Myth of pink brain blue brain

[Thelilywhite]

I was pleased to see this posted from the let toys be toys campaign. It's easy to read and I think useful in our gender critical arguments. I've been away and not up to speed on individual threads so thought it better to make a new one.

Nomine, with the epigenetic factor, I think the stereotyping is somewhat inbuilt, it starts before birth! But that goes not mean stereotypes cannot be broken down, it might just take more work.

Nolove, arrrrghh! Sorry!

with the epigenetic factor, I think the stereotyping is somewhat inbuilt, it starts before birth!

How do you mean? What sort of stereotyping do you mean? Is there evidence for this?

It's certainly pervasive and will take some time to break down, not least with the current regressive thinking around the subject clearlytobeclaret!

Assasinated, I covered this in my earlier posts. Here:

Hate to say it, but this is further complicated by Epigenetics, that is altered gene expression caused by environment, being able to be passed from parent to child. So some (sex determined) differences could be 'innate', that is present at birth, within some societies/pockets of society but not to others as a result of environment.

And here:

But don't forget Epigenetics is good also, as it shows that the right socialisation can impact more than a single generation. It does show how important socialisation is - it actually rewrites our biology to some extent. However this does mean though, whilst extremely worthwhile, it might be harder to tackle rigid gender stereotypes within very traditional (pockets of) societies, as people can be essentially biologically adapted, at least in part, to some of them.

And here:

However brain plasticity means that marked differences in the socialisation of males and female could potentially result in physiological differences. The New Scientist article, I made reference to in my previous post, IIRC found that men in societies that had more 'traditional' gender stereotypes had different levels of testosterone which is linked to aggression.

So we're all agreed that gender stereotypes can dictate choices. Do we all think that choices reinforce gender stereotypes?

In noloves example and others I have seen that are similar, the girls come out of school with stem qualifications. They are shocked to discover that not everyone thinks like them. They enter the world of sexism and their determination to have a stem career gradual erodes.

Perhaps this is an issue of quantity.

The more girls who do it, the greater the numbers taking up their career, the quicker the balance gets adjusted.

Thus, females will gradually get in to a situation where they are instrumental in dictating national policy as 50% of the decision-makers.

And vice versa for boys. They will be instrumental in formulating say parental leave policy, with the surefire knowledge that many men will need to take it up.

Nolove, Cheers!

Sorry, I'll stop bothering you with stupid questions.

Do we all think that choices reinforce gender stereotypes?

I think it depends how individualistic or rebellious we are. And how sustainable this is. If we are raising a generation of individualists but that is not sustainable then, perhaps, they are just falling back on and referencing traditional stereotypes because their own generational community does not have cohesive enough values.

But generally, yes, to the question.

Sorry, I'll stop bothering you with stupid questions.

No bother, Assassinated, I'm really just finding my feet too. These issues are very complex.

claritytobeclear

I don't wish to be rude, but may I ask whether English is your first language?

Perhaps it's the way you express yourself, but I sometimes struggle to complete infer your meaning.

I think it might help, if when you make a statement you give an example of it?

Not criticism at all, but I can see that you have thought deeply about things and I imagine you goal is to effectively convey your conclusion.

Datun that is funny. I have a degree in English language and linguistics! I know my writing can read a little densely though. Too many ideas to put into one sentence! I used to get a lot of my work proofread. A lot of this involved shorter sentences! Oops.

And I am English. From the north. My family have lived here for centuries.

They enter the world of sexism and their determination to have a stem career gradual erodes.

I've read of this happening as well, it's a regressive cycle as this in turn leads to the next generation of women experiencing similar and attitudes that these careers aren't for them being perpetuated. Some firms are fighting against this - at school we've had women come in to give talks who are excelling in STEM fields and doing a lot of work to improve representation, plus Crossrail in London has a good number of women working on it - a third, which although it's a shame this seems good, is something when compared to national figures. www.crossrail.co.uk/careers/engineer-your-future

claritytobeclear

To be honest, I was pretty certain you were English!

It's quite hard to tell someone can you please be a bit clearer without sounding like you're having a go.

I've just been thinking about all this a little more. I don't know what epigenetics is, despite googling it.

But it seems to be that behaviour can profoundly alter not just your brain, but perhaps your biology too?

I could easily have got that wrong.

But to follow my thinking. It's quite well-known that local violence escalates after a football match, both street and domestic. Football hooliganism. It can't be because of what they have been watching, otherwise you would get tennis hooliganism, athletics violence etc.

So it must be in the tribal nature of the opposing fans.

Except you don't get it with rugby.

Traditionally an amateur game, played by the middle classes.

Could the stereotype of middle-class, dictate the behaviour of the fans? Reigning in their baser desire for a spot of tribal confrontation?

But it seems to be that behaviour can profoundly alter not just your brain, but perhaps your biology too?

Datun
Well, environment, not just your own behaviour, generally, can alter your biology. Certain genes are switched on or off depending on environmental factors. This genetic state can be passed from parent to child. Our thought patterns, responses, decisions made, can affect our gene expression. Meaning we can be predisposed to certain characteristic behaviours. Although these behaviours do not have to be a pre requisite. Genetic features are often meta stable, in other words.

Could the stereotype of middle-class, dictate the behaviour of the fans? Reigning in their baser desire for a spot of tribal confrontation?

Quite possibly. But this could change if the stereotype were to be challenged.

Sorry folks ,didn't mean to post and run. I've just caught up and enjoyed reading your responses.
mostly Iv not read pink brain blue brain will add to my list! Am familiar with Cordelia Fines work though.
clarity I agree that recent advances in brain plasticity studies complicates matters. However I prefer to think that even if epigenetics show genetic predispositions are environmentally made then surely they can be unmade iyswim. I find the alternative too depressing to contemplate.

However I prefer to think that even if epigenetics show genetic predispositions are environmentally made

Can someone give me some examples of this?

Datun
Im just ploughing through some stuff. When iv got my head around it I will try and give you some.

Thelilywhite

Ok. Great, thanks.

Well, environment, not just your own behaviour, generally, can alter your biology. Certain genes are switched on or off depending on environmental factors. This genetic state can be passed from parent to child. Our thought patterns, responses, decisions made, can affect our gene expression.

Well, no, not quite. Epigenetics refers to selective environmental switch-on/off of the expression of certain genes. Genetics and environment interact to alter phenotype, which does include behaviour but also appearance, susceptibility to disease, etc.

However, it's open to misunderstanding to say environment affects biology because it makes it sound like the genetic make-up itself changes (I've heard people argue this point). Environment doesn't change genetics, but it can change how a body (and therefore a brain) develops.

It's also overstating the case by quite a bit to say that thought patterns, decisions, etc. affect gene expression. Thoughts change nothing, but the actions and behaviours we perform as a result of those thoughts do have the capacity to change gene expression but only on a probabilistic basis. It's not a case of doing that behaviour = changing gene expression, just that is increases the chance of gene switch on/off happening, which increases the chance of a certain phenotype appearing. For instance, say I carry a gene that, if expressed, increases my chance of lung cancer by 300%. The gene is currently switched off, but it could switch on anytime. If I take up smoking, it increases the chance that this gene will be switched on by 50%. So I might develop lung cancer even if this gene remains switched off, but I might not develop it even if it gets switched on. Epigenetics just means that smoking changes the odds.

The hereditary part is fascinating, though. For example, famine conditions in the Netherlands after ww2 increased the chance of babies being born smaller than average. That is, environmental conditions altered uterine environment - so far so standard, nothing epigenetic there. The reason we know that it did bring about change in gene expression is that those small babies also had an increased chance having smaller than average babies. Genes related to growing babies were switched in/off in fetuses in the 40s, and the expression of these genes was observed in the 60s-70s when average birth weight stayed lower than expected despite excellent nutrition.

Thanks Geeka Im struggling to understand as biology was never my thing but your explanation has really helped.

Glad it helped, lily

I'm a STEM academic in a related area so I'm familiar with a lot of this stuff. And don't get me started on the monkey studies mentioned earlier...

However I prefer to think that even if epigenetics show genetic predispositions are environmentally made then surely they can be unmade iyswim. I find the alternative too depressing to contemplate.

I totally agree with that Thelily. I like to think of the way we can empower ourselves through knowledge of Epigenetics and prevent undesirable gene expressions.

However, it's open to misunderstanding to say environment affects biology because it makes it sound like the genetic make-up itself changes (I've heard people argue this point).

I thought I was careful to talk about 'gene expression' rather than 'changing genetics', geeka but understand how this could have been lost (through my writing style).