Male brains/female brains

[Hungrypuffin]

A question please about the idea of there being ‘male’ and ‘female’ brains (which I don’t believe). I’ve just been arguing that this isn’t scientifically plausible, and the other person asked how I then explained that male and female crimes have different patterns and why some transwomen seem to retain male patterns of offending, if it isn’t because of ‘male brain’? What’s the thinking here?

What do they think ‘the brain’ is? Are we all automatons carrying out what our brains are programmed to do, free of any influence of socialisation, social conditioning, social expectations or learning/lived experience?

Those patterns are down to sex though, otherwise TW wouldnt display male pattern violence.

Turn it back on the person who asked you. Why do they think that men and women have different offending patterns?

Bearing in mind that we're not just brains floating around in isolation.

Because of gender norms and stereotypes, boys and girls experience different upbringings, different expectations of behaviour. Boys and girls are rewarded or punished for different behaviour, further encouraging us to conform to expectations.

Then following puberty, men and women have different physicality and different hormone levels in their bodies.

Given all of that, why would we possibly imagine that wearing a dress or choosing different pronouns could possibly make a difference against a lifetime of gender conditioning?

is the point more that you can't transpose 'male' and 'female' brains ie. if you have a male body, your brain can only be male (as it is an intrinsic part of you) and reflects the known differences in behaviour between the sexes. The fact that transwomen retain male patterns of offending demonstrates that perfectly - its because they are male.
Obviously that is saying that transwomen that would have been offenders while presenting as male are in general no more or less likely to be offenders while presenting as female.

Given that cultural norms in countries where men are expected to have separate tubes for each leg in their lower garments (ie. trousers) are virtually never strayed from, it follows that there will of course be other similarly strong cultural norms that men or women follow.

Scotland proves that there's nothing unique about a male brain that means they can only wear trousers, it's purely socially imposed, yet has such a strong effect - why wouldn't tendency to violence be similarly culturally created?

the other person asked how I then explained that male and female crimes have different patterns and why some transwomen seem to retain male patterns of offending, if it isn’t because of ‘male brain’?

Are they saying that transwomen have male brains? I'd agree with that, because a male brain is simply a brain in a male body.

I'd say it is down to a combination of sex hormones and elements of genetic coding/programming which are based on X/Y chromosomes. On top of that are cultural codes and extrapolations of sex roles/behaviour, slightly different for each society or culture. Beyond that are individual differences of character and personality.

and thinking on from that, do we, as a society have a view of ourselves as the 'sum of parts' and those parts are quite interchangeable - do people feel they have 'female' legs on a male body for example? I wonder if, with the advances of modern science and the way it is constantly presented to us that we don't take the physical integrity of our bodies seriously.

My daughter didn't think that someone regretting a double mastectomy was a problem as they could just have implants. I guess that demonstrates a lack of knowledge/experience on her part - she has never had any medical procedures or seen any of us have any but is this affecting our respect for our bodies as they are? I guess the general cosmetic surgery advances have a part to play as well - if you don't like your nose/boobs/chin - fix it. A worrying direction imo

Given that cultural norms in countries where men are expected to have separate tubes for each leg in their lower garments (ie. trousers) are virtually never strayed from, it follows that there will of course be other similarly strong cultural norms that men or women follow

Scotland proves that there's nothing unique about a male brain that means they can only wear trousers, it's purely socially imposed, yet has such a strong effect - why wouldn't tendency to violence be similarly culturally created

The natural world over, it is males who tend to be the aggressors; the ones fighting for territory, to establish alpha male, or for access to females. Female aggression exists, of course, often in defence of the nest of the young; and females sometimes also kill their own young.

There are obvious biological differences between the sexes, which can most often be seen at the extremes of behaviour or aptitude.

Physically too, obviously, the bodies were 'designed/evolved' for different functions. Females tend to have nimbler fingers; males have far greater upper body strength.......and so on.

Most women who have given birth know all about the flood of hormones that create an almost physical bond between mother and child; and most men are far more visual when it comes to sexual stimulation.....

It is not all cultural.

Its stressful talking about differences particularly in brains because it can be weaponised. But i am sure testosterone, eostrogen must have an impact on brains. I also think the brain is plastic so my brain has learned that im not going to win in a fight as its small and week so its learned to avoid fights at all cost.

I suppose the interesting question is whats different between men who offend and men that dont. Rather than just saying men and women are different so the maleness is the problem? Most offenders are men, but most men arent offenders.

I think it is impossible to separate the nurture from nature (gender from sex) when considering brain development and male violence. But regardless anyone transitioning past childhood will have experienced both forms of conditioning.
It is clear that hormones can have a drastic effect on moods and behaviour, as any woman who has been on the 'wrong' contraceptive pill for them can attest.
Socialisation happens so young, boys are boisterous and "boys will be boys" from toddlerhood, girls are encouraged into activities to sit quietly and not be bossy (aggressive).

A male brain is a brain in a male body, much like a male hand or digestive system. Studies have shown our gut behaves like a second brain, do TW claim a "female gut?"
Women are statistically more likely to suffer issues such as IBS

A lot of women (and men) dislike admitting their are biological differences between men and women, as some will use that to justify oppression of women (women are too weak for work outside the home/their brains aren't cut out for complex STEM subjects etc). However biological differences in the brain cannot be separated out from the rest of the body. You cannot develop a female brain within a male body.

I recall studies which looked into this did find differences in men and women's brains, on MRI scans, but also gay and straight people's brains. But ultimately they were all within a wide range of normal with overlaps between the groups. Much like adult height. There is no method that would enable you to identify the gender of the person from a brain scan. But based on brain volume you could probably assume sex.

It is not all cultural.

I never said it was but cultural effects can be extremely strong - and it's going to be very hard to prove which are cultural and which aren't.

I struggle with this too OP.

The reason that I fight against the concept of 'male brain' and 'female brain' is that it's often used to explain why men are 'better' at maths, computer coding, parallel parking etc and I strongly disagree with that.

But I guess you could say I'm cherry picking if I say that I don't believe that men are naturally better at maths but I do believe they're naturally more violent. (I do believe this btw. I'm playing devil's advocate here.)

Following with interest.

I think the issue is two fold:
A male brain is simply a brain in a male body. Nothing else.
Then there is the question of whether male brains are identifiably distinct from female brains. I think this is much more complex question, as it is so difficult to disentangle biology from culture and social conditioning. But assuming that there are some innate differences between female and male brains that account for some of the observed differences in the behaviour of men and women, it is clear that there is considerable overlap between the sexes. To suggest that a man with brain with traits more typical of women is less of a man is no less offensive (or ridiculous) than suggesting that a 6ft tall woman is less of a woman than one closer to the average female height.

But I guess you could say I'm cherry picking if I say that I don't believe that men are naturally better at maths but I do believe they're naturally more violent. (I do believe this btw. I'm playing devil's advocate here.)

I wonder if there's an element of 'because I can' rather than natural tendency.

for example, DP is much more likely to try and force something open or shut vs. me, who will look for other ways to do it because I don't have the physical strength to 'just do it'.

I see this with kids too - my eldest had great trouble converting to persuading the younger one to share rather than just taking what he wanted from his sibling, when said sibling got old enough to care about losing whatever he was playing with.

I wonder if, being bigger and stronger, a lot of men just never have to consider other ways to do things, so stick with the straightforward, force route - ie. not cultural, not brain, but mechanical sexed differences affecting opportunity and choice.

So here is the big fat scientific paper you want

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/25f3/145d6f4dc126c41948b03c07502dc7b20e3a.pdf

Essentially, there are different brain systems for different behaviours and different cognitive processes. Sex differences can be seen in aggression and sexual behaviour but not in intelligence / cognitive tasks / maths etc.

The maths argument niggles me too, as that is my background. I questioned a lot whether I was cut out for studying it as I didn't see women and girls in that field.
In the end I feel a lot of it does come from socialisation. As a girl who was good at maths I was seen as an oddity through most of my schooling. I was asked why I liked it, in a way my sister who liked languages never was.
Even at university the undergrads, but especially the lecturers, were skewed to men.

However the skew of men in academia isn't limited to maths and STEM, and I know I was put off such a path because I wanted to get started on a career and aware that another 4 years of study would impact when I had children.
There is a lot of talk in of maths being a 'young person's game' and that most breakthroughs are made by younger mathematicians.
I was cautioned off taking a gap year before university by my teachers specifically because I was studying maths and I would waste my prime years!
You can only win a fields medal under 40 (the maths 'equivalent' of a Nobel prize). Only one women has to date been awarded one, out of 60 winners. As someone who aspired to study at the highest level but also wanted children, I was conflicted, in a way I'm sure a man wouldn't have been.

I never said it was but cultural effects can be extremely strong - and it's going to be very hard to prove which are cultural and which aren't

I'm not sure we need to prove this any more.........though, of course, culture is a fundamental organising principle in human beings, as it is in other creatures too. Other creatures adapt to different conditions and circumstances as well, even as there remains a sub strata of biological imperative.

Sub strata: biological/chromosomal conditioning
Cultural strata: social & cultural mores and patterns
Super Strata: individual differences of character, personality and aptitude.

It's not that there are two categorically different types of brain called the "female brain" and "male brain". To the extent that sex differences exist in the brain, they are average differences rather than categorical differences.

Just like any differences that lie on a distribution, there may be some women who lie closer to the "male" end of the spectrum and some men who lie closer to the "female" end of the spectrum. It's possible that such people may tend to identify with the opposite sex (although I'm not sure there currently is any good evidence on this one way or the other) but does that mean they literally are the opposite sex?

This is really insightful and helpful, thank you all for your responses.

I'd say it is down to a combination of sex hormones and elements of genetic coding/programming which are based on X/Y chromosomes. On top of that are cultural codes and extrapolations of sex roles/behaviour, slightly different for each society or culture. Beyond that are individual differences of character and personality

Thank you for that concise yet thorough definition

It's nice to see several posters are not just highlighting the social aspect, like many feminists seem to, but are also acknowledging biology.

Sub strata: biological/chromosomal conditioning
Cultural strata: social & cultural mores and patterns
Super Strata: individual differences of character, personality and aptitude.

I really think there needs to be an acknowledgement that physical aptitude can affect an entire set. A mechanical strata - men being bigger and stronger must have an effect on behaviour. It certainly has had an impact on cultural patterns and social mores, and then those affects ripple out - just read Invisible Women. Men being stronger/not growing the children -> men dominate society -> society designed for male default -> 1000s of little things are just that little bit harder for women because nothing's quite the right size.

The reason that I fight against the concept of 'male brain' and 'female brain' is that it's often used to explain why men are 'better' at maths, computer coding, parallel parking etc and I strongly disagree with that

Obviously there are individual differences, but there are general trends and tendencies. As you say, it is too easy just to pick out the 'negative' ( culturally frowned upon) differences, whilst not acknowledging some of the other differences too.

The one other forum I post on, apart from this one, is an almost totally male dominated forum - dedicated to architecture, cities and urbanity. Why is that?

There is nothing to stop women from signing up or contributing. Even on there, though, there is a tendency for the males to be minutely interested in the very specific details of construction method, in a way that leaves me cold.

A lot of men are also very interested in the minutiae of transport networks. There was a woman once, who was similarly interested, and she produced elaborate maps and plans for a new city transport network. I know she was a lesbian, but also suspect that she was on the autistic spectrum.

But assuming that there are some innate differences between female and male brains that account for some of the observed differences in the behaviour of men and women, it is clear that there is considerable overlap between the sexes. To suggest that a man with brain with traits more typical of women is less of a man is no less offensive (or ridiculous) than suggesting that a 6ft tall woman is less of a woman than one closer to the average female height.

This exactly. Much better articulated than I could have managed!

I think there probably are some innate differences between males' and females' behaviour and mental abilities, and I suspect some of those get massively amplified by expectations based on stereotypes e.g. "I'm a girl, I can't be good at maths, therefore I won't try, therefore I don't develop my abilities to my full potential". (Not that I'm presupposing there actually is evidence of an innate sex difference in maths ability - I'm just using that as an example.)

But the point for me is that all these mental traits exist on a continuum, whereas your biological sex (do you have the body of the type that can produce eggs/sperm?) doesn't. Even if there were proof that men were on average better at maths, and that this was innate difference, it wouldn't mean that a girl who is good at maths was born in the wrong body - it was just mean that she was a girl who was good at maths. (And she should be judged on her own abilities rather than a presumption based on her sex.)