Gender pay gap

I'm not addressing any further the straw man of "so women don't like shopping" (hilariously you seem to be unaware that shopping is a very vague and large term, and is something that you can do for other people lol which is probably why women ON AVERAGE put thought/effort into gifts for other people)

Also, all the relevant studies were previously posted, here they are again

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):

Berenbaum (1992): bit.ly/2uKxpSQ

Beltz (2011): bit.ly/2hPXC1c

Baron-Cohen (2014): bit.ly/2vn4KXq

Hines (2016): bit.ly/2hPYKSu

Also, here's a jezebel article you can read jezebel.com/5837365/male-sex-hormones-may-make-women-more-interested-in-things

"The scientists found that girls and young women with CAH were more interested in careers related to "things" — such as engineering or surgery — than their were non-CAH counterparts. Non-CAH women, meanwhile, were more interested in people-related fields like teaching and social work. Said study author Adriene Beltz,"

Yes that is a good question.

Please can you answer assassinated's question.

I tend to get carried away, she is more succinct.

I am actually lolling at the idea that people don't go shopping to look at and maybe buy things.

Or, radical thought here, as this is a discussion you could say why you think that shopping isn't a reasonable example of women being interested in things?

What does one go shopping for if not things?

Well food,

The rest of it is things, I'm fairly sure.

What do you go shopping for, if not things?

• Hello DH I'm doing the shopping list, what things do we need?
• Things? THINGS? I have literally no idea what you mean wife, that is a nonsensensical question. Now go away and read these studies until you understand. Also, observe my people skills

Maybe you guys should go look up exactly what is meant by "people" and "things to avoid using irrelevant examples like "shopping"

What is meant by preferring "people" or "things" in these types of statements is also always highly gendered.

The "things" that girls like do somehow not count as "things" when it comes to statements like "boys like things more". When it's pointed out that plenty of girls are merrily obsessed with things, they say, oh not those sort of things, boy sorts of things. The girl sort of things don't count as things, things are things like things with wheels, or things to make things. Not things to draw things, obviously, because that is different. Lots of girls like that. No, things to make things, like lego. Except pink lego, which counts as preferring people, not things. Boys lego which is blue and red and yellow shows that boys like things. Not people. Of course you know what I mean, you're just being deliberately obtuse.

It was related to that posters assertion that

"There's also evidence that prenatal hormone levels influence female/male differences in behaviour and interests, eg girls more interested in people, boys more interested in things."

I was questioning if that is true, given that, in general, I don't think that girls are more interested in people (anyone been in smiggle lately? certainly plenty of girls been keenly interested in "things" in there) or that boys are more interested in "things" (groups of boys are to be found every weekend enjoying each other's company in all manner of pursuits).

These sexist studies and evo psych types have a lot to answer for.

The very idea that a girl who likes, what, mechanics or something, or wants short hair, must have a boy brain, she must have got some boyness from somewhere, probably been testosteroned in the womb, yes that'll cover it off. They used to say this sort of thing about lesbians. So regressive.

"Yes, women like shopping. This doesn't mean that all women like shopping. It doesn't mean that all men don't like shopping"

Ok, I'm confused. Women in general like shopping more than men do, is surely what was meant? But, you don't want to discuss any other examples than the ones you brought up because you regard them as straw men, is that right?

Oh lol just seen this:

"I select which bits I reply to because those are the bits which I deem worthy of follow up".

Yessir righto

That's hilarious.

We get these come over sometimes don't we, to set us straight, so generous.

@assassinatedbeauty

Yes, women like shopping. This doesn't mean that all women like shopping. It doesn't mean that all men don't like shopping

It's also a straw man because shopping isn't something I brought up

Of course women like shopping is at population level (and a stereotype).

Men also like shopping (at a population level) although their shopping is somehow not deemed frivolous in the same way that women's is. You can see them browsing in a wide range of shops, every weekend.

"Women like shopping" is at a population level, surely?

"When you say that men aren't interested in people, is this something you've observed personally?"

Again with the straw man, here's an idea,, read the relevant studies that I linked

I'm busy now, bye!

@sardinereturns

"I can't believe there are people arguing that at a population level men are simply not interested in people and women are simply not interested in things.
So, women don't like shopping, now?"

Congratulations on an exceptional example of a Cathy Newman "so you're saying" straw man

I already addressed how nonsensical it is to use "on average at population level" at an individual level e.g. Men on average are taller than women, doesn't mean women can't be taller than men, but thanks for making me repeat myself

And I select which bits I reply to because those are the bits which I deem worthy of follow up e.g. The rest of your posts to me don't make any sense so they're being ignored

Tell a lie, disturbingly doesn't agree with you

The fact remains that you are cutting out context, arguing with things that people haven't said, at cross purposes, and generally not engaging with the meat of what people are saying.

Your "conversation" style is confusing, and to be honest rather tedious.

When you say that men aren't interested in people, is this something you've observed personally?

And you have entirely FAILED to engage with the other point about the girls - that some had experienced sexual abuse - and how that might link in to their feelings about their bodies and their sex.

This selective cut n paste thing is very frustrating.

This stuff is not about a conversation, but about trying to "win".

If you have to selectively cut and paste (ie change the meaning / remove the context) rather than engaging with the actual argument, then I'm sorry to advise you, that you have almost certainly "lost".

I can't believe there are people arguing that at a population level men are simply not interested in people and women are simply not interested in things.
So, women don't like shopping, now?

This is silly.

READ what people are saying and engage with it rather than picking bits out and arguing at them. Also. Double check before replying so that you dont' accidentally strike up an argument with somene who is supporting you - that is an absolute sign that you aren't really bothering to read what people are writing, which says how much you respect what they have to say, ie, you don't.

fmsfms in your desperation to have an argument, you have singled out a comment from someone who agreed with you.

You said:

""You're just making stuff up though, and picking stuff that meets your expectations - you're only saying women are more interested in people than things because you're cherry picking what interests there are.."

Sorry what? Here are just a selection of studies on different interests between the sexes and influence of testosterone"

It was Disturbingly who made the comment you quote and argue with, about cherry picking.

How do you expect people to have a conversation with you if you can't even be bothered to read the posts properly? If you jump to conclusions about who is saying what?

Or are you actually challenging Diturbingly on their "cherry picking" comment, even though they were on your "side"?

@AssassinatedBeauty

"Before you give up on me, would you clarify that the studies you've posted about prenatal testosterone are about girls with CAIS? As in, children who are male (XY) with an intersex condition? Perhaps I've misunderstood about that."

The studies are referring to CAH: congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which I understand to be a variety of related conditions

In context of studies it seems to refer to females exposed to excessively high male hormonoes during development, this may result in ambiguous genitals, it may not.

All the studies refer to "girls" or "females" so I assume their subjects were not intersex

Regardless the more I think about it the more confusing it becomes: If autism is really an excessively "male" brain, then perhaps highly autistic females also have excessively male/masculinised brains - is that truly gender dysphoria or not?

I think I disagree with a lot of people on this board because I do think people are genuinely being born in the wrong body (their minds don't align with the body)

I'm not sure whether we should be encouraging autistic females to identify as trans.

The fact that 12 autistic girls in one school are identifying as trans leads me to believe there's a social element to those diagnosis

But to reiterate, I don't think the influence of hormones on behaviour, personality and interests can be so easily dismissed as the "but read Cordelia Fine" crowd want you to believe.

Also, forgive the continuing questions, but you seem to be saying that the gender pay gap exists due to natural and inevitable differences between women and men. Unless I've misunderstood you?

So, you wouldn't be interested in any attempts to change the current situation as it's entirely to be expected, is that right?

Before you give up on me, would you clarify that the studies you've posted about prenatal testosterone are about girls with CAIS? As in, children who are male (XY) with an intersex condition? Perhaps I've misunderstood about that.

@assassinatedbeauty "There's a lot of "if's" in your argument and I'm not convinced that you can be certain of those "if's" being definitively provable. "

Well actually I can back up all of those "If's" with studies (they've already been posted)

The purpose of posting "If" was to show the step by step chain which might lead one to a reasonable conclusion that autistic girls suddenly identifying as transgender have more masculine like interests that are attributable to something other than gender dysphoria

Regardless, going round and circles to correct your misinterpretations of my posts is getting old so I think I’m done for a while

I was referring to your post at 12.43pm, where I summarised what you said. So what you wrote in that post is an incorrect summary of what you think, and the Guardian article is a red herring that you don't put any particular relevance on?

There's a lot of "if's" in your argument and I'm not convinced that you can be certain of those "if's" being definitively provable.

Regardless of where it comes from, girls with autism and "masculine" interests/traits shouldn't feel that being transgender is the only way to feel comfortable and accepted for who they are. If only it were the case that it was clear that you can be into whatever interests/present how you like without being told you're masculine or male-like.

@assassinatedbeauty

“That was a summary, in the correct order, of your post using your words. It's ok to say that wasn't what you meant to imply.

Can you explain how you think the guardian anecdote is relevant?”

No it wasn’t, go look at my post from 946am where I said “And I have plenty of studies to hand which suggests there is a “nature” element to the difference in interests”

We were discussing this before the Guardian article was posted.

As for the Guardian article.

If testosterone is responsible for boys having different interests than girls
And if high levels of natal testosterone are responsible for autism
And if high levels of natal testosterone are also responsible for girls having more masculine like interests

Then it’s not outlandish to suggest that autistic girls with more masculine like interests have these interests not because of gender dysphoria but because of their natal testosterone exposure

It’s funny, this board seems understandably very cautious about masculine teenage girls suddenly identifying as transgender and transitioning except when that involves speculating that there may be a "nature” reason for this, which would then involve accepting that testosterone (contrary to previously expressed popular belief) does have some influence on behaviour and personality differences between the sexes