Gender is not a social construct

[SheWhoMustNotBeHeard]

A very insightful interview with Debra Soh, the Canadian scientist on Triggernometry. She talks about the research in differences in male and female brains, trans people's brains being more female if they are tw and more male if tm but that results are confounded by their sexuality. She talks about transitioning children and why the affirmative approach is harmful.

She also disagrees that gender is a social construct. I didn't really understand what she was saying tbh. She didn't say what is was either. Can someone clarify it for me?

Barracker describes very much what Gina Rippon lays out in the gendered brain; expression of certain characteristics which may actually affect brain structures and categorising them as essentially male or female is sexist BS.

She does explore a lot of the effects of hormones in utero, and there are some measurable differences, but it's then how these are viewed through societies' gendered labels rather than accepting that there's a huge range of different people with different, plastic, brains.

It's society saying "it can't be a man and do xyz or a woman and do xyz" that's the issue.

She disagrees with SBC on a number of things so it would be really interesting to see her in discussion with Soh.

Rippon has collaborated with Fine on a few things too.

One thing which would strongly indicate a ‘nurture’ element is the fact that a larger proportion of girls in single sex schools study STEM.

I see it as nature and nurture; we all have so many differences in our brains that work together to create skills which we then can have nurtured or ignored.

For example, some people have a mind's eye which allows them to both be creative and more able to draw accurately. Others don't but often seem to be better at writing. Some are super facial recognisers and notice fine details which will skill them up to certain talents, others see complex patterns and sequential orders which could be channeled into maths. But those visual people may need maths to be taught to them in a different way, if they receive this they may be as accomplished as the systemiser but in a different way.

I think it's Rippon ?? who discussed the fascinating research around cultures in the past and toys.

That you can tell how technologically advanced a society is by looking at their toys.

The more complex and technological they are, the more advanced the society is.

Consider this to toys of today (and I expect in the past this was also the case), where there's an increasingly complex sex/gender divide, and when you learn that this is actually impacting girl's scores in areas of maths, and it's quite worrying to think about how many women that has affected in the past and present. For boys it's the lack of nurturing domestic type toys.

This is also a very good analysis of how a lot of the discussion around brains and if they're pink or blue is actually incredibly simplistic:

sfonline.barnard.edu/neurogenderings/eight-things-you-need-to-know-about-sex-gender-brains-and-behavior-a-guide-for-academics-journalists-parents-gender-diversity-advocates-social-justice-warriors-tweeters-facebookers-and-ever/

Transwomen's brains are more girly than is natural. Transman's brains are more butch than is natural.

In practice, as others have said it’s difficult to pin down what a trait like ‘girly’means. Until recently most people had to lead physically demanding lives and few people studied anything in an academic way.

The idea that you might design your life according to your preferences is quite a modern concept.

@ContentiousOne

By 'not a social construct' she means girls are naturally girly, and boys are naturally boyish.

That's why it's the conservative thesis. She's saying there's lots of truth to sex stereotypes ie women are 'naturally' more submissive, nurturing etc and men are 'naturally' more aggressive, power and status seeking etc.

As opposed to feminism, which suggests these stereotypes are not part of the brain but part of the culture a child is raised in.

Thanks for simplifying it to for me. I just couldn't get my head around it.

Can we not look at matriarchal societies to see if they have different stereotypes to our society and look at male patterns of violence, for example?

Can we not look at matriarchal societies to see if they have different stereotypes to our society and look at male patterns of violence, for example?

Yes that would be a very illuminating study.

Iirc, male pattern violence has some roots in nurture, or rather lack of.

Lack of support with emotional literacy as been shown to link to increased frustration and an inability to deal with strong emotions which in men is more likely to evolve into violence.

Re showing that our brains aren't blank slates or hard wired, but that stimuli can actually change the make-up of the brain

I’d read this about London cabbies having increased the size of their hippocampus through learning the A-Z, and more, by heart. That’s a huge achievement.

But is there any way TW’s behaviour could actually affect their brain structure, over a lifetime?

Apologies if this has already been asked, but i have read in some places that sex is irrelevant, but if that’s the case, and it’s all about gender and performing the preferred gender stereotypes, why all the effort to change their sexed body to resemble the opposite sex? Why the demand for us to agree that you can actually change sex?

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

Re showing that our brains aren't blank slates or hard wired, but that stimuli can actually change the make-up of the brain

I’d read this about London cabbies having increased the size of their hippocampus through learning the A-Z, and more, by heart. That’s a huge achievement.

But is there any way TW’s behaviour could actually affect their brain structure, over a lifetime?

I know of no research on that (though it may exist) but there are several studies suggesting that the lives we live do affect the structures of our brains. The London cabbies study is an early one, then major depressive episodes can alter images of the brain later, one study found differences comparing the brains of native English speakers and native Mandarin Chinese speakers and so on.

So tentatively I suspect that living life as a transgender woman, say, could have some effects on the structure of the brain when compared to the imaginary case of the same person living as a man. Still, I thought the best studies on brain differences between transgender and non-transgender individuals suffer from various problems. methodological and otherwise?

@NeurotrashWarrior

Can we not look at matriarchal societies to see if they have different stereotypes to our society and look at male patterns of violence, for example?

Yes that would be a very illuminating study.

My tame anthropologist friend tells me that certainly in hunter gatherer societies, male on female violence is closely tied to overall level of male violence in the society, which in turn is tied to the level of external threat the society faces from neighbouring tribes.

One piece of anthropology/criminology research I'd be fascinated to see is how many men who abuse their wives also commit football violence, get into punch ups in pubs, get involved in carrying out muggings etc. versus how many men fit the picture of "angel in the office, devil on the hearth" and only direct their violence towards women (the stereotypical "but he seemed like such a nice man, always polite, kept himself to himself.")

Very briefly as I'm on holiday but after reading her book, Soh's position is very anti-TRA. Her background is rad-fem which she's softened somewhat. Her beliefs: biology determines sex, much of gender and specific areas of the brain are different in same-sex attracted ppl which is confounded by being transgender. She's vehemently against gender identity dogma, and also treating children as you can't determine which small proportion of these will benefit from transition. Very much let people grow up be who they are within the 2 sexes. Also vehemently against dogma and the corruption of science/universities etc. I wasn't so keen on the evolutionary part at the end but she's essentially a strong ally.

@merrymouse

Transwomen's brains are more girly than is natural. Transman's brains are more butch than is natural.

In practice, as others have said it’s difficult to pin down what a trait like ‘girly’means. Until recently most people had to lead physically demanding lives and few people studied anything in an academic way.

The idea that you might design your life according to your preferences is quite a modern concept.

I know. I don't agree with Soh; was just giving the colloquial version of what the conservative view of gender is for the OP.

I recall reading something by her about ten years ago which wasn't exactly feminist. I then slotted her into the anti-feminists innate differences school but at that time she didn't have her PhD. I think she wrote for the Playboy?

But is there any way TW’s behaviour could actually affect their brain structure, over a lifetime?

The problem with these studies is how many TW are included who are actually quite feminine gender non conforming. Or women who were very gender non conforming. It Eg, Seven Hex is not particularly stereotypically into either "gender" of likes and dislikes, wasn't growing up, and neither is Miranda.

So it's quite possible brain areas are enlargened or altered due to interests that are "stereotypically gendered?"

Tbh brains and people and personalities are so very variable, you can probably find any desired answer to a question you've posed easily.

Suppose for the sake of argument Baron-Cohen and Soh are right, and the difference in the number of male maths undergrads and female maths undergrads (or physics, or engineering) is down to nature, not nurture - there are just, naturally, more men than women who are good at those subjects

That still doesn't mean that a woman like me who is good at maths has a "male brain". It just means I have a set of cognitive abilities which are (relatively speaking) rarer in women than in men

I think this is right. But it is difficult to have a discussion around the idea that men may have some abilities that are rarer in women (or vice versa) without people being accused of being conservative or sexist. Or in trades/careers where there are more males than females (or vice versa) and being able to explore whether this is because of natural variations in interest or abilities.

Soh's position is very anti-TRA ... she's essentially a strong ally.

I'm not commenting on Soh in particular, but can I say that it's incredibly dangerous to women to think that because someone is anti-trans they are therefore pro-women.

I saw a great summary on FWR of the (small-c) conservative position: viz that there are pink brains and blue brains, but that only men have blue brains.

Ie back to the kitchen with us women, and we should spend our days with the kids where our fluffy, nurturing brains will be most suited and we'll feel fulfilled, and leave that nasty difficult maths and competitive stuff to the men.

No thanks. If someone is telling me I'm not suited to STEM (I have a degree in it) and am suited to kids (I'm rubbish with them and childless), because I'm female, then they're just attempting to oppress me in the same old tedious way people have always done. Rather than some bright, shiny new way.

The fire doesn't look attractive to me just because it's not the frying pan, cheers all the same.

I think this is right. But it is difficult to have a discussion around the idea that men may have some abilities that are rarer in women (or vice versa) without people being accused of being conservative or sexist.

I think its an interesting discussion, but its very difficult to pin down the natural traits that a woman might have without applying values. If women are naturally more suited to child care, is that because they are naturally more nurturing, or naturally more stoic in the face of the sleep deprivation and crying?

Why do you consider being described as "conservative" as "being accused", SignalBox? That's a conservative position. If it's also your position, just own it.

But in answer to your post, yes, it is hard to have an honest discussion around whether there are traits which are statistically more common in females than males.

This is entirely the fault of centuries' worth of people coming out with exactly the logical fail that Soh has done, and that Barracker so eloquently analyses. Those people are not behaving honestly – so it's not possible to have an honest discussion with them.

And because such dishonest discussion is so prevalent, it becomes hard to know when one's interlocutor might be straying into it, or whether one's honest conclusions might be seized and exaggerated – as the media so frequently do.

I would love to be able to have as honest and useful a discussion about behaviour as we do about height. And, like a discussion about height, recognise the contexts in which it is useful (choosing how many longer beds to manufacture) and in which it isn't (most of the time).

Radio 4 has just reminded me that men who play a very active caregiving role in their young baby's lives show a physical difference in their brains and less testosterone. (Sharing the baby, radio 4.)

Mother's brains undergo a lot of physical remodelling during pregnancy and post birth; male caregivers show a similar pattern but not as much as the mother's.

Why do you consider being described as "conservative" as "being accused", SignalBox? That's a conservative position. If it's also your position, just own it

I suppose because I don’t think that believing that there are differences between the sexes is a conservative position. So if someone calls me conservative because I believe there are differences, I do not feel that is an accurate description. I probably used the word “accused” because often people use the word conservative as a slur.

This is entirely the fault of centuries' worth of people coming out with exactly the logical fail that Soh has done, and that Barracker so eloquently analyses

But Barracker recognises there are differences between the sexes?

If it is exclusive to a sex, it can be labelled male or female
If it is present in both sexes, even if it is more prevalent in one, it cannot

All I am saying that it would be good/useful to be able to discuss these differences. I do understand though that this can be a manipulative discussion. But I’ve also seen people try to discuss in good faith and get shouted down.

Apologies, I missed this bit from Barrackers quote:

And none of that even begins to address her demonstrably false conclusion that "I observe a skewed trait - it must be innate"
"I see it, therefore I know what caused it" does not follow logically

Which obviously means that Barracker may not recognise there are difference between the sexes. But I still don't think it is a conservative position to suggest that observable difference are due to sex rather than social conditioning.

Erm, yes, there are differences between the sexes: one has XX chromosomes, one has XY chromosomes; one has a vagina, one has a penis.

The conservative position I described is: "There are pink brains and blue brains, but that only men have blue brains". That might or might not be your position.

I agree with PP that Barracker nailed it in her post at 19:11:26.

If it is exclusive to a sex, it can be labelled male or female
If it is present in both sexes, even if it is more prevalent in one, it cannot

Is it that simple though?

If somebody is 5' 3" they could be male or female, but a woman of 5' 3" is of average height and a man of 5' 3" is unusually small, because of sex.

(I'm not making an argument either way, just trying to follow the logic).

And when I say "observable differences" I only mean SOME observable differences and I do recognise that the majority of apparent gendered "traits" are due to social conditioning rather than innate differences between the sexes.