The new evolution deniers

[greycloudblackbird]

'It is undoubtedly true that trans people lead very difficult lives, which are only made more difficult by the bigotry of others. But social justice activists appear completely unwilling or unable to distinguish between people who criticize their ideology and people who criticize their humanity.'
quillette.com/2018/11/30/the-new-evolution-deniers/

I like the clarity of the distinction in this quote.

Interesting article. Some here may not like the start as he argues for a biological basis for some sex based personality differences. But even if you disagree with this it is worth reading on, I think.

Couple of threads on which Wright's article is currently discussed, one is:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3439449-Reclaiming-evolutionary-biology-thinking-about-what-Heather-Brunskell-Evans-said

Thanks for this.
Interesting. I tend to think that it is likely that there is a biological base to some personality differences between sexes. Because men and have a slightly different physique (not as pronounced as in some species) which presumably reflects a different role in the society we evolved in,so seems to me likely there may be some small evolved personality difference too.
Although I still think this is likely, having small children has made me even more aware of the appalling sexist stereotyping shite pushed at our children from the moment they enter the world. So I am much more aware of overwhelming socialisation than I was before too.

Does anyone have a rebuttal for the Nordic paradox? Where decades of equality laws and positive discrimination have produced fewer female CEOs for example? I don't have enough time between child wrangling to do detailed reading!

From thread you linked to. There was a programme on radio 4 about this recently, the 1.45pm slot. The presenter was arguing that the problem with the Nordic model was that by having a a very standardised assessment process, you actually end up selecting for the same type of person each time. He argued, that what was really needed was a recruitment process which actively sought out difference, people with different ways of cognitive processing etc.

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.

Since we already have a thread on this would it be possible to move the discussion over there so we don’t have to repeat everything?