9am on Radio 4: Start the Week - sex and gender

And Oh dear the male biologist, Sharon, has drunk the Koolaid about "assigned at birth". Although he's saying that individuals need to be treated according to sex, not gender.He doesn't understand that gender is a system for the oppression of women

My feeling was that he was very nervously trying to use the correct language - when it came to the topic of gender identities. His role is as a geneticist rather than as an ideologue - and he didn't want to land himself in the predictable quagmire. But I think most people can and could recognise equivocation and waffle when they hear it - which is what both were doing when Wark probed this area of discussion.

You could hear the 'shakiness' in their voices.

That was interesting!

Both however, sounded very nervous and unsure when Kirsty Wark brought up the issue of trans identities.......as if they were hyper conscious of not wanting to upset or offend. However, as soon as they were back on topic of their specialism they sounded far more confident and sure footed.

Interesting point for me, was about looking beyond the visible or obvious structures to the micro level of cellular patterning/coding

Also some of what was said about how in recent decades we've been looking more towards sameness or similarity between sexes.....how looking to wards differences if now, potentially, of more interest.......

That's certainly my sense......that EQUALITY arguments and perspectives gets you to equal civil and legal rights - which is great, obviously....but that then tends to lead to a situation where differences are ignored or down-played.

It seems to be the case, certainly in the case of neuroscience, that plasticity, malleability and the potential for structures and pathways to change/alter on account of personal & individual experiences - leaves the door open to a very much more individualistic reading of brain science - than the more micro-level study of cellular biology/genetics.

Loved it when he said, the male immune system is 'slower to get off the couch & start working'

I thought is was fascinating-the fact that women draw on the benefit of 2 X chromosomes whereas men only have 1. This is important especially in understanding why men are less resistant to Covid 19.

It all just underlines the basic truth that healthcare in some cases should be tailored towards your sex, not your gender identity.

But there's another way of looking at this, Jessica - that Gina Rippon was helping everyone to understand just why the kind of fundamental undergrowth clearing that Moalem is doing, is necessary.

She was talking as an historian, as much as anything, explaining how we have got to where we are.

And pointing out that science is never "pure" but always framed by current social structures/ideas.

And Moalem's work is a demonstration of how past social frameworks for science have made his work necessary.

For me, it goes back to the sorts of things Kuhn was writing about, way back, about social paradigms framing and structuring science research.

Started off fascinating, with Sharon Moalem talking about women, genetics and how the X chromosome has not had enough study; and has devolved, thanks to Gina Rippon, into a confused discussion about social gender issues. Sharon Moalem keeps trying to bring it back to science. He argues that male brains and female brains do have a "sex" because of chromosomes (not hormones). Gina Rippon gets the last word asking for "brain finger-printing", whatever that means (I assume that someone in not wholly male or female or something).

I know people on this forum admire GR's writing, but she pissed me off royally in that programme. The problem is that she seems to be basing her arguments about male and female brains as a counterpoint to a load of deeply flawed Victorian and 20th C "science" trying to prove the genetic superiority of men and that some women were a bit unnatural (or "tom boys") because they wanted to climb trees. Sharon Moalem, on the other hand, was trying to argue that the X chromosome has been woefully neglected in medical research, and that possessing XX does confer a different medical destiny that cannot be influenced by social gender politics.

Yes, Kirsty Wark wants them both to comment on the debates - but I think that what they're both saying (Rippon and Moalem) is far more important & fundamental than that.

But I'm getting a bit annoyed at Moalem's mansplaining ... It would be interesting to have Sophie Scott in this debate, I think.

Men are not women biologically-thank you!

I agree with so much that the geneticist is saying but shocked he then said "assigned at birth".

Kirsty W is desperate to get the discussion onto identity.

I am listening and was just checking to see if anyone had posted a link. It’s an excellent discussion. Reminded me that I’d been meaning to post a link to a New Statesman article by Sharon Moalem:

www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2020/04/female-species-more-healthy-male

And Oh dear the male biologist, Sharon, has drunk the Koolaid about "assigned at birth". Although he's saying that individuals need to be treated according to sex, not gender.

He doesn't understand that gender is a system for the oppression of women.

this is a really interesting discussion. Lots of usage of the concept of sex based chromosomal differences. Dispationately covered. And the argument that women are genetically superior BECAUSE of the xx was also interesting!

This is a really interesting discussion. Thank you @nauticant for alerting us.

I'm learning a lot, and how fantastic to hear Gina Rippon - her research on the history of scientific practices around brain science - researchers "desperately trying to prove that the female brain is inferior."

Missed the first bit but the expert Shiron (?) corrected presenter, replacing gender with sex.

Huh! literal violence at 9am !! we all know how t*y those biologists are.

[joke] [joke] [joke]

Should be interesting listening