NYT piece debunking 'Brain Sex'

[GraceTheDisgrace]

Scientists Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine in the New York Times Opinion section.

'In 17th and 18th century Europe, the rise of egalitarian ideals created the need for a scientific account of women’s inferior status. Thus was born gender biological complementarity — the notion that, as historian of science Londa Schiebinger explains in The Mind Has No Sex, “Women were not to be viewed merely as inferior to men but as fundamentally different from, and thus incomparable to, men.” It has been with us in one way or another, roping in science to explain the gender status quo, ever since.

At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded. Today’s version of this idea continues a centuries long quest to find the source of this hypothesized divergence in abilities, preferences, and behavior in the brain...'

www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/opinion/male-female-brains-mosaic.html

Cordelia

Cordelia Fine is a gem.

Interesting. Also interesting is that the article mentioned autistic men's brains but did not mention autistic women's brains. Yet again, we are overlooked.

I'm struggling to reconcile the two enduring themes on this board:
(1) men (regardless of their gender identity) are far more violent and sexually predatory than women ;
(2) there are no meaningful differences between men's and women's brains.

Is the idea that men's behaviour originates in some other organ besides the brain?

If you believe Cordelia Fine, what is the justification for segregation by sex?

crsacre - the answer to this is in the remarkably different ways that girls and boys are socialized.

Behaviour originates in the brain. Cordelia Fine and similar are looking at the hypothesis that there are some innate hard wired inevitable fundamental differences between men and women. The idea being that brains, being plastic, are altered by their experience to become what they are. Such as London cabbies who have done the Knowledge having an enlarged posterior hippocampus. There is no difference between someone who is not a cabbie and someone who is, other than experience.

So adults will have a mosaic of brain features, and no one feature can be said to be male or female.

Not just socialisation but size and strength, surely, and thus greater chance of coming out top in an encounter than a woman would?

I mean, I could go and mug random strangers on the street, but as I'm 5 ft 1, I'd probably bounce off half of them without them noticing.

crsacre - the answer to this is in the remarkably different ways that girls and boys are socialized.

Then why do we still see predatory behaviours in men with a strict conservative upbringing, and why do we not see women with a relaxed upbringing buying sex from men?

Men are raised in a vast number of different ways, and women are still raised in a vast number of different ways, yet, we still see clear divided between the genders on different sexual behaviours. Once I see women visiting prostitutes, flooding my phone with vagina pics, and going to cam sites to look at men, I'll believe there are no biological differences.

The other thing I should mention is that I find the upbringing hypothesis offensive; it suggests that men weren't raised properly, and that men's sexual desire is a problem which needs to be eradicated by societal conditioning.

"Then why do we still see predatory behaviours in men with a strict conservative upbringing, and why do we not see women with a relaxed upbringing buying sex from men?"

I have no idea why you'd think a strict conservative upbringing would somehow ward against predatory behaviour? Equally I have no idea what a "relaxed upbringing" has got to do with thinking it's ok to buy sex?

And, indeed, some men aren't brought up in ways that would socialise them into not being violent. I find it more offensive that you think it must be innate and that men just can't help it. Men's sexual desire is no problem at all, the issue is in treating other people badly as a result.

I have no idea why you'd think a strict conservative upbringing would somehow ward against predatory behaviour?

If you can't explain why men from strict conservative/religious backgrounds still end up becoming predators, then clearly you have a lot of work to do with this hypothesis.

I find it more offensive that you think it must be innate and that men just can't help it. Men's sexual desire is no problem at all, the issue is in treating other people badly as a result.

If you think that men's sexual desire entails treating people badly, then by definition, you do think there is a problem with men's desire and that it needs to be changed or modified in some way to match what women believe constitutes not treating someone badly.

Anyway, here's a completely radical idea; if we can change sexual desire by socialising people differently, then why don't we socialise girls and women to be more sexual? It would improve sexual compatibility between men and women... Women enjoy sex more often, mens advances are received more often. Win win for everyone.

Men are raised in a vast number of different ways, and women are still raised in a vast number of different ways

To my knowledge, the only way that men are raised is under patriarchy as men, and the only way that women are raised is under patriarchy as women.

Men are socialized into masculinity, not reared into it. It's a problem at the society level, not the individual parenting level.

Men are socialized into masculinity, not reared into it. It's a problem at the society level, not the individual parenting level.

Given that the argument I often hear is that society suppresses female sexuality, then why don't we simply rectify this problem by socialising women, sexually, the same way as men?

Size.
Different physical ability.
Ability to get left holding the bloody baby.

You say you're a man, PJ. How often are you physically worried about what a female sexual partner might do to you? (Assuming she isn't holding a weapon, that is.)

How much have you actually thought about this?

It's your suggestion that men from conservative backgrounds are somehow less likely to be predatory. I'd like to know how and why you think that's the case.

You said "if you think that men's sexual desire entails treating people badly" which is a complete fiction and not anything that I said. You seem to have come to that conclusion yourself. I don't know why sexual desire is relevant to this discussion, and I don't agree with any of your thoughts about women and sexuality.

Interesting responses!

Evolution has produced humans who are sexually dimorphic in almost all respects (grip strength, lung capacity, etc), documented in great detail in the thread on sports competition. That's why it is grotesquely unfair for women to compete against males (whether they declare themselves to be women or not).

But are we really supposed to think that evolution stops at the neck? If evolution produces a body that is more physically capable of violence, wouldn't the same process produce a brain that was more prone to using violence?

BTW I suspect that this NYT article is part of a slew of pro-gender anti-sex arguments by American liberals reacting against Trump—Alice Dreger, Nature, etc. The timing is not coincidental.

Behaviour is multifactorial both nature and nurture have an effect. People really need to let go of the "it's all socialization" mindset as that simply isn't true.

You say you're a man, PJ. How often are you physically worried about what a female sexual partner might do to you?

Problem is easily rectified by having group sex, or having sex in buildings where friends are present and they can look out for you.

The point I was getting at though was, rather than trying to condition men not to pay for sex, not to use camgirls, and not to send dick pics, why don't we condition women to pay for sex with men, watch men on webcam, and send vag pics? Let's maximise the fun!

I am confused about why a “strict conservative/religious background” is considered the most likely to reduce predatory behaviors in men.

It isn't true to suggest that there are innate and fundamental differences between women and men. Differences are small, where they exist, and brains are plastic. Let's work on how men and boys are socialised and see what impact we can make.

I think Fine is arguing against absolute differences between male and female brains instead of the far more likely statistical differences that evolutionary biologist are g about.

There’s no stag-antler or peacock feather differences that you can point to that make a male brain a ‘male brain’ but there are statistical differences in anatomy and behaviour.

If it was just down to social forces acting on plasticity than the differences would be more pronounced in less egalitarian societies.

Hands up who’s willing to say that the brains of men and women in Afghanistan show more differences than they do in Norway? Because that’s the corollary of believing it is all down to plasticity.

It's your suggestion that men from conservative backgrounds are somehow less likely to be predatory. I'd like to know how and why you think that's the case.

That wasn't my suggestion. It's your suggestion. You said upbringing and/or society solely influences sexual behaviour. So according to your belief, men from conservative and religious backgrounds (in which men are taught that sex is sacred, sex before marriage is bad, adultery is bad, fornication is bad, prostitution is bad, women are deserving of a special level of respect, the family is the core of society, etc etc etc) should exhibit shy and prudish behaviour when it comes to sex, and also be very meek and kind towards women. While those religious men do exist, I hear stories, far too frequently of men from religious/conservative backgrounds being sexually abusive. Your job is to explain that observation.

You said "if you think that men's sexual desire entails treating people badly" which is a complete fiction and not anything that I said.

My point hasn't connected with you. What I'm saying is, is that behaviours like sending dick pics, paying for sex, etc are only bad in the eyes of (some) women. So my suggestion is, why not change society so that women are sexually conditioned the same way men are conditioned, and then paying for sex, sending dick pics etc will no longer be perceived as being bad by anyone?

Let's work on how men and boys are socialised and see what impact we can make.

Why not change women and girls instead? Given that the common argument is that women and girls are sexually suppressed, it makes far more sense to condition women differently rather than suppress men too.

BTW I suspect that this NYT article is part of a slew of pro-gender anti-sex arguments by American liberals reacting against Trump—Alice Dreger, Nature, etc. The timing is not coincidental.

I disagree with much of what Fine says but I can’t see how it would support transgender ideology. Even the title of her book Delusions of Gender makes the point that gender is a ‘delusion’. There’s no mention of transgender in either Delusions of Gender or Testosterone Rex as far as I recall, and ‘transsexuals’ are referenced just once.

For the record, I enjoyed both Delusions of Gender and Testosterone Rex. She is a great communicator. If you haven’t read them, do so. Every now and then they drop to 99p on Kindle.

I just think plasticity doesn’t explain sex differences that are universal.

Crsacre has a good point.
So if a child has cross sex hormones and socialised pre puberty as the other sex - the brains and functioning would be more likely to be similar to the post-transition sex? What would be the basis of segregation?

Nope, don't like your suggestions, PJ. They don't sound to me like they'd enhance my life or that of the women and girls I know.