Real boy and girl differences

[EveryoneLoves09876]

There is so much debate about real differences in sex (as opposed to gender and culture norms). You also get so much gender disappointment and I know mumsnet is mostly girl preference, but I've had jobs working in communities where boys are enormously favoured, so don't feel too sorry for boys lol. This doesn't give the real picture.

I'd be really interested in seeing what mumsnetters think are the main differences are between their girls and boys - if they have both!! Or do you really think the differences are nothing to do with their sex?

I have a baby boy and try to be as neutral as possible, giving him all sorts of toys and clothing (e.g. dolls as well as trains, clothes from boys and girls section although I haven't actually put him in a dress!) I don't want to bring him up in a sexist way but I'm sure I am without realising it! I try not to see his traits as sex related, although family already go on about his energy and appetite as if that's a male thing. I have no daughter to compare him to!

Do you feel like this is a real difference and what are they if so?

DS has always been fascinated by vehicles and how things work. DD loves animals

I didn't know animals were for girls? And in any case, my DS does not care about vehicles, asked that we give his hot wheels to someone else, and he is currently fascinated by animals (apes in particular). So he's really a girl?

@PorpentiaScamander

Have you read this entire thread? There has been much discussion on this already. @CherryPavlova has given detail on these innate differences. My comment was referring back to what she had said and also giving my own ( not necessarily related) observations on my own children's behaviour, as requested by the OP.

Yes I have read the entire thread. There hasn't been one post that has conclusively proven that there are innate differences.

If there was such proof I wouldn't have studied 'nature vs nurture' in my psychology access course 15 years after I first studied 'nature vs nurture' a-level class because it wouldn't be up for discussion.

@PorpentiaScamander

Nor has there been a post which has conclusively proven that there aren't innate differences. As you have said it is a long standing debate which is unlikely to be solved on Mumsnet. My personal opinion ( based on some academic study and general observations of children's behaviour) is that both nature and nurture have an impact.
Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this conversation now as I am finding some of these comments quite obnoxious.

No nothing has been proven either way. I doubt it ever will tbh.

I have twins, boy and girl, the only differences I’ve noticed so far is that DS has been first to hit physical milestones (rolling, crawling, standing, walking etc) and DD is more advanced verbally - they’re both delayed because of the circumstances of their birth but DD is boisterous but not aggressively, DS is quiet but a right little so and so for doing dangerous stunts.

Both like toy cars and don’t much care for teddies or dolls (but they’re not even 3 yet so a bit of a road ahead).

Both like Peppa Pig, DS likes Paw Patrol and Cars (the film) but DD isn’t fussed, she likes Twirlywoos and In The Night Garden and he isn’t fussed. DD loves playing outside and collecting random oddments - DS prefers to play on the slide or in the little tent.

None of these I put down to their sex, just that their personalities are (of course) different

Both have rough play with me and DH, DD isn’t as fond of being lifted up too high whereas DS loves it. The only reason I can think of this difference is because DD seems to be more aware of risks and doesn’t like being too out of control of what’s happening? Then again she was also afraid of lightbulbs (in the ceiling - whether switched on or off) until recently 😂

I've never been able to understand why it upsets people so much that their are innate differences between the sexes. There have been noticeable differences between my two from an early age. DS has always been fascinated by vehicles and how things work. DD loves animals

It upsets me because those differences are small,and there is a lot of overlap between boys and girls.If you are ,for example,going yo teach based on presumed sex differences in learning styles you will be disadvantaging numbers of both sexes.
If you treat children as individuals then you can address and support what they actually like,what actually helps them learn and makes them happy.

It also upsets me as a woman who has never been particularly into stereotypically feminine things.Because it is saying - well girls are like this,you aren't.And by implication ' you aren't normal'

And this - words fail me ( metaphorically )

Children need to learn that boys are biologically stronger and faster but must use that strength to help and not to hurt.
Girls need to understand they have an advantage using words and recognising emotional responses and how to use that for the greater good and not to put down their brother.
Boys need to know that their physical courage and bravery are good things and can save lives. They need to understand they were made taller to protect, to reach things put up high and not to look down on others.
Girls need to learn they have beautiful, softer bodies to cuddle, to comfort and protect not to flaunt across the Internet.

I have a boy and a girl.I have taught them to be kind,to use words wisely,not to hurt others physically.And I hope they have learnt to help others,and to cuddle,comfort and protect people who need that,using the physical and mental qualities they have.(The men in my family run on the small side,not many will have been protecting others by virtue of being tall - what a silly comment)
How does any of that need a sex linked component?
And girls need to understand they have an advantage using words,while using that skill at school to read the many,many works if literature produced by men.Makes perfect sense.

FivetoFour It’s important because each child is an individual and their sex characteristics impact on their needs.
Nobody is saying boys shouldn’t be raised to be good with words but accepting many boys find words harder means a greater focus on finding ways to support that skill.
Trying to turn boys into girls rather than working with their maleness isn’t helping anyone. Vice versa is also true. It creates confusion and poor resilience.
The proof is in the biology. The hormonal influences. The prenatal differences. The anatomy even.

@CherryPavlova
I agree again with everything you write.

I think people struggle to accept that biology can drive certain trends at a population level that might not necessarily be observable in relation to individual cases. For example, biology determines that men as a class are taller than women as a class, however there will be countless examples of specific women being taller than specific men. These exceptions do not somehow disprove the influence of biology just because the trend doesn't hold true in all cases.

We also need to get away from the idea that the biological differences associated with each sex are intrinsically "good" or "bad". In lots of cases the two sexes have evolved differently so that they are better equipped for the unique challenges they have to face. So women aren't inferior because they are generally shorter than men, however if we fail to recognise this difference and build a world that is designed for the average man's height (as let's face it men are still the default) then women are going to be at a pretty big disadvantage.

It makes no sense to push the "everyone must be the same" agenda if we have no real evidence that this is the case and there is a very real possibility that biology has actually made the two sexes very different at a class level. This does a disservice to boys and girls and could lead to both attempting to attain ideals that run counter to their biology and not understanding why it is harder for them.

CherryPavlova,that is exactly my point.If you look at children as individuals you don't need to use sex based generalisations.
I'm really not sure what "working with their maleness" even means.My son was a very stereotypical little boy,and is now a lovely ( geeky!) young man,but I didn't feel at any point I had to "work with his maleness".He hasn't turned into a girl either ( do you think that childrearing methods can change girls into boys and vice versa?).
I would be very interested to hear what you feel working with girls' femininity entails?

And pushing an "everyone is the same " agenda is the opposite of what I would like,but it is exactly where I see the "boys and girls are different at a class level" going because that says we must treat all boys in one way,and all girls in another,because they are essentially very different.
The evidence says that the differences are small compared to the variation between individuals,and we do individuals a disservice if we don't pay attention to that.
It's not that long since women's biology was thought to make them unfit for higher education.

CherryPavlova

^Nobody is saying boys shouldn’t be raised to be good with words but accepting many boys find words harder means a greater focus on finding ways to support that skill.
Trying to turn boys into girls rather than working with their maleness isn’t helping anyone. Vice versa is also true. It creates confusion and poor resilience.^

Surely if you have a child who finds words harder then you work with them to solve that regardless of their sex? I had speech therapy as a child. My brothers didn't need it. And I have no idea what "working with their maleness" means
The only thing I can think of that I need (someone else) to show my boys, that I (hopefully) wouldn't need to teach a girl is how to shave their faces!

@KatharinaRosalie
Because I don't want people to tell my son he can't like dancing? I don't want my daughter to think she must be trans because she likes Star Wars? I don't want them to think certain choices are not for them based on what genitals they have. How is it a good thing to put people in blue and pink boxes?
You have basically conflated biological difference with gender norms. Biology doesn't care about dancing, Star Wars or pink and blue. These are all social constructs that can be dismantled whilst also accepting that biological difference at a population level exists.

I also have a problem generally with rejecting biology on the basis that it doesn't fit your chosen world view. So say for example (and this really is a random example) it was scientifically proven that biology determined that girls were more predisposed towards enjoying dance than boys, so what? We would know that girls at a population level would be drawn to dance and therefore could cater for this natural interest. Would this automatically preclude boys from enjoying dance too? No, but we may identify that they were likely to always be a minority in this field and therefore may seek to put in additional support or specific measures for them.

It sometimes feels that people forget that there is no definitive answer as to what extent biology causes differences between the sexes. It seems more palatable to many to assume that there isn't a difference then to explore further and be prepared to accept that biology plays some kind of role. I think this is really quite dangerous as it is denying boys and girls the chance to better understand the science that underpins who we are as a species and how this may impact them and their experiences.

Girls need to learn they have beautiful, softer bodies to cuddle, to comfort and protect not to flaunt across the Internet

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Why can’t girls value their bodies for what they can DO- run, jump, skip, play, dance- rather than how they look or feel to other people?

I honestly don't think it is boy/girl, it's just different personalities. Two boys here, plus two adult stepsons. One boy is obsessed with shoot em up video games, another with ballet and knitting, another one is into finance and skiing and the other is heavily into science. All four adore cooking.

You have basically conflated biological difference with gender norms. Biology doesn't care about dancing, Star Wars or pink and blue. These are all social constructs

But this is exactly what this thread is about, that the current gender norms are biological and innate. We are not talking about being on average taller. People are claiming that liking laser sabres or cuddly toys is innate, biological difference. This is what I disagree with.

@FiveToFour
And pushing an "everyone is the same " agenda is the opposite of what I would like,but it is exactly where I see the "boys and girls are different at a class level" going because that says we must treat all boys in one way,and all girls in another,because they are essentially very different
No it really doesn't mean that we must do this at all. Acknowledging biological difference at a population level does not mean that those within a group should be treated as one homogeneous mass. It does however, mean that trends can be recognised and support can be more targeted to help those who are most likely to need it.

If we disregard class analysis in favour of solely focussing on the individual then we risk worsening structural inequality between the groups. If we are blind to difference, we can become bind to systematic discrimination and oppression from a young age. Many of these systems are predicated on the concept that everyone has the same opportunity to achieve and there is no inbuilt bias against groups of people. So say for example, if boys are more active at a young age then they may at a population level struggle to connect with traditional methods of learning. This can be true for girls too, but biology may mean that the issue disproportionately affects boys and plays a role in boys underachieving academically. Developing teaching methods that suit more active learners could help lots of boys and a smaller proportion of girls, addressing a structural inequality in education.

The evidence says that the differences are small compared to the variation between individuals,and we do individuals a disservice if we don't pay attention to that
The evidence is varied and doesn't definitively prove anything.

"It's not that long since women's biology was thought to make them unfit for higher education*
This old chestnut! Yes, women's different biology has historically been used to exclude and discriminate against us. It would be infinitely easier to achieve equality if we were biologically identical to men in a world designed and controlled by men. If the fact is though that we aren't the same then we need to acknowledge this and fight for true equality. Seeking to erase our inbuilt differences is not the way to go!

@KatharinaRosalie
But this is exactly what this thread is about, that the current gender norms are biological and innate. We are not talking about being on average taller. People are claiming that liking laser sabres or cuddly toys is innate, biological difference. This is what I disagree with
Innate biological differences could affect how young children of different sexes play and the toys and games their drawn to. This is totally plausible and shouldn't be ruled out so for example it is probable that boys (at a population level) enjoy more active boistorious play than girls. To then extrapolate from this that light sabres are for boys or dancing is for girls is a total social construct. Boys might generally approach a light sabre or dancing in a slightly different way than girls but that doesn't mean that these things exist only for one sex to enjoy or are more suited to one sex than the other.

It is totally possible to accept biological difference and reject gender stereotypes. They aren't one and the same thing.

riotlady, I don’t think anyone said they couldn’t. It’s about teaching both sexes to be appreciated for their differences as well as their similarities. Woman's bodies are softer, on average.
Cuddling is very good for the giver as much as the receiver- improves mental health and resilience. Nothing wrong with teaching that giving is important in a society - for both sexes.

Yes of course PorpentiaScamander but knowing the predisposition based on biology means problems can be averted and differences worked with rather than forcing children in an uncomfortable fit because it’s not fashionable to recognise sex differences.

It’s similar to a breast cancer screening analogy. Women are screened from fifty because they are more likely to develop breast cancer. That doesn’t mean symptomatic women under fifty shouldn’t be screened. It doesn’t mean women over fifty are definitely going to get breast cancer. It doesn’t mean men diet breast cancer.
It is done because women over fifty are biologically predisposed to breast cancer. We know that. Therefore the health service has been adapted to ensure early identification and rapid intervention. It leads to better outcomes.

If we understand the impact of biology, we are more likely to be able to adapt parenting or teaching for better outcomes. That’s not about not treating them as individuals, not saying girls can’t be engineers, not saying boys can’t be nurses. It’s about recognition of the whole child, the whole person. That includes their sex differences.

I suppose it depends on your perspective, but I find it strange that people who feel there aren't innate sex differences in kids are accused of getting upset about it, when it seems to me that the ones most upset are those who cling on to gender roles and seem annoyed when they're challenged.

I personally don't think there's much innate difference. The studies showing how differently people treat babies/kids when they think they're the opposite sex are pretty convincing. And it is something we're growing increasingly aware of, which is corresponding with increasing acceptance of girls doing, say, football - if it were innate our shift in societal attitude would have no effect on outcomes.

I understand the argument of wanting to support your kids in the best way possible, I just don't feel that is based in sex. If I had a child who was struggling with language/speech, I'd support them and provide resources around that. Similarly fit any other challenges. Being aware of stereotypes in the greater population doesn't do anything for me dealing with my own individual kids.

I don't see the point in treating them differently, if the differences are innate they will come out regardless of what I do. And if they are not, I am risking doing damage to any kid who doesn't meet the stereotype by making them feel they "should" be/act a certain way

@FiveToFour is absolutely right. It is so important we treat children as individuals and not as stereotypes. I teach five year olds and every year the cohort changes. This year my well-behaved good readers just happen to be more male than female, last year it was the other way round. I see no real differences in terms of interaction with others, physical ability or academic ability when they’re very little (this can change as they get older and socialise differently, and in their teens when the hormones kick in). Physically young children are very similar. Girls can lift as well as boys and have the same level of hand-eye coordination (we sometimes get little boys who have been playing football since about birth!! But that just means they’re more practised at it, not innately better). It is extremely important as a teacher not to allow stereotypes to affect your teaching.

(& @DryIce - I agree with you too!)

I have a girl (2) and boy(4). I haven't noticed many differences to be honest. My boy is sensitive and quiet but also very physical and energetic. My girl is quite boisterous and physical as well. She does now want to choose her own clothes, something my son has never been bothered about, and likes me doing her hair. However my son then also asks to grow his hair long so he can wear clips etc. I would say the big difference at my son's age is that all the girls in his preschool have made very close friends whereas he and most of the other boys just play with everyone, he doesn't even remember their names. The girls also seem to be a bit further along in their development.