Reclaiming (evolutionary) biology! (thinking about what Heather Brunskell Evans said)

[Feministme]

Lots of food for thought from LAWS last night, but one thing that really struck me was Heather B-E's plea to "reclaim biology".

Evolutionary biology and 'biological essentialism' often seem like dirty words in feminism because they are used as lazy justification for inequality and oppression: "men rape because of a natural urge", "there are more men in positions of power because they are natural leaders", "women are natural homemakers" etc...

So feminism has tended to shy away from seeking biological explanations (eg for male violence) and to say its all about conditioning/social constructions of gender.

But we shouldn't mistake "natural" for "good". Cancer is natural. Dementia is natural. Children dying of measles is natural. Everything about the world of biological beings must be explainable by evolution through natural selection (unless we invoke "souls" etc...). The evolutionary pressures on males (capable of fathering many offspring, but never certain which ones are theirs) and females (capable of mothering a limited number of offspring, with certainty but at great personal cost) are quite different. So we would expect males and females to be different (on average) in behavioral traits.

This whole fight against transgenderism has been about protecting the definition of women as a biological reality.... it's brought us back to thinking about biology in relation to feminism.....

Just wondered what others think?

I dunno about Pandora's box - more of a can of worms, akin to looking to science to justify racial inequalities with different natural propensities.

How about instead of going out with an intention to find natural differences between men and women, you do what ever psychological/aptitude testing and research you can, with sex as well as blood group as well as economic background, etc, etc as ways to interpret the results.

The reason why you have to be extremely cautious is because sexism is normal. Every subject tested will have been socialised with sexism. As would every scientist testing. As would every person interpreting the data.

What would this add?

We already know men and women are different - look at the crime stats. Men wake up with hard ons in the morning and their first thought is on getting an orgasm. Why is there a need to dig deeper to devise ways to psychologically categorise babies when there is plenty of evidence of sex differences in adults?

You need to research properly how much behaviour is gendered and how much is societally imposes (preferring pink is clearly societal, boys playfighting more than girls is (imo) probably innate).

Asserting that ‘gender is a social construct’ is not helpful and is denying evolution.

Once you accept that some behaviour is gendered then you get to the corollary that men’s propensity to violence is not bad or something that needs dealing with, as it is the same propensity that allowed teams of (mainly) men to split the atom or put a man on the moon. It is a question of channelling this propensity in the right direction.

I know that there is such a huge intersection of cultural and genetics and that it is impossible to unpick.

OTOH, I think that thinking of either sex as superior is just silly and, by acknowledging innate differences, whilst recognising the huge overlap and treating everyone as an individual, we are more likely to reach a true and longterm equality.

LikeDust

How about instead of going out with an intention to find natural differences between men and women, you do what ever psychological/aptitude testing and research you can, with sex as well as blood group as well as economic background, etc, etc as ways to interpret the results.

But that is how psychological research is conducted. Multi-variable analysis is important, in order to tease out which factors are significant. You have to start with a pre-determined hypothesis to test, though, because otherwise you can invalidate your methodology - I can't remember the name for this frowned-upon practice, but if you cherry-pick your results you can end up making the statistical probability of the results invalid.

That aside, I think there are two things here that it's important to keep separate. The first is the study of what differences currently exist between population groups (of any sort) without trying to determine the cause of those differences. This is done for various reasons, but is often important for provision of services, to address population needs as closely as possible.

The second is studies that try to address what proportion or elements of a population characteristic are caused by nature or nurture. These are much more difficult to do, but the reason psychologists are interested in the question (apart from just scientific curiosity) is because the best way to address a problem may differ significantly, depending on what causes it.

So take violence: blank slate-ists believed that all violence was a learned response. So if a young child was violent, it was probably because of violence in the home. But now evidence is coming out that there are genetic predispositions and personality types that predispose an individual toward violence. My point is, the effectiveness of various policies we might adopt to counter-act that tendency to violence is likely to be different, depending on what's causing it. So if we want effective social policies, the nature/nurture issue is important.

My point is, the effectiveness of various policies we might adopt to counter-act that tendency to violence is likely to be different, depending on what's causing it. So if we want effective social policies, the nature/nurture issue is important.

Yes, very much this. I've recently been reading quite a lot of ultra realist criminology, which is enlightening in this regard - not just nature/nurture but other issues feminism doesn't usually talk about.

LangCleg That's interesting. Criminology, specifically the effect of personality disorders, was at the back of my mind when I wrote the above, as a different example I could have used, instead of violence. Is that what you're reading about, or is it other aspects?

I dunno about Pandora's box - more of a can of worms, akin to looking to science to justify racial inequalities with different natural propensities

The thing is though sex is quite different to race. Ethnic differences really are only skin deep and have evolved relatively recently in response to people finding themselves in different climates after modern humans migrated from the horn of Africa 70,000 years ago, whereas sex differences go back millions of years and predate modern humans.

We tend to think of them as similar types of things - - two boxes next to each other on the equalities form - - but in biological terms they are quite different

The traditional tool for teasing out environmental influences was twin studies.

Find a pair of identical twins brought up separately and see how they turned out.

If one is brought up in a materially or emotionally and or impoverished environment and ends up in prison for stealing cars and the other is brought up with all the advantages imaginable, goes to Oxbridge, becomes a stock trader, then ends up in prison for embezzlement, there’s possibly a genetic link.

There aren’t many twin studies done these days though because they don’t seperate twins.

One of my favourite films is Trading Places. It’s not about twins but it is about a social experiment on environmental causes of behaviour.

But that is how psychological research is conducted. Multi-variable analysis is important, in order to tease out which factors are significant. You have to start with a pre-determined hypothesis to test, though, because otherwise you can invalidate your methodology

So it seems the data is already out there. Why not just look at already has been researched filtering by sex? Clearly it is because you cannot eliminate sociological factors.

The thing is though sex is quite different to race. Ethnic differences really are only skin deep and have evolved relatively recently in response to people finding themselves in different climates after modern humans migrated from the horn of Africa 70,000 years ago

However there is far more genetic diversity among sub-saharan Africans than among those who migrated from the horn of Africa. Perhaps it isn't just skin deep. It is certainly possible. Perhaps certain talents and abilities are passed down through different genetic heritage. I have fuck-all interest in finding out because from an ethical perspective I believe that information gleaned by this research is dangerous because us humans are a bunch of fuckwits that need stereotypes so as not to become overwhelmed by the sheer diversity that exists.

This thread makes me wonder if there is a hankering for Plato's Republic (or like the film Divergence for a more modern example).

As to criminology and personality disorders, I am pretty sure PDs are evenly spread between women and men, but they are expressed differently. Is this different expression nature or nurture? Does it matter? The important issue is finding ways to stop men from being responsible for the majority of the world's shit.

I only read OP not thread but as an evolutionary biologists here’s my take:

Humans are mammals - since mammals gestate young there is an overall tendency among mammals to see the more common “sex role” (males the “competitive” sex, females the “choosy” sex).

However there is a general trend in mammals, birds especially that sexual dimorphism tends to decrease in lineages with biparental care. Specifically, sex specific “ornaments” and “weapons” in males are reduced when compared to harem/mate-guarding polygamy. If you look at humans in the context of great apes this appears to have happened in the human lineage. Males and females are less dimorphism than in, say, orangutans, gorillas, or chimps.

There is of course residual physical sexual dimorphism. When it comes to behavior however most of the variation in male and female sexual (and other) behavior that we see can be demonstrated to be culturally - based. Attempts to identify “biological” reasons for mating behaviors have always come up short.

In short I would argue that the Homo sapiens adaptation for persistent culture and cultural evolution is such a strong effect that biology has little to do with behavior other than a tiny nudge. This nudge is enough that we start with most societies being patriarchal. But they needn’t remain so.

AspieandProud

Yes, separated twin studies are really, really interesting. The most important thing about them, IMO, is that they really did disprove the blank slate theory pretty conclusively.

The thing that makes me cautious about all this, though, is my awareness of how much scientists' abilities to study these things is likely to improve in future. Genomics is still in its infancy, and neuro-imaging even more so. When people say something like "you can't tell male and female brains apart by looking at them", I just think: no, not at the moment, with our relatively crude technologies, but what about in 30 years time?

More knowledge plus potential new technologies not yet thought of perhaps could answer a lot of questions people now think will never be answered. I think it was Bill Bryson's book about the history of science that drew my attention to how many times in history even scientists have wrongly said "that question will always remain unanswerable", because they simply couldn't imagine the future technology that in fact would answer it. I guess maybe I am just cautious by nature, but that's why I am keeping an open mind on this subject.

And now, time to get ready to spend the day Christmas shopping

You already can tell the difference between a male and female brain. They both weigh the same but women's are smaller and denser. No new-fangled science required.

What other brain differences are you looking for?

I'm sure you'll be able to see the effects of sex hormones on the brain.

What are you looking for- what is this sexed brain you think science is going to throw up?

I suppose my beef is with this is that you already can tell a female from a male brain. Here's the steps:

1. is it inside a male or female body?

2. does it have female or male sex chromosomes in the DNA?

3. it's size and density - more like a typical woman or typical man?

If there are differences in aptitude or brain imaging it is unlikely you will see definitive sex differences like you see in the sex organs or sex chromosome. The differences are far more likely to have 2 clusters in the distribution, like height.

What if all we have is our sexed bodies, how this affects our thinking, environment/socialisation, hormonal influences and how we are mentally affected by our reproductive role. All of which are highly significant and worth researching in a lot of detail. Very real palpable things.

What if this 'other' thing is just phlogiston?

What is this extra thing you want to find evidence for?

Likedust

Apparently, I haven't expressed myself clearly. I don't "want" to find anything, except the truth.

I am interested in the extent to which certain currently observable sexed differences in behaviour - for example, men being more violent - can be accounted for by innate factors vs socialisation.

I would be quite happy if most of those differences turned out to be due to socialisation. BUT I simply don't believe in pre-judging something ahead of the data, and making claims that later science might prove to be untrue.

Because : 1) Too much damage has been done in the past by people taking that approach (to lots of people, not just to women)
2) That is precisely what we are criticising TRAs for doing, as well as for suppressing research
3) Because if we put all our eggs into the basket of "all sex differences are due to socialisation, and that's why women should be treated equally", what happens to our case if science later reveals that actually there are some significant differences?

You mention aptitude, as if you think I was talking about that - but I've already said earlier in the thread that I don't believe significant differences in aptitude will be found, because already the data doesn't point that way - that's the one area that has been relatively well researched, and anyway as Aspie said, it's unlikely just in theoretical terms that evolution would select for sexed differences in maths ability.

Hopefully I've now clarified my stance on this: I don't really want to have to keep posting to say I haven't said what I haven't said. Anyway, I'm in the coffee shop at John Lewis now, fortifying myself with a latte for sallying forth to the shops before they get too crowded, so may or may not be back to the thread later.

Good luck with the shopping.

My money is on hormones affecting the brain, mixed with socialisation, environmental privileges and having a male body which is bigger and stronger than women's, with no vulnerability about becoming pregnant and with an added dick and a gnawing, near constant urge to stick it in things.

So anyway. I would say. Of course men are more violent!

What I have found quite interesting though through chatting to a lot of people is often the blokes who are enormous naturally (not through taking roids or endless working out) are often quite peaceful men who just got their job as a bouncer or whatever because they look the part. That was a real eye-opener for me about masculinity. I remember this one bouncer lamenting how his dad never said anything positive to him as a kid and he seemed to have this forgotten artist in him longing to be actualised. Bless him. Then at the opposite end you can get men who are slightly built, fairly hairless who spend all their time watching violent porn and lose their temper in a flash.

I believe a lot of male violence and misogyny is actually peer group socialised rather than being something parents can do much about though.

You already can tell the difference between a male and female brain. They both weigh the same but women's are smaller and denser. No new-fangled science required.

Size is only a statistical difference. A brain isn’t female just because it’s smaller or has denser folds.

Can’t remember the name but there was a male novelist, considered a literary genius in his time, who turned out to have a tiny brain when they autopsied him.

What other brain differences are you looking for?

Whatever’s there. Autism, for one thing, seems to effect more men than women, and is more socially impairing, even if it is under diagnosed in girls.

Also drugs effect men and women differently. If you want to treat depression or schizophrenia you need to know about brain differences.

One of the problems with studying drugs for depression or schizophrenia is that they were generally tested on men. If there isn’t a sex difference then that wouldn’t matter.

A lot of the objections to research like this seems to echo the objections to evolution. That’s what the Scopes trial was about. If we are just apes what’s to stop killing or throwing feces at each other?

But admitting we are animals doesn’t mean abandoning the fact we are capable of rational behaviour.

Is that what you're reading about, or is it other aspects?

Other aspects. Mostly based on ethnographical research and often rooted in materialist leftist politics. It is not particularly feminism-friendly - tending to see all waves of feminism as identity politics. Good interview with a prominent academic in the field here:

www.injustice-film.com/2018/01/02/interview-prof-steve-hall-ultra-realist-criminology/

3) Because if we put all our eggs into the basket of "all sex differences are due to socialisation, and that's why women should be treated equally", what happens to our case if science later reveals that actually there are some significant differences?

I was going to make this point too. Treating people equally is a moral imperative rather than something that rests on the assumption that we are all exactly the same. If that assumption proves unfounded then the moral case would be undermined. We have to treat people equally even if it turns out we are not the same.

And treating people equally means that you don’t get a free pass just because you have a higher level of testosterone that contributes to that behaviour.

Whatever’s there. Autism, for one thing, seems to effect more men than women, and is more socially impairing, even if it is under diagnosed in girls.

I agree more research into autism and other conditions is necessary, as is tailoring ways to detect, manage and treat conditions for both sexes so that girls don't get overlooked. It is also important to keep an open mind as to whether there are biological and/or envionmental/sociological reasons boys and girls present differently.

I also agree with you about brain size. It is like height. Women just tend to have smaller skulls but because some men also do, you can't use it as definitive evidence of brain sex.

The traditional tool for teasing out environmental influences was twin studies.

Find a pair of identical twins brought up separately and see how they turned out.

That's not how twin studies are generally done. There are not enough identical twins separated at birth to be able to perform any group-wide analysis on them.

What twin studies actually do is to compare monzygotic (identical) twins with dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Monozygotic twins share 100% of their genetic make-up, whereas dizygotic twins share only 50%, so if monozygotic twins are more similar on some particular measure than dizygotic twins, that is taken as evidence that there is some heritable component to what was measured.

Just copy pasted reply in the other thread to here. This is a response specifically to the article by Colin Wright which was linked above.

I have to call BS on some of Wright's claims in this article. In general his claims are based on research in animals, where one can do a common garden type experiment to tease out sex differences if desired. These experiments are not possible in humans, for obvious ethical and societal reasons.

"the evidence for innate sex-linked personality differences in humans is overwhelmingly strong."

In humans, sex differences in personality traits are persistent and measurable (though quantitative, not qualitative as he admits). This is not the same as innate unless one does a proper environmental control. Which is not possible in humans as discussed above.

"Sex-linked personality differences are very well documented in our closest primate relatives, too, and the presence of sexual dimorphism ... dramatically intensifies these differences... Given that humans are sexually dimorphic and exhibit many of the typical sex-linked behavioral traits..."

Wright fails to acknowledge that humans have experienced recent evolution of reduced sexual dimorphism as monogamy with biparental care has become the main mode of reproduction in the human lineage. This is similar to what happens in pair-bonding birds. If anything, we should expect that compared to other mammals and primates, humans will have less intense sex differences in behavior (much like albatrosses have fewer sexually dimorphic behaviors than do, say, peacocks).

"social justice view ... insists that humans are special in that evolution has played no role in shaping observed sex-linked behavioral differences"

A ridiculous strawman. The PoV opposite his is that there is no evidence - and really cannot be in humans - that any specific sex-associated behavior is innate versus learned. Because the experiments we would do in animals to tease these out are unethical. Most Evolutionary Biologists (including those he derides) would assume that any behavioral trait in humans is due to a combination of environmental, genetic, and gene by environment factors - but would also know as he apparently doe snot, that teasing this out is not possible.
(Note also that "sex-linked" is not the correct terminology for what he means).

I do agree of course, with his view that sex is not socially constructed.

Dealing with a shed load of illnesses in this house so can't follow the discussion well but I'm watching this as mentioned on WH. Couple of early nods to basic genetic temperament in a baby leading to then how we respond to shape that temperament and possibly going to cover gender bias/ stereotypes and other biases. Might include some bits pertinent to the ideas here.

Babies: Their Wonderful World, Series 1: 1. Becoming You: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bt7v16 via @bbciplayer

LangCleg Only part way through that interview, but just wanted to say it's really, really interesting. And I laughed out loud at the inspired phrase "self-appointed ideological beadles"!

Fascinating thread.

I had always thought a lot of the behaviours stereotypically associated with each sex had a lot of evolutionary truth to them. However our brains and ideas evolve much faster than the rest of our biology...or parts of our brain maybe ?

I think a lot of sexual jealousy for example is a manifestation of mate guarding instinct.

I find it fascinating to consider how contraception and particularly the birth control pill has changed the reality of sexual intercourse. Like we are perhaps evolved to have hang ups about sex and certainly not to be having sex with men whom we did not want to get pregnant by given the cost etc. Now thats all out the window but our psychology still has maybe hang ups about sex that don't apply ? Out great grandmother's did not have to deal with the possibility of their partners having had sex with dozens of women prior to them for example.

I think a result is that people now think a lot more about sex than they used to. In the past I suppose they would accept you don't do it unless babies.