is it sexist if it's based on a scientific study?

[QuestionMark99]

Hello all,

I'm doing some research on sexism/feminism and I came up with a kind of philosophical question (I'm a cis gendered male, btw, new here):

Let's say (hypothetically) that a scientific study was done on the difference in intelligence between men and women. Let's say the results showed that men are, on average, more intelligent than women. Would it then be sexist to make the claim "men are, on average, more intelligent than women" if it's based solely on this study? Would the scientists who conducted the study, in publishing the results, be sexist for publishing them?

I've always thought of sexism as an attitudea derogatory oneand not just a belief in certain differences between men and women if it's meant in or based on a scientific/objective context.

My personal opinion is that if the hypothetical study above was conducted and published and someone who had read it brought it up in a conversation (because it was relevant to the discussion), he/she would still have an obligation to be sensitive about it. It's still not an excuse to go around spouting out unflattering information just because it happen to be proved in a scientific journal. It's not a free license to say things like "men are, on average, more intelligent than women" without any concern for how that affects the listener emotionally. That's not to say I think it's sexist to bring a point like this up, just that it would be appropriate to say it in the right manner, something like:

"Now, I don't say this to be sexist, or to offend anybody, but it happens to be a proven fact that men are, on average, more intelligent than women. I only say this because it's relevant to the discussion and it's important for my point."

What do you think? Is it acceptable to bring up scientifically proven facts about certain differences between men and women (where one ends up seeming "superior" in some way to the other) if done in a respectful and polite manner?

Is it acceptable to bring up scientifically proven facts about certain differences between men and women (where one ends up seeming "superior" in some way to the other) if done in a respectful and polite manner?

Almost an impossible question to answer because there is almost no sound 'scientifically proven' evidence that one gender is different to the other, certainly no evidence that one is 'more intelligent' than the other. You're showing significant gender bias already by setting forward the hypothesis in your question that this hypothetical study would hypothetically show that men are on average more intelligent than women.

That's why social sciences are difficult to find solid empirical yes/no data on because they are often plagued by confirmation bias and poor study design (The Bell Curve, anyone?). Most studies of 'intelligence' are based on IQ, for example, which is a very questionable measure of anything other than the ability to do IQ tests.

So your hypothetical scenario is pretty strained. What would lead you to think that there is hard, scientific evidence for gender differences to begin with and to set up a hypothesis that this evidence would show male superiority to females? That's the kind of question you should be asking yourself.

As a feminist and a woman, if I read a study that claims to show hard scientific evidence for the 'fact' that women are more intelligent or more empathic or more intuitive than men, for example, then I would take it with a pinch of salt because chances are it is not worth the paper it's written on. These are not qualities that can be easily defined and studied.

You might want to read delusions of gender by Cordelia pine - it's eye-opening on the extent of sexist bias that warps the results of most scientific studies.

My point is just that even if a scientific study concludes that one of the biological genders is more intelligent (or funnier, kinder, better at multi-tasking, whatever), I'd be very sceptical of taking that as fact.

Well, science isn't about proving facts anyway. It's about providing a body of evidence to support a hypothesis that maybe disproved at any time. So from that perspective such a study couldn't be used to definitively demonstrate a superiority of one gender over the other.

I suppose also that in social sciences and studies in these areas it is notoriously difficult to actually generate testable data, most of it seems to be qualitative, anecdotal etc. which doesn't lend itself to particularly hard and fast conclusion-drawing results.

Interesting idea though. I wouldn't want to be responsible for publishing such research!

If someone cited such a study, i would want a link, so I could explain to them the details of why the researcher, his employer, his publisher are prejudiced and creating a bad study. I can think of some conservative xtian colleges in the US who could manage to crap something like that.

Not to mention: a single study doesnt make a fact.

Regardless of the very valid points made already one study does not equal proven fact pretty much regardless. You could (if you wanted to) say research suggests that, or it was found in x study, but it is highly unlikely that any study would ever come up with such a blanket finding. From a research point of view it's only when multiple studies confirm that something might be considered a sound hypothesis. Also if I was having a debate/argument with someone who comes out with 'it's a proven fact' type argument they would be asked to produce the study so that I could analyze it and see if the assertion was in fact made by that study and if the study methodology was sound. Many people cite studies that they have never read and do not in fact support their argument because all they have seen is a summary in the mainstream media, which unfortunately is notorious for twisting studies so that they are more 'interesting'.

I see what you mean, but don't know the answer! perhaps you need a different example with a more easily measurable outcome. Maybe... On average, men are physically stronger than women? Or (a silly one) on average, women give birth to more babies than men?

You might like to read "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, as there are clear explanations and plenty of examples of how poor reporting has skewed perceptions of idea of scientific progress and how individual studies are read.

And many papers which are claimed to show XYZ do nothing of the sort. It is very important to read the methodology and results.

For example, this week, there were claims about a study which "proved" anaemia during pregnancy was a cause of autism. But if you looked at the study, it did not say the association was causative, pointed out around 40-50% of women were anaemic during pg, and say that the findings needed to be replicated before any further hypotheses made.

Now, if a study looking at something so readily countable can be that badly misrepresented, it's easy to see why any single study cannot in itself "prove" things, especially not when looking at ideas that are less defined.

There has already been the 'men are more intelligent "proof" btw, extrapolated from some men having larger brains than some women. Discredited, of course. But not before it was also attempted between races IIRC.

You sound like you don't have a clue how science works. The questions in your OP are, therefore, moot.

How about if there was analysis done suggesting that; men are on the whole more violent than women, and tend to create wars and economic and environmental catastrophes to the extent that their domination of global economy, government and social relations is a threat to the human rights, standard of living and pursuit of happiness of vast swathes of the world's population. Do you think it would be acceptable to refer to such an analysis and use it to point out that things need to radically change?

I do.

Behind every scientific study ..... there is a load of hidden crap: social factors, biased ways of measuring.

To take your example of intelligence (putting aside the problems of IQ tests). If you took a collection of similar studies over time, say from the 19th century until today I expect you would see a rise in women's "intelligence". Have women as a whole become more innately intelligent over that time? No of course not, but they have gained more access to education, and societal expectations of their intelligence changed.

One can reasonably assume then that the greater access to education increases the measurable intelligence of a person, so until you can control for those factors you can't trust a study like that.

As for using studies of this kind to prove a point, I would say they are damaging and self fulfilling. Even reading your first paragraph (even though a hypothesis) made me depressed in a "here we go again" "everyone thinks we're not as clever as men - so maybe we're not" kind of way. It's a low level feeling that stays with me all the time and as I go to my male-dominated workplace today to practise a job that most people think men better at, it will no doubt affect me in a low level way. That's stereotype threat for you.

HTH.

Apart from the points made by everyone else, it's not even correct to say "it is a proven fact that men are taller than women". "Most men are taller than an average height woman", yes. But I can just imagine some short bloke talking seriously to a tall woman: "no, I'm taller than you, it's been scientifically proven".

As others have mentioned, it used to be a 'proven fact' that whites were more intelligent. We now know that those results were due to confirmation bias and poor study design. Science has a long history of being used as a cover for both racism and sexism.

Any study of 'inherant' sex differences is going to be flawed, as socialisation begins at such a young age. A good researcher will recognise that, and try to avoid making sweeping gender based assumptions.

For example, 'everyone knows' that girls talk sooner than boys. But language development is influenced by how often a baby is talked to and read to. It turns out that parents/caregivers talk much more to female infants, and use more eye contact.

Even a seemingly objective statement like 'men are, on average, taller than women' is actually influenced by culture. Sex differences in stature aren't fixed. In societies where women contribute more to food production, the difference in the average height of men and women is actually smaller.

I can't add anything to the other excellent responses you've had about the science aspect, however, whenever someone says something like "I don't want to offend anyone, but ...." they invariably go on to say something wildly offensive.

Not wanting to offend someone doesn't change whether or not what you're saying is offensive, nor does it excuse it. Intent does not wholly define the crime.

Your idea of the "right manner" to mention your hypothetical study is naive at best, but probably more along the lines of very offensive. Here's how you mention your 'study':
"Now, I don't say this to be sexist, or to offend anybody, but it happens to be a proven fact that men are, on average, more intelligent than women. I only say this because it's relevant to the discussion and it's important for my point."

This is not the right way to introduce your study. What you say should be more along the lines of:
"In the xxx study at Cambridge, it seems that Professor XXX got some controvertial results. I have looked at the study and it was double blind (neither the subjects nor the researchers were aware of their own gender) and there was an equally large control group (subjects with no gender). I think it looks like a reliable study and will add to our understanding of this complex subject. What do you think?"

Perhaps it might be useful for you to consider how you would respond if a scientific study concluded women were more intelligent? Would you be happy to cite as a 'proven fact' based on a single study the conclusion that white people are more intelligent than non-white people?

Looking at something more measurable, it is a proven fact that over 100m men are faster at sprinting than women. You could point to evidence of this, but I'm not sure what conclusion you would want to draw from it in a discussion about sexism?

Are men with blue eyes or men with brown eyes statistically better at filling in the next in a sequence of shapes?

Oh, hasn't the data ever been segmented that way?

I wonder why not.

Utterly unbelievable ime (after many years on this planet) that men could be more intelligent, it would have to be a fixed set of tests for this to be the result.

eg 1.Which vehicle reaches the winning line first a DB3 speedster Jigwagen or a DB8 supernotch Roadmaster.

1. Which vehicle reaches the winning line first if Supradupra slick mover fastoil is added to the engine?

etc etc

complete misunderstanding of how to use and talk about scientific results

I thought the latest handwringing was that girls are increasingly outstripping boys academically, to the extent that many think the curriculum needs to be redesigned to be more 'boy friendly'. Strangely, 'experts' have never suggested it is because girls are innately more intelligent than boys, because that would just be silly...

Well, based on the evidence on this thread, women have a better understanding of research and what constitutes 'scientific fact'.

Anyone who describes themselves as 'cisgendered' will set off alarm bells for me.

There used to be scientific studies that showed black people and Jewish people to be mentally inferior. Science is politicised.

Since other people have covered the science angle, I will speculate that if you raised that question to a philosopher, she might wonder precisely what you meant by 'philosophical'.

You could construct both ethical and epistemological questions relating to scientific studies (and people do, all the time), but I don't think you'd typically mash them up together with a misrepresentation of this kind, and then expect to get a good result.

It's quite common for people to think this is how science works, though, isn't it?

I find it really interesting (honestly).

I think part of the issue is that many people attribute to scientists and the scientific community a masculine authority. So when 'silly women' pop up objecting to 'scientific fact', they assume it must be an emotional objection and not a scientific one. Hence the OP's questioning along those lines.

I'm not a scientist, but I can read a published paper and understand basic points. I can look at the size of the cohort and the methods used and so on. And I've noticed that when there are studies reported in the media (badly!) as 'OMG Science Proves Women are This and Men are That', it seems to be considered almost bad form to go to the study and check out what it says. People respond to you as if you'd dabbled in something you shouldn't dream of understanding.

Yet, if it were a different subject - it somone had published a learned study about why Shakespeare is a shit writer - no-one would find it odd that everyone had an opinion, whether educated or not. And if you published a study claiming that Shakespeare was a more shit writer than, say, a woman, all hell would break free.

Firstly, as others have said, one study does not result in a "proven fact".

Secondly, I would question the vehicle of measuring "intelligence". Eg if it was IQ tests all it would "prove"(?!) was that the test which was used gave men a better outcome, the test could well be biased in men's favour so more likely to give them a higher score.

You would need to find a non biased way of measuring intelligence first which is a very complex area.

it's not even correct to say "it is a proven fact that men are taller than women".

This reminds me of something I saw in a mainstream publication - that awful looking brown book "XX things you need to know about Psychology"

It had likened the psychological differences between men and women to the differences in height. In reality they are nothing near as significant as the physical differences between men and women but are often reported as being so by the media and subsequently taken on by the public.

It is fascinating and infuriating that people are so eager to maximise those psychological differences. As if the equalling of opportunities for the sexes leads to a need to emphasise their differences.

Strange.