Reclaiming (evolutionary) biology! (thinking about what Heather Brunskell Evans said)

I think this will always wind me up if the word 'personality' is used as a catch all.

-disposition
-abilities and talents
-interest and obsession
-weaknesses and flaws
-extroversion/introversion
-conscience/moral compass
-independence or seeking belonging
-and many more

So many different things that will affect someone's behaviour.

Some things don't really change in people, some things are suppressed in order to get by and the mask is in danger of slipping.

The things a child is 'born with' are extremely pronounced but whether that strong personality is a more male group of traits or female group of traits seems to be the least significant question.

The danger is when ideas trickle down like when my friend, who is a teacher, was appalled that her colleague set up a table 'for boys' and a table 'for girls' in her early years lesson planning.

I can personally vouch for a lifetime of regret where I didn't pursue interests because they weren't 'for me' and other girls weren't also pursuing them.

So it is important that the intellectual exploration of this idea is handled carefully, bias stringently guarded against, with multiple safeguards, and not publicised in such a way that is crudely taken on by biased people with authority and decision-making power. It seems impossible really.

Thingybob

I don't consider myself a proper feminist, although I agree with many feminist objectives, as I can't buy into the denial of innate psychological differences between the sexes. If I've raised my concerns previously I get shouted down with waffle about socialisation and patriarchy and told this is a fundamental feminist belief.

I agree that there has previously been quite a lot of hostility on this board to this subject. It's been a silver lining to the trans fiasco that so many new voices have been drawn to the board, that it's now become possible to discuss it. I was so pleased to see this thread.

For me, the most important thing is to keep an open mind. There is no conclusive evidence at the moment, even though we may feel the evidence points in a particularly direction.

I bought the blank slate theories completely when I was young (was at Uni in the 70s, when they were at their height). Not just on feminism, but other social/political issues as well. That changed after my first child was born. I didn't have any particular maternal felings during pregnancy, which meant I was utterly shocked by the huge psychological changes that I experienced in the space of 24 hours after she was born, when my priorities and attitudes were simply turned upside down (in a good way, but still astounding to my rational self). I was stunned by the revelation that biology could be so powerful, which went against all my previous beliefs. It made me wonder: if innate factors can be so psychologically powerful here, what other things might they potentially influence, rather than just socialisation?

That was in 25 years ago, and led me to start reading, and the more I read the angrier I got at having been so misled in my whole worldview by ideologically based wishful thinking, wishful thinking that I was coming to see had no scientific basis. I felt I had been duped. This affected my attitude toward feminism, as well. I still saw myself as a feminist, but felt my ideas generally would no longer be acceptable to most feminists.

I came to Mumsnet a few years ago now, so relatively recently, but these feelings made me react very negatively to reading some of the more dogmatic voices that used to dominate these threads, to the extent that I really didn't want to participate in discussions at all. Reading this thread, it's good to see that I wasn't alone in those feelings.

Reading about the trans issue has made me revisit my feminist principles. My core understanding, gained right at the beginning, that it is differences in biology that have led to women's oppression, has been reaffirmed. But I feel strongly now that any kind of social activism absolutely should not be based on pre-conceived, ideologically based ideas. We saw where that went with the blank slate-ism of Marxism, and the subsequent disillusionment and loss of focus of the left.

PerkingFaintly I'm so pleased you're interested. Let me know what you think of the article!

It pisses me off, not for ideological reasons, when people say men and women are different psychologically, but because it sharply jars against my actual experience. Yet I do think women and men are different when it comes to sexuality and the changes of parenthood. But this is not personality.

I think I see what you're getting at, but from my reading on this issue, simple phrase "different psychologically" can refer to a huge number of things, not just personality. 'Psychology' basically refers to anything going on in the brain, so in my understanding, "sexuality and the changes of parenthood" would be included.

Also, almost any discussion of human differences by people involved in psychology research, whether they're talking about sex or age or any other categorisation, will be talking about average differences over a large population, even if that is not made explicit in every sentence. So they might talk about 'how 17 year olds and 25 year olds differ in executive function' for example, but they'd be talking about an average, not implying that no 17 year olds have good executive function mature and no 25 year olds lack it.

Great thread! placemarking- coming back to learn more from you all when I have a bit more time.

The problem with some of all this is that if you (crudely) argue for the impact of hormones on brain function esp linked to female biology, you run the risk of it being used against us. At the same time, these hormones and life stages can have effects on women specifically that need to be taken into account. Eg menopause.

It's all so extremely complex as there are so many variables.

I do believe in nature first, and then nurture (or lack of) after. I never see the point of the verses debate.

For example, a child I teach has Williams syndrome. He has the characteristics of people with this condition: extremely happy, kind and helpful. To the point where we have to tell him he can feel upset or cross about something. Very poor visual spatial coordination. This is an extreme specific condition but we are all a result of our genes first and then environmental factors.

Correct me if I’m wrong but there seems to be different strands within feminism regarding similarities and differences between the sexes.

On the one hand some say there are likely to be negligible biological sex differences in cognitive function and personality. The observed differences are due to ‘nurture’. Therefore we should look to have equal ratios in jobs.

On the other hand there are definite sex differences in behaviour, which cannot be overcome by ‘nurture’/later life changes. Therefore the trans debate.

A gross simplification I know. The 2 are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but interesting as not necessarily compatible views either.

Agree with goosefoot. Hormones affect personality, behaviour, priorities. Inject testosterone/oestrogen into animals and there will probably be a behavioural change (eg displays of aggression, risk taking) - don’t think many would argue against this.

The more controversial issue is whether at higher level cognitive tasks the hormonal mix affects brain functioning. So do people with higher testosterone/oestrogen perform better/worse at navigation, localisation, focus, listening tasks? Does the timing of hormone surges matter (eg for physical development effect on height only occurs if this is prior to bone fusion at the end of puberty - is there something similar for brain development)? Differences between sexes cognitive functioning at a population level seem very plausible (in a similar way to height) - though difficult to prove and quantify.

I'd also not say having male and female biologically based tendencies has much, or really anything, to do with being into "gendered" stuff. Even women or men who are on the more extreme side of the biological element may have little interest in the cultural instantiations of gender.

As for pregnancy hormones, yes, that's when people often see it most clearly, that their thinking and behaviour has this physiologically driven element. I notice it in relation to my menstrual cycle, especially since I've gone into my 40s, there are some pretty clear personality differences as the oestrogen drops. But that isn't other than what we are the rest of the time - or hormonal makeup is us. That weird fussy crazy pregnant and breastfeeding personality is our personality. And those hormones and hormonal effects are there all the time, for women and men, we just tend not to notice them unless they change more quickly than usual or get really ramped up.

I don't think we can rule out that there are similar population level differences between men (on average) and women (on average) for cognitive or behavioural traits which have a genetic as well as an environmental component..

And we don't have that vacuum of socialisation to be able to test the hypothesis either...

We don't have to be 'blank slates' in order to not be born gendered- every mother knows, especially if they have more than one child, that we all come with predispositions and personalities from the off. As to whether you can tell if a baby has a 'male' or 'female' predisposition I seriously doubt. How could you ever agree?

I have a personality which is neither male or female and I always get on with both women and men who are likewise independent of gendered stereotypes- I feel a bit awkward around people who are really into gender- a bit like a bookworm amongst jocks - I just smile and try to get through it. I'm not alone. There are an awful lot of women who just do not give any fucks about all the gendered shit we are supposed to be interested in, the same with men. The people who believe its worthwhile and necessary to define psychological sex remind me of jocks cornering me and asking what team I support when I don't give a shit about their sport.

I did notice big changes in myself during pregnancy - fretting, fussing, obsessing about cleaning and nest building and having meltdowns if things weren't right - but this was my hormones directing me- prior to that I didn't do much that was particularly female.

It pisses me off, not for ideological reasons, when people say men and women are different psychologically, but because it sharply jars against my actual experience.

Yet I do think women and men are different when it comes to sexuality and the changes of parenthood. But this is not personality.

Materialist:
They don't decide which are male and female to start. They define the categories, and then see where they fall with regards to sex, or any other group they are interested in.

Interesting that father's brains did alter a bit too, depending on level of care.

www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2018/07/17/pregnant-women-care-ignores-one-most-profound-changes-new-mom-faces/CF5wyP0b5EGCcZ8fzLUWbP/story.html

Proves how plastic brains are...

I do think this is a gap in feminist discourse, and one that has been a part of the problem in talking about ideas around gender.

People feel that if they admit that men and women have certain differences in biology, as groups, people will use that to justify problematic behaviour or ideas. Most people admit the basic reproductive differences, but then will not go beyond that, even though it seems pretty arbitrary since sexual roles in humans extend well beyond actual conception and birth. People seem especially stuck on the question of the brain, and in particular brain structures, seems to imply a mind body separation I don't think is very defensible.
It seems kind of ass backwards to me. I don't think equality comes out of being biological identical, so to me whatever happens to be true about this question is the starting point, and doesn't threaten the idea of equality.

@KindOfAGeek

according to science there's a significant change in the structure of the female brain during/ after pregnancy that lasts for a few years in order to accommodate said non sleeping small human.

Thank-you OP for posting this and thank-you HBE for raising this at a feminist meeting, you have won yourself an adoring fan.

I don't consider myself a proper feminist, although I agree with many feminist objectives, as I can't buy into the denial of innate psychological differences between the sexes. If I've raised my concerns previously I get shouted down with waffle about socialisation and patriarchy and told this is a fundamental feminist belief.

From the Colin Wright article;

Despite there being zero evidence in favor of Blank Slate psychology, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary, this belief has entrenched itself within the walls of many university humanities departments where it is often taught as fact. Now, armed with what they perceive to be an indisputable truth questioned only by sexist bigots, they respond with well-practiced outrage to alternative views. This has resulted in a chilling effect that causes scientists to self-censor, lest these activists accuse them of bigotry and petition their departments for their dismissal. I’ve been privately contacted by close, like-minded colleagues warning me that my public feuds with social justice activists on social media could be occupational suicide, and that I should disengage and delete my comments immediately.

Isn't this 'sex ideology' exactly the same as trans ideology? And aren't they both counter intuitive and illogical?

I would hazard a guess that if you asked ordinary people (non university, non soc science students) the vast majority would think it's just as ridiculous to deny innate, psychological differences between the sexes as it is to claim that trans women are women.

Invisible I think those must be pretty crude categories for 'personalities' if they apply to other species.

Much behaviour can be to do with having the ability to beat others up and trying not to be beaten up. Or the ability to harm a mother's offspring or to trying to avoid your babies getting killed. ie- a lot can be to do with physical size and strength and trying to avoid harm. Domineering behaviours and placating behaviours.

But I agree that there is absolutely no evolutionary reason for males to be better at maths.

"I am an evolutionary behavioral ecologist, and most of my work is concerned with how individual differences in behavior (i.e. personality) influence individual fitness, and the collective behavior and success of animal societies. Most are probably not aware, but animal personality research is a vibrant field within behavioral ecology due to the ubiquity of personality as a phenomenon in nature, and its ability to explain interactions both within and between species. In nearly every species tested to date for the presence of personality, we’ve found it, and sex-linked personality differences are frequently the most striking. Sex-linked personality differences are very well documented in our closest primate relatives, too, and the presence of sexual dimorphism (i.e. size differences between males and females) in primates, and mammals generally, dramatically intensifies these differences, especially in traits like aggression, female choosiness, territoriality, grooming behavior, and parental care.

Given that humans are sexually dimorphic and exhibit many of the typical sex-linked behavioral traits that any objective observer would predict, based on the mammalian trends, the claim that our behavioral differences have arisen purely via socialization is dubious at best. For that to be true, we would have to posit that the selective forces for these traits inexplicably and uniquely vanished in just our lineage, leading to the elimination of these traits without any vestiges of their past, only to have these traits fully recapitulated in the present due to socialization. Of course, the more evidenced and straightforward explanation is that we exhibit these classic sex-linked behavioral traits because we inherited them from our closest primate ancestors.

Counterintuitively, the social justice stance on human evolution closely resembles that of the Catholic Church."

quillette.com/2018/11/30/the-new-evolution-deniers/

I have no doubt mothers have evolved advanced hearing that can hear a baby crying at 2 a.m. I also have no doubt, fathers have evolved advanced learned helplessness to pretend not to hear a baby crying at 2 a.m. if the mother can get up instead.

There is a great deal of politics and social value weighting to go through before neurobiologists can determine what is hard wired and what is environmental, and what is hard wired following exposure to environmental factors.

My understanding is, and I’m not a scientist or social scientist, is that when we look at cognitive, behavioural, or neurological (brain stuff) differences between men as a group and women as a group, there are more differences, or a greater range of differences, WITHIN each sex than there is BETWEEN the two sexes.

Good point.

kesstrel, thank you! I shall absolutely go and read that!

I've been interested for a while in the way the language that people use allows them to elide ideas which they know aren't equivalent... but which are easily made to sound equivalent.

Tangent to this thread, but reading MN has made me aware of the power of pronoun-slipperiness (nothing to do with trans), to elide individuals and hence responsibility. Eg "We don't need a new car because we have a car": said car is completely controlled by a single member of the household and truthful pronouns would have been: "You don't need a car because I have a car". But that would have revealed the fundamental inequality that the speaker was trying to conceal.

Similarly: "I" have done the washing up for you". Truthful pronouns would have been "I have done the washing up for us," or even "... for me."

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread. And I'm hopeless at kicking threads off otherwise I'd start one in Relationships on this.