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?

@YouAremyRain

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

Totally agree.

It would be like saying that Aristotle was right in assuming women were inferior because he was backing up his bias and prejudice with scientific hypothesis.....

The point is, it is one study on a small section of the population - can this really be extrapolated to the entire human race? What was the research question - was it fundamentally biased? Were all the male participants recruited form university while all recruited from a job centre? This stuff happens and creates innate bias before the tests even start.

Did the study ask questioned which are biased toward "male" intelligence - read the articles on how IQ tests only concentrate on traditional male aspects of intelligence such as maths - which girls are socially told they are not good at.

There are several studies that show men and women perform differently on tests and some show women do better, some show men do better. Some show no difference between the sexes.

What is proven, across many studies, is that there is more variation within the group than between the groups when using gender as a condition.

That is, in studies there will be more variation between the male participants or within the female participants than between the male and female participants as a whole.
This is never really expressed anywhere in the popular media, because gender stereotypes dictate en and women should show as different, whereas there is more overlap than there is difference.

Cordelia Fine has a whole book on this.

Any thoughts, OP?

My suggestion, OP, is that you take a look at the standards expected in fields like, for instance, particle physics or neurological medicine (biochemistry, toxicology or genetics, not epidemiology or psychology!) Trust me on this, they are extremely stringent on gathering unbiased, objective, observable and reproducible results, ruthlessly weeding out every single confounding factor that may contaminate the results. They want to make sure of what they are measuring, under what conditions and on what subjects, because any mistake, any inaccuracy, any carelessness in study design, could lead to conclusions that are not just wrong, but dangerous.

Now take your hard-science study, and compare it to any, all or most of the 'sex/race differences in intelligence' studies that you have ever heard of, in terms of design. There is no comparison. None whatsoever. One is properly conducted scientific research. The other is just bigotry dressed up with spuriously gathered statistics.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Yeah, I don't consider intelligence to be one of those phenomena that one can measure or study completely objectively. I'd be skeptical of any such claim that "a study has proven that members of group X are, on average, more intelligent than members of group Y". That's why I figured the example only made sense hypothetically. I chose men being more intelligent than women as the example because it seemed to me, in my humble opinion, to be the more traditional and less controversial kind of example of a sexist claim (men are far more often put up on a pedestal above women on any number of aspects--why not intelligence). The example need not be that of intelligence. It could be anything. And it could purport to show that women score better than men on X just as much as it could purport to show that men score better than women on X.

What I'm trying to get at is where the boundary lies between making claims that carry sexist undertones versus claims that seem sexist on a surface reading but may not be when you consider the intent or the meaning of the speaker, or the context in which it is said.

Let's suppose you had a teenage male around the age of 16 or 17someone who's not used to the subtle nuances and the difficulties of conducting scientific studies like the hypothetical one I brought up in a thoroughly objective wayand he reads this study and, understandably for his age, naively assumes the study to have proven the intellectual superiority of men over women. Is he sexist for holding that view now? Or should we still discriminate on other factors like his prior attitudes, like his willingness to draw further conclusions based on this study like the moral worth of women compared to men, like whether his faith in this study is an instance of confirmation bias, etc.

you're still assuming a lot

a 16-17yo boy who has been brought up in a non-sexist way might well question why he should take a face value a study that shows that he is likely to be more intelligent than any given girl of the same age

or what buffy said much better. that's what i meant

OP you are still looking at this from a fundamentally sexist position

tbh lots of robust and difficult-to-refute scientific studies that prove me wrong would be very helpful to me personally. then i could just accept that it's me that's all wrong and arsewise, not society, and i'm sure i'd be much more relaxed because fighting against the tide is very tiring. i'd probably be medicated up to the eyeballs, but i'd be much less tired

What I'm trying to get at is where the boundary lies between making claims that carry sexist undertones versus claims that seem sexist on a surface reading but may not be when you consider the intent or the meaning of the speaker, or the context in which it is said.

Try the old 'substitute racist for sexist' in that and see what you think. I reckon you'd decide that the solution was to make sure you were clear enough to avoid that 'surface reading'.

The chances are that your hypothetical 17 year old is probably reading a newspaper not a journal and newspaper coverage of studies is notoriously soundbite based and riddled with bias. See this for a real, actual, not hypothetical example;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1606251-Women-take-two-months-off-sick-due-to-tiredness-in-pregnancy-OR

Do you know what? I'm not that fussed in labelling a random 17 year old sexist or non sexist based on my understanding of his motivations?

Tell me it isn't so. <

It isn't so. Why am I being held suspect of having ulterior motives? I said what my intent was here:

"What I'm trying to get at is where the boundary lies between making claims that carry sexist undertones versus claims that seem sexist on a surface reading but may not be when you consider the intent or the meaning of the speaker, or the context in which it is said."

If you want something more general, I'm trying to understand, among feminists, what is considered sexist and what isn't. I was predicting that maybe claims made on the basis of unsupported opinion or bias versus claims supported by scientifically objective studies (or what are purported to be such) might be considered a reasonable cut off point, but I don't want to assume anything. I'm not that familiar with feminist thought so I thought I'd better get a smattering of opinions from actual feminists. I figured this might help in future engagements.

^^ That's it. All out on the table. No hidden agendas or ulterior motives. Not gonna surprise you with anything.

i don't think feminists are all that different to anyone else when analysing scientific evidence. some are even scientists themselves . there will be feminist analysis of the circumstances surrounding a particular study (how it came to be funded, potential bias in design, methodology, interpretation), but that's not all that different from any other questioning mind

"future engagements" makes you sound as though you're after ammunition to go into battle with feminists, is that the case?

if you aren't that familiar with feminist thought, why not do some reading on feminist theory? there was a thread a couple of days ago where the OP was asking for recommendations of books for her husband and that might be a good place to start in terms of exploring a feminist analysis of society's structures and accepted "truths"

Cisgender! I had to google that. That means you were born a man and you're fine with that.

PetulaGordino. I'd like to send those books to my x. He believed (erroneously) that he was a feminist. He used to say that women were 'superior'. He had read some book by somebody casteneda and told me that if I read the book I'd ''understand''. Told him no, it'd still be just one sexist man's flawed opinion and that one sex can't assign a role to the other sex. I think I was smarter than him tbh. In some ways he was so well-meaning that I wish I had some books to send him.