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

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.

I would have had more sex with more men if I could have been guaranteed the following:

1. My safety and consent respected.
2. A decent chance of good sex (not 100% based on male pleasure.
3. No shame or judgement.

Unfortunately a lot of men appear to be incapable of those three things so women have to be very choosy. You lot talk and behave yourselves out of sex. Pretty stupid if you think about it.

Think outside the box Dodo; the reason why you don't like my suggestions is because (according to the argument that your behaviour is due to society) you have been conditioned not to like them. If women were conditioned like men, then you would like the suggestion retrospectively.

FamousPJ 'Modesty culture' socializes men to believe that women are responsible for men's sexual behavior, and are to blame for what men do to them. This is upheld by the ways that these societies treat women and men -- for example, punishing rape victims. This is a basic concept of patriarchy in general. It's not fundamentally different in concept among various cultures, it's just more or less overt.

*1. My safety and consent respected.

1. A decent chance of good sex (not 100% based on male pleasure.
2. No shame or judgement.*

None of this is incompatible with my suggestion for women to be conditioned the same way as men.

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.

Given who its authors are, I find that a little difficult to believe.

Modesty culture' socializes men to believe that women are responsible for men's sexual behavior, and are to blame for what men do to them.

Well, my own position is that men are the way they are (sexually) regardless of how they are socialised, so I don't agree with the idea that the way women dress affects mens behaviour. In fact, I don't know a single man who thinks that, so I don't know where that came from.

This is upheld by the ways that these societies treat women and men -- for example, punishing rape victims.

I live in the UK. Where I live, there is no punishment for being raped.

Nope, you dimbo. You have just suggested that women 'have group sex in the presence of others' to avoid being physically harmed.

I still reckon my preference is for men not to harm, rather than women to join your little group fantasy.

"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?"

You're making the assumption that all men think the same as you and that all women think in the way that you imagine.

"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."

Look, I'll try one more time. None of that is anything that I wrote or suggested. You have jumped to that conclusion, apparently because it's the only way you can think to socialise men differently! I don't agree with any of that, and wouldn't ever suggest it as a way to socialise men.

You have just suggested that women 'have group sex in the presence of others' to avoid being physically harmed.

Well, you said;

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.

So I thought you were talking about my suggestion for women to be conditioned the same way as men. Anyway...

I still reckon my preference is for men not to harm, rather than women to join your little group fantasy.

That's my preference too, but unfortunately, preference and reality generally don't match up. Personally, I pay for sex, but I'm also afraid of being attacked by men, so I only visit sex workers who have a proven track record, so I know I won't be attacked by any men.

Group sex was one suggestion. My other suggestion, which you missed, was to have sex in a building where friends are present, so they can look at for you. Alternatively, a blindingly obvious suggestion is to have sex with your friends, then you have an idea of their temperament beforehand.

The article concludes with this paragraph:

The claim that science tells us that the possibility of greater merging of gender roles is unlikely because of “natural” differences between the sexes, focuses on average sex differences in the population — often in combination with the implicit assumption that whatever we think men are “more” of, is what is most valuable for male-dominated roles. (Why else would organizations offer confidence workshops for women, rather than modesty training for men?) But the world is inhabited by individuals whose unique mosaics of characteristics can’t be predicted on the basis of their sex. So let’s keep working on overcoming gender stereotypes, bias, discrimination, and structural barriers before concluding that sex, despite being a poor guide to our brains and psychological characteristics, is a strong determinant of social structure.

Most biologists wouldn’t disagree with the idea of focusing on changing what can be changed - but the opening of that paragraph refers to ‘average sex differences in the population’.

Those average differences are precisely what biologists are talking about when they talk about sex differences.

And earlier in the article she speaks about the greater ‘odds’ of men having autism, and acknowledges ‘group differences’.

These are statistical differences, not absolute differences, but who exactly is making claims of absolute differences?

Look, PJ. Nobody here wants group sex with you. If any of us were interested in group sex you’d be the one fetching the tea and biscuits and wearing a blindfold.

You're making the assumption that all men think the same as you

Men who have a problem with dick pics, prostitution, or camgirls only have a problem with it because (a) they're from a conservative or religious upbringing, or (b) they're virture signalling to women. So if women didn't have a problem with those things anymore, men wouldn't either.

Look, I'll try one more time. None of that is anything that I wrote or suggested. You have jumped to that conclusion, apparently because it's the only way you can think to socialise men differently! I don't agree with any of that, and wouldn't ever suggest it as a way to socialise men.

Umm, what? I never said you suggested socialising men that way.

My question was that, if the hypothesis that men behave the way they do, sexually, because of society, then why do we see predatory sexually behaviour in conservative/religious men? I'm not sure why you thought i was suggesting that men should be raised that way, as I never remotely suggested anything like that.

Nobody here wants group sex with you.

I never asked anyone here for group sex.

I suggested it as a means of avoiding violence during sex, as you're in the company of others

FamousPJ, you seem to have a very dim view of men. Quite misandrist of you, actually.

you seem to have a very dim view of men. Quite misandrist of you, actually.

Nope, I find the suggestion that men need to be fixed more offensive.

Oh bloody hell. Look, you seem to have very fixed ideas about why some women and men behave in different ways to each other. I don't think a conservative religious upbringing would do anything to stop a man growing up to be predatory. I think it very obviously runs the risk of making it more likely. Repression and suppression aren't helpful and neither is the misogynistic view of women that the major religions generally promote.

To be clear, the socialization I was referring to is not a religious conservative one.

So I thought you were talking about my suggestion for women to be conditioned the same way as men.

I don't want to speak for the poster you are talking to but a fundamental aim of feminism is for both men and women to be socialized in ways that are not patriarchal. Both femininity and masculinity have to go for that to be achieved. The solution, per feminism, is not to socialize girls like boys or boys like girls, but to socialize children into a society free from sex-based oppression (patriarchy). Perhaps that is where some of the confusion is coming from.

if the hypothesis that men behave the way they do, sexually, because of society, then why do we see predatory sexually behaviour in conservative/religious men?

Nothing about conservative/religious mores creates an environment in which women are considered full people. Conservative and patriarchal religious worldviews always treat women as less-than, and our oppression as natural. Predatory sexual behavior is unavoidable precisely because these societies view and treat women as less-than.

Predatory sexual behavior also occurs in less conservative/religious cultures because these cultures are also patriarchal societies which encourage predatory males while failing to support women and girls (beyond lip service). There are differences of degree, not in concept.

Aspie

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.
Given who its authors are, I find that a little difficult to believe.

The NYT has commissioned these authors to write the piece now for a reason. It would make sense to do this immediately after the publication of a book, but Fine's book came out almost 2 years ago. So why now?

Regardless of Fine's own view on gender identity (which are not clear to me), her argument is regularly used by advocates of transgenderism. E.g.
growinguptransgender.com/2018/06/

If 'the world is inhabited by individuals whose unique mosaics of characteristics can’t be predicted on the basis of their sex' (Joel & Fine), I'm struggling to see why the rationale for segregating by sex!

Segregating what?

Segregating anything where women are likely to be vulnerable to male predation—toilets, changing rooms, dormitories.

crsacre it's the scientific refutation of "born in the wrong body," "ladybrain", and the biological basis for wearing frilly dresses and makeup, not against the concept of biological sex.

FamousPJ

Nope, I find the suggestion that men need to be fixed more offensive.

Ah, so you’re arguing both: 1. that men are hardwired to be predatory and to sexually exploit women via prostitution and to do things like send unsolicited dick pics and 2. that this is not a bad thing.

Is this what you’re arguing?

I don't want to speak for the poster you are talking to but a fundamental aim of feminism is for both men and women to be socialized in ways that are not patriarchal.

If that means stiffling my sexuality, then I can't be on board.

Both femininity and masculinity have to go for that to be achieved.

That's not what it sounds like. To me, it sounds like you want to alter men's behaviour to make them more compatible with the way women are. You are taking women to be a sort of "default" or "standard" and wanting to change men to match that.

Predatory sexual behavior also occurs in less conservative/religious cultures because these cultures are also patriarchal societies which encourage predatory males while failing to support women and girls (beyond lip service).

Fair enough, but with my own upbringing, I was told not to look at porn, and my friends called me a "pervert" or "dirty bastard" when I said anything sexual. Yet, I still enjoyed looking at porn once I got my hands on it. Why was my brain not influenced by the society, or culture around me, to make me dislike porn?