior animals mating, so only the best bred rams mate with the ewes, for example.

SitsOnFence Actually, your conjecture doesn't require any sex difference in how early an interest is developed, just some variability and an age (preschool?) at which suppression comes into play for one sex but not the other. That alone would be sufficient to result in a marked difference.

Re: suppression, it doesn't have to be particularly active. It just has to be a lack of encouragement. It's remarkably wearing to swim upstream as a small child even if your parents are very supportive of whatever you want to do.

*actually it was whilst she was at nursery, so about 3.5 years. She'd never shown any interest in them before this, despite being given lots and having her DB's ones around the house.

Sorry to harp back to testosterone again, but as an owner of animals (horses, dogs, cats), all of which have been castrated, I can honestly say that aggression or the prevention of aggression has never even been a factor in my decision to do so. The cats and dogs were done because I'm a responsible pet owner who doesn't want to contribute to the problem of unwanted animals in rescues and the horse because I didn't want him to have a miserable life shut up in a box for the safety of the mares on the yard and only allowed out to graze in a single tiny paddock (I live in London, where turnout space is at a premium). Also I didn't want to hack out being constantly worried about him running off with me should he scent a mare in season. I neutered all my animals, whether male or female, and didn't notice an appreciable difference in either sex's behaviour. My three cats still tear lumps out of each other when the mood takes them...

I have never come across anyone who neutered an animal to 'stop aggression' , in fact my yard owner (who had a prize winning Welsh C stallion who was a little arsehole) always said that neutering him wouldn't make a ha'porth of difference as that was his personality and as an adult horse he'd still try to mount mares even without the equipment. And she was a well respected breeder with many years experience. The honest truth was that she had no intention of breeding him as he had such a shitty personality, but her husband wouldn't allow him to be gelded. Psychoanalyse that one...

I don't feel I know enough about this to give an informed opinion, although what Lweji has been saying seems to make sense.

Completely anecdotally though, my DD did go through a 'cars and things with wheels' stage, but much later on (around 4 years old). We only spotted it because we had lots of DS's old cars dotted around the house. She didn't and still doesn't play with them at school ("because they are for the boys" ) but loves playing with her Hotwheels overpriced plastic crap sets at home.

As I said, it's completely anecdotal, but it does make me wonder whether it's not so much a case of boys tending to be drawn to fast-moving things, but rather a case of boys tending to be drawn to fast-moving things at an earlier age.

I grew up in the 70s where girls were girls I liked my boys cousins cars and starwars toys was never allowed them it pissed me off so i just let my own girls choose their toys