The effects of hormones on gendered behaviour....again!

[ScottCheggJnr]

I've decided to create this thread so as not to derail the other thread about the difference in learning between boys and girls. The below study is one I'd bookmarked a while ago to read at a later date and then forgotten about until said thread reminded me about it.

I'm personally very interested in the effect of hormones, not least because I've noticed a significant change in my character since taking testosterone for a medical problem and noting significant changes in going from a very low to a high level.

I'm about to read the article in full, but below are some pretty controversial statements that stand out, which are particularly relevant to some of the heated discussions I've read on here previously.

I'd be very interested to hear the interpretations of those posters who are more scientifically minded than myself.

Confidence has increased that early androgens affect gender development, in light of recent studies that confirm, extend, and clarify previous findings. Activity interests and participation – from childhood toy preferences to adult hobbies and occupations – continue to be strongly linked to prenatal androgen exposure.

Androgen effects on interest and engagement in male-typed occupations was seen to have economic consequences: women with exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) were more likely than controls to have income in the top 20th percentile, reflecting employment in male-typical, higher-paying jobs (despite having lower education, and more psychosocial problems).

Prenatal androgen effects on the tendency to prefer careers that involve things versus people reinforce other suggestions that women might be engaged by STEM when emphasis is placed on its social relevance.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4681519/

Oh, come on! Part 2:

The paper does summarize past research by this lab that's led to them to the proposed research, which the lab's website describes as follows:

The main work in our lab concerns psychological development in people with CAH (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia), a genetic disease that results in exposure to high levels of androgens during early development. This work has two aims:

(1) to understand how hormones influence psychological development, and
(2) to take the information we learn to help people with CAH and their families.

Under the heading, "How do children come to identify with their biological sex?" the website also says:

This is a topic of great interest and controversy. Much remains to be learned, but the evidence to date shows that gender identity is related more to socialization than to biology. For example, studies of girls with CAH have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority identify as female. In these studies, feelings of discontent with one’s gender or a desire to be another gender do not correlate with how masculinized their genitalia are or their level of exposure to prenatal androgens. Therefore, early hormones do not seem to play as large a role in gender identity as does socialization (Berenbaum & Bailey, 2003; Dessens, Slijper, & Drop, 2005; Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 2004, Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 1996; Zucker et al., 1996).

Obviously, what hard-science evidence they've discovered to support their theory of How Early Hormones Shape Gender Development only shows that "early hormones do not seem to play as large a role in gender identity as does socialization".

Oh, come on! Part 3:

Both authors of this paper, & the Berenbaum Lab generally, are heavily invested in promoting the concepts of gender, gender identity and gender development, and trying to find a biologic basis for them.

However, as far as I can tell from a quick but eagle-eyed search, the authors & their lab's work never clearly define what exactly gender, gender identity & gender development are. And their work is full of, and based on, frequent references to vague, undefined terms like "male-type activity interests and engagement" and "male-typed occupations" and "male-typical, higher-paying jobs".

Basically, this paper is an advertisement that seems to be aimed at funders & the press in order to garner attention for the authors' past but mostly proposed, upcoming research. As a result, it raves in excited prose about the hypothetical processes illustrated by the lone figure/chart the authors provide, despite the fact that "empirical evidence is needed to test most of the paths in the figure..."

And it contains paragraphs like this, from a section near the end called "Ongoing Work & Future Directions":

This is an exciting time to study how hormones shape gender development. The field is poised for some significant advances, and we highlight topics that represent opportunities based on animal studies, tantalizing recent findings noted above, and related trends in other areas of science.

And like this, which is the entire final section called "Conclusions":

Work on hormonal influences on gender development provides a nice model for understanding psychological development in general. Identifying mechanisms by which sex and gender matter can tell us about the ways that the prenatal environment primes us to elicit and respond to our social worlds, and how our biology and experiences transact across development to shape brain structure and function that guide behavior.

Wow that looks like some really high impact not-science! Thanks for digging through Vegilante.

Oh, come on! Part 4:

Unfortunately, the disease the authors base all their hypothetical & actual work on, CAH, is extremely rare, occurring in 1 out of every 16,000 births according to the CDC.

As a result, even if their work does yield real, measurable & replicable scientific findings about "how early hormones shape gender development" (whatever "gender" is), it's unlikely that such findings could be applied to the 99.999% of the population who don't have CAH. In that sense, it's a bit like all the research into rare intersex conditions that transgenderists constantly cite to promote such ideas as "sex isn't binary, it's a spectrum".

In fact, in late October Berenbaum herself along with fellow US transgenderist psychologist Kristina Olson co-authored an opinion piece that appeared on the Scientific American blog about the Trump admin's reported plans to define "sex" in US federal anti-discrimination laws as "biological sex" the way the term "sex" was meant when those laws were written & passed.

In this piece, the authors say, "insisting that it's a binary choice between male and female, determined at birth by genitalia goes against decades of research". Furthermore, they make the extraordinary claim that "none of these (biological) markers of sex" - be they genitals, gonads, internal reproductive organs or chromosomes - "is 'definitive proof of a person’s sex' and in fact, nothing is". According to the authors, the principal determinant of a person's sex is hormones, which fits with the theory that a full-grown adults who've lived decades as men and women can transition to the opposite sex simply by taking opposite-sex hormones.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-trump-administrations-proposed-redefinition-of-gender-is-scientifically-absurd/

Vegilante
You are why I come here. Thanks so very much

Had not expected this thread to contain anything interesting or informative. Thanks, Vegilante!

Activity interests and participation – from childhood toy preferences to adult hobbies and occupations – continue to be strongly linked to prenatal androgen exposure.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40936719/gender-specific-toys-do-you-stereotype-children

Oh, come on! Part 5

In response to groundcontrol (Tue 13-Nov-18 04:39:23):

The link you provided is to a 3:25-long BBC clip called "Gender specific toys: do you stereotype children?" The video doesn't say what the words you bolded do. It says the exact opposite, in fact. It shows that adults determine what toys children play with, & how the children are spoken to & treated more generally, based on the sex-role stereotypes the adults project upon the children starting in infancy.

"Hormones in children come into effect at puberty."

Slightly before, AIR. Hormone levels start rising around 7 yo, and this is linked to increased.

aggression

Vegilante 👏👏👏

The video doesn't say what the words you bolded do. It says the exact opposite
I know - I was refuting the assertion in bold, not agreeing with it

CAH, is extremely rare, occurring in 1 out of every 16,000 births according to the CDC.

I wonder how many people out of 16,000 are typically CEOs. I'd imagine it's not an overwhelmingly high number either.

There are also a lot of other studies implicating hormones in increased threat response and their prevalence in violent criminals. For example, I remember reading that testosterone was a predictor or violent behaviour in female inmates as well as male.

Girls have ‘girl’ toys shoved at them and boys have ‘boy’ toys shoved at them, pretty much from birth. We really have no idea which each sex would pick, given a completely free choice.

This is another time when I wish that BBC documentary was still available that explored how we almost subconsciously steer children towards the stereotypes. It was heartbreaking to watch how the girls and boys were sent off on their different paths, even by parents who were proudly saying they didn't adhere to the stereotypes. There are a few brief clips available, but the whole thing was fascinating, even speaking as a happily childfree old crone: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09202jz

For now, I'll use this clip which shows just the effect of clothing:

Oh, come on! Part 6

Scott, stop trolling. Lots of nofap threads on reddit.

No one is denying that hormones can & do have often powerful effects on human behavior. Most posters here know full well the secondhand effects of testosterone - & we've experienced in 3-D up close & personal living color the effects of estrogen, progesterone, FSH, cortisol, TSH, oxytocin, prolactin, insulin...

What we reject is the idea that by taking opposite-sex hormones, a male can become a female, & a female can become a male.

More pertinent to this thread, we also deny that conformity to sex-role stereotypes and behaviors is determined (& forever fixed) by pre-natal or early post-natal hormones. We think "gendered behavior" on the part of children is primarily caused by how those children have been perceived and socialized by others around them.

The actual scientific research referenced in the paper you linked to in your initial post supports a/the GC & feminist position, not yours.

Thanks Vegi

Here is a bookcover image from one of the authors.

        It's all about the stereotypes innit?

Shots it's on YouTube I think will try to find

Lurker, Sign & Angry - Thanks so much for the kind words. Glad to be of service. Been stuck home due to illness recently, so I'm happy to have feminist talk to keep my brain active. So many interesting minds & topics.

Wrath - OMG, the photos on that book cover! But it's weird - they look just like shots taken by the GC photographer (name escapes me) whose work is meant to expose how nutty & extreme all this pink & blue genderism is! The authors & publisher probably don't understand words like "satire" and "irony."

Vegi
Being stuck at home must be sharpening your brain.
Seems like someone has to do the MN night shift.
I'll be checking out the GC photographers in the media now.
I've noticed, in the news lately, there seems to be photos of criminals now, clearly showing the perpetrators sex.

There is a new MRA drive to claim that men's behaviour is controlled by their hormones. For example, I've seen posters claim that men dont pay child maintenance because they lack oxytocin.

I think this is supposed to be a 'gotcha' for the fact that the legal system recognises that in some instances, women's behaviour can be explained by their hormones. For example women who have post partum psychosis are not in full control of their behaviour.

I think you have to be particularly resentful of women to be jealous of someone who has PPP.

I reckon there must be a lot of US dollars going into researching and finding a biological basis for gender identity; courtesy of Jennifer Pritzker et al. Seek & ye shall find!

What we reject is the idea that by taking opposite-sex hormones, a male can become a female, & a female can become a male.

The actual scientific research referenced in the paper you linked to in your initial post supports a/the GC & feminist position, not yours.

Are you posting in the right thread? I've never argued that people can change sex and I'm opposed to self ID as I've stated many times before on here.

I do however believe that hormones are a large part of male violence (not an excuse mind) which many would contest.

Thats a good argument for banning violence in entertainment, porn and prostitution right there.