Confused re. gendered brain vs gender as a social construct. AIBU?

[funniestWins]

I hope I can get some genuine answers to a genuine question but am procrastinating working with the radio on and there was an academic discussion about gender as a social construct. Not necessarily feminism, but more of an anthropological debate and it got me wondering... I posted in AIBU for frank opinions as opposed to possibly slewed ones on another part of MN.

Whilst the science is still very much undecided here, many would argue that gender is a social construct and there is no such as a male brain or a female brain. The jury is still out on this one, as am I, but the notion that men and women have any differences in their brains seems to irrationally offend some people.

However, and this is where my inept ponderings become confused, if gender is a social construct and gender roles are nothing more than performative and learned behaviour, then doesn't that fly in the face of those who say they are born in the wrong bodies, that they are a man-brain in a woman's body or vice versa? Either, there can be someone trapped in the wrong body or there is no such thing as male or female brains.

For the sake of transparency, I'm not really a "feminist" as it seems a redundant viewpoint. I've never come across any sexism and I believe that for the most part, feminist emancipation has happened. I fall firmly into the I don't care as long as they're happy camp re. sex changes, transvestism etc.

So, who'd like to put me right or explain how the two ideas can co-exist?

This is the kind of sexism I have never experienced.

Wow.

Because I did (mindyou, I'm gender non-conforming in general).

My sons do - although, only sometimes (lady trying to take away DS1's hello kitty skipping rope he won on the tombola to swap for something 'more suitable', the occasional party bag/raffle prize) - luckily I'm non-conforming, I let my sons do what they want, and actually 80% of people just shrug and carry on not caring either - which is a lot better than when I was a girl and getting very much funnelled down the 'female' channel.

I suggested you may be a man as men often don't even see the sexism in front of them as it's not aimed at them.

You must be a woman as you fail to see the hypocrisy.

I'd swear these threads are deliberately sabotaged as opposed to continuing to be intelligent and educational.

I would have thought it was fairly obvious that there was a missing word in my post. You claimed fairly early on, with your original name that 'the proof of difference is close to being a theory' implying (I thought) that brain sex difference was in the same sort of realm of scientific thought as say evolution. However this is not the case at all. Not sure how that squares with your original assertion that the science is undecided. Essentially making you just as inconsistent in your posting!

And posts half an hour apart with different names by the same person is highly suggestive of sockpuppeting. Especially on a hot topic which I am sure you are aware this is.

OP - do you have a daughter?
I do, and I have lost count of the times she was told that being a girl meant:
she can't run
can't catch
shouldn't beat boys at tennis
shouldn't be able to do maths
shouldn't role play
shouldn't read comics
shouldn't love Captain America films
shouldn't speak when a boy does
shouldn't be cleverer than boys because they don't like it
should wear ribbons in her hair

Sexism and stereotyping is alive and well and just because you haven't noticed it suggests to me that you just haven't observed.
(PS - DD is now not in that school where these attitudes were rife)

nooka No. I can't say it's obvious. Which word is missing from where?

Defining theory as "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" I seem to be spot on.

I'm not entirely sure you understand the meaning of theory. To my mind (with my original name) "brain sex differences" satisfies all aspects of the arguement. Science being undecided and a theory happily co-exist.

mylifeisa...

Isn't it a weak arguement to suggest that the issue is mine for not observing this phenomenon? If your daughter had only attended her current school and not the first one, she would have avoided the sexism. Perhaps I only went to the second type of school. Perhaps my sons only go to the second type of school and perhaps my colleagues and friends can see past the sex of a person. You've done nothing more than proved the first school was a poor one, not that sexism is rife in general.

You're still posting under a different name now. You have to enter your password to change names. You don't just change mid-thread.

You can change mid thread and without your password - on mobile site and normal (New). Are you using Classic?

If I'm logged in as MrsHathaway I can post on a thread as one of my ncs just by putting that nc into the box above where I'm typing this.

I would find this thread easier to follow if OP went back to the OP nickname so my post highlighting works properly.

I am astonished by the claim that OP has never experienced that kind of sexism. I think it's ubiquitous.

So when you said

'there are plenty of proven differences between male and female brains. One of the most interesting was how men seem predisposed towards chess. An analytical and systematic test. Young girls almost universally do better recognising emotions in human faces. Whether this is due to hormones, function or physical construction seems immaterial; the proof of difference is close to being a theory (in the scientific sense of the word). '

you didn't actually mean that it was a proven theory that there were sex differences in the brain that mean men and women are fundamentally different? More just one of a number of competing ideas then?

Cory - absolutely, lots of studies.
Spin - yes, sorry, using 'all' in that context could very easily be misread. Not meaning to remove the impact of genetics and broader traits at all (regardless of gender), just simplistically referring to studies where gender differences can/ (may!) be explained by social conditioning in gendered terms, and simplistic media reporting that doesn't even question causality.
My baseline is an expectation that every human being is different, and that social conditioning works on those base traits, (Not entirely different from the stresses/ cells theories). I see the two ideas working fairly synchronously - my very reductive rant here was a very simplistic response to the op, rather than a fully considered debate!!
From a feminist point of view though, I do find epigenetics depressing, in terms of the generational responses necessary to reverse inequalities. But again, that matches the social and cultural response, so in reality it's just ALL a bit depressing.
I do find the inability to recognize those cultural inequalities/ stresses boggling though. In a woman. Which leads me to assume (in an otherwise educated and rational individual) that they must be being deliberately goady. And indeed, that says way more about me. With women who genuinely believe there is no inequality, it is not boggling so much as deeply saddening, so the correct response towards the op should be gentle discussion, rather than disbelief.
I do struggle with people who claim not to believe that inequality exists though, just on the basis of not recognizing it in their own experience, but who are then blind to the experiences of others. It shows a lack of empathy and a lack of research. It's a bit like if Barack Obama said racism doesn't exist because I am POTUS, ergo racial equality is indisputable fact.

I know that is well off the track of the real brain discussion. I'm struggling to have a nuanced discussion with someone who claims gender inequality doesn't exist, and presumably doesn't see that the medicalisation of gender inequality means that as a society we are reinforcing gender stereotypes, rather than crushing them, whilst the media gets away with pretending that society is becoming much more accepting and open-minded and everyone back-slaps each other whilst destroying individuality and any real diversity. At the further expense of women.

I could discuss the topic of whether there are differences in the brains of men and women, and whether they are the result of nature or nurture. But I can't discuss anything with someone who is starting from the point of believing sexism is non existent.
For a well-travelled person, the OP is alarmingly ignorant - I wonder if she opened her eyes at all in some of those countries she's lived in to have seen no sexism at all.

dog you could see the presence of Epigenetic factors as liberating. The fact that gene expression is meta-stable, altered by environmental factors, rather than inevitable, means that beneficial expressions can be potentially engineered and even passed on, negative expressions potentially avoided.

It isn't just about the gross outright sexism like telling a girl she can't run or a boy he can't do ballet. More often it is the tiny things: if somebody is upset or there is a barney in the school playground who does the teacher look to to be the more mature person and give a sensible account/offer comfort/deal with the emotional side? If a man is tinkering with a screwdriver and two children are watching, to which one does he first say "like to have a go?" If there are two children who neither of them has shown any specific interest in dance classes, who is likely to get the suggestion that "maybe you should give it a go"?

What I found at school (very progressive country) was not that there was any bullying if a girl chose to do metalwork instead of sewing, but the fact that this was not the default position meant you were only expected to do it if you had a particular interest in metalwork or knew you would be good at it: boys otoh could do just because it was normal. I wasn't clever with my hands- so that meant I had to stick with being bad at sewing, because that was the default position.

In the some way, a woman who is gifted in a specific area may have very much the same chances as a man to become a professor or manager i that field. From that vantage point it may well look as if there is no discrimination going. But if you are rather averagely gifted, you tend to end up in default jobs (who wants a woman mechanic if she is not even a very good mechanic? just shows what women are like...)- and funnily enough default jobs for women are often rather badly paid.

Whats depressing about epigenetics is that it means that it can take many generations to get rid of the effect of harm, so the damage that happens to an individual may affect not just them and possibly their children, but their grandchildren and potentially beyond.

I live in Canada and we are only just now recognising the effect of residential schools (aboriginal children taken wholesale from their communities at the age of 5 to substandard boarding schools where the 'Indian' was to be taken out of them by religious bodies often with accompanying abuse) often several generations down the line. On the plus side understanding epigenetics hopefully will help people understand that the current generation aren't just work shy/ alcoholic/ inferior etc, but genuinely do have additional challenges to overcome in order to succeed.

I just see Epigenetic factors as a different set of factors than genetic or purely social factors.

nooka

Characteristics being purely social possesses drawbacks too. What that would mean is that powerful groups can more easily totally change people, just through social engineering.

If all characteristics were genetic and inevitably inherited, the potential for change would be reduced.

So it seems to me, Epigenetics, is a good middle ground.

Spin, yy, and I definitely see the benefits in terms of autism research etc, for sure. I find it harder to share the same optimism wrt to more gendered uses - maybe because the environment necessary to bring about generational change in this area is something I see as problematic. It's interesting that I find it easier to appreciate fairly concrete future use for specific issues which are deemed to be 'health', especially where an environmental factor can be identified - and less optimistic about those more commonly deemed to be 'social', although the divisions are entirely subjective. Hmm. It's an interesting idea, and I'd love to buy into the optimism. I need to give it some more thought.
Nooka - interesting example. I've worked with quite a few people in receipt of residential schools credits (some their own, sometimes other family members) and there is such a legacy. I hadn't thought to link it to epigenetics at all, but interesting to consider it alongside gender in those terms to consider alongside social factors. We have hosted quite a few Truth and Reconciliation works, and I hadn't thought about the period in more scientific terms. Lots to think about.

Gone back to funniest for post highlighting to work. FWIW, if it's a username you've used before, you can just type it above your post (on the desktop site).

It's been interesting reading (now the thread's back on track), especially about the epigenetics aspect simply as it's absolutely new to me.

"You could see the presence of Epigenetic factors as liberating. The fact that gene expression is meta-stable, altered by environmental factors, rather than inevitable, means that beneficial expressions can be potentially engineered and even passed on, negative expressions potentially avoided."

This is the way I've understood it spinnaker and do see it as liberating.

-----------

dog

"who claims gender inequality doesn't exist"

I have never experienced it. I find it strange that instead of being happy that I haven't (and I'm sure there are millions like me) I'm called unobservant, arrogant, alarmingly ignorant and the like. I haven't pretended that my experience is perfectly representative but I do think that for the most part, the 'battle' is won.

"presumably doesn't see that the medicalisation of gender inequality means that as a society we are reinforcing gender stereotypes, rather than crushing them"

What if, one day (and this is perfectly possible), it's proven beyond any doubt that there are differences in the way in which men and women process information ie. there is a gender brain. Not that one is preferable but that there are differences. I'm sure you're not saying it's impossible as there are plenty of studies that show there are differences just as there are plenty of conflicting ones. Instead of rigidly sticking to 'no difference', I think that there may well be but if we are judged purely on our merits then who cares. Equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome. I certainly have a different approach to some of my male peers, but my different approach has got me into a senior role. What's wrong with celebrating differences (assuming they eist, for the sake of argument) as opposed to a 'no, no, no, we're all the same' attitude when we might well not be.

"whilst the media gets away with pretending that society is becoming much more accepting and open-minded"

It is accepting and open minded. Are you suggesting that sexism is rife as it was even 10 years ago? 20?

-------

cory

"It isn't just about the gross outright sexism like telling a girl she can't run or a boy he can't do ballet. More often it is the tiny things: if somebody is upset or there is a barney in the school playground who does the teacher look to to be the more mature person and give a sensible account/offer comfort/deal with the emotional side?"

So, you're against anything but perfect equality even if it is beneficial to women? Whilst refreshing and admirable, what if there are brain differences and girls / women are better mentally equipped to give sensible accounts etc? You aren't being "irrationally offended" (of course), but you seem to absolutely deny that there could be differences in the brain when there very well could be and the first part of epigenetics seems based on the premise that there are.

"a woman who is gifted in a specific area may have very much the same chances as a man to become a professor or manager i that field. From that vantage point it may well look as if there is no discrimination going."

Well, clearly.

"if you are average you tend to end up in default jobs"

Due to choice? I feel 'yes'. If there is nothing stopping a woman matching her male counterpart when "gifted", why should there be any difference lower down (not meant to be offensive). The default jobs for men aren't exactly ones that many would love to do. Mending roads, manual labour, Tesco deliveries, agricultural labour, dustbin men. I'd rather be behind the checkout in a shop than those jobs. Those examples were boringly stereotypical I know,but I assume it's what you meant by "default jobs".

spinnaker

"Characteristics being purely social possesses drawbacks too. What that would mean is that powerful groups can more easily totally change people, just through social engineering."

Using a simplistic (and perhaps predictable) state vs public school analogy, I believe the mindset given to public school pupils of "of course you can do it, you just have to try" suggests that groups can totally change people. Of course there are other factors such as parental educational background, perhaps a predisposition to 'succeed' etc, but the attitude and belief that social engineering can change people was an important one for us when deciding to publicly educate our boys.

I am a little confused, are you saying that because you yourself have not experienced sexism that it doesn't exist. I have never lived in abject poverty, it would be offensive of me to say it doesn't exist.
You described soneones experience of sexism within the education as not representative because that was just a 'bad'

Sorry phone has a mind of its own.
So if someone's experience of sexism in the education system is not representative because it's just a bad school, then your experiences are meaningless to the argument as well.

In my opinion, humans do have gendered brains. From a biological perspective our gender is partly made up of hormones which influence our behaviour patterns - people of different genders have different levels of particular hormones in their bodies. I've worked quite extensively with animals and gendered behaviour is something which is observable in almost all animals.

However, I do also believe that gender (specifically the differences between masculinity and femininity) has been hugely emphasised and exaggerated throughout history, partly as a way of oppressing women.
The differences between men and women don't make on gender inferior, however these differences have been used to push women into a position of social inferiority.

bird

So, which 'experiences' are allowed? The ones which you agree with?

Why are you still posing under two different names on this thread funnies/here?

"they are born in the wrong bodies, that they are a man-brain in a woman's body or vice versa"

How is this possible? "They" are their bodies, not aliens that have possessed them, or souls that God mistakenly placed "in the wrong body".

What is happening is that some people's brains (for whatever reason) have a wrong perception about their bodies - it should be female although it is male, it should be thinner although it is already stick-thin, one leg is too much, etc.

It is very sad for them and they should have all of our support to be happy & lead lives as they see fit. But they don't get to redefine what the concepts male/female, thin/fat, etc mean.

Probably a stupid question but, can epigenetics change just women or just men or is a broad all people in that situation change?

"In my opinion, humans do have gendered brains. From a biological perspective our gender is partly made up of hormones which influence our behaviour patterns - people of different genders have different levels of particular hormones in their bodies. I've worked quite extensively with animals and gendered behaviour is something which is observable in almost all animals."

Don't you mean "sex"? People of different sexes (male/female) have different levels of hormones in their bodies, etc.

Um, sorry for the derail but earlier op said that women could sort out inequality in Westminster by voting for female candidates. All my candidates are male and have been For. Ever? Love the way inequality and lack of representation is wimmin's fault.

My daughter is ten and lives in a leafy suburb and is experiencing worse sexism than I did in the seventies as even some young boys brains are already saturated in porn. Sexism is getting worse, not better and where it exists it is more harmful, more vicious.

Oh, and back to the point of the thread lady brains are utter bollocks and have been used to oppress women throughout history. As someone said upthread, same shit, different decade, or even century!

This whole situation would be fine if men in trousers were nice to men in dresses, but that means men would have to change their behaviour.

Plus, I don't think this is what some men in dresses actually want.

. I've never come across any sexism and I believe that for the most part, feminist emancipation has happened

Op you clearly don't have children then.

I used to think like this until I had kids.