Well it's all very interesting.
Science has and always has had massive bias. Is an important point.
When it comes to humans. There have been all sorts of studies and experiments done over a very large time span. These have generally been to show differences between groups, usually with the aim of proving that one group in inferior to another. Naturally less intelligent. Naturally more aggressive. Not having the ability to think rationally or understand certain ideas. I'm sure you can all think of some examples.
Men and women. Very interesting.
While medical science has generally put female specific issues pretty low on the priority, the research in other areas has been plenty. From ancient Greek philosophers, to very old religions, to Victorian sciences and in recent years, the outcome is obvious, but it would be great to prove it.
Of course all of those people from ancient times til recently had no trouble knowing what a woman was. And knowing that they were inferior in a variety of ways.
The attempts to prove that women are naturally less good at various things and more suited to various things. That they are more emotional than men. Etc etc. Has not stopped. The language is more cautious now but studies that look at spatial awareness, empathy etc still are reported.
If we have generally accepted that women and men are equal, varied in personality, good and bad at different things, why does this preoccupation with trying to prove differences persist? I think we all know.
I have seen some things about more physical things. Ability to withstand pain was one. But not ones about whether women and men are physically similar. It's accepted that we have different bodies that work in different ways. That men on the whole are taller, stronger etc. The difference was obvious. In a patriarchal society where height and strength are valued most, the men were best. So no need for a study!
Now we have all sorts going on suddenly to try to prove that men can have 'women's brains' or a personality that is more standard for women. That sort of stuff.
Of course it's pretty hard to argue that a physically healthy fully functional male is really a physically healthy fully functional female for obvious reasons.
So in order to prove the new desired outcome. We have all these studies that focus not on whole people but on obscure tiny parts of different bits of the body.
In one of the inked articles I liked this bit:
'Let’s just take the most famous example of sexual dimorphism in the brain: the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (sdnPOA). '
They say to women where is your science to prove that women can't include men?
Of course there isn't really any.
Because everyone knew what the word meant. The words woman and man will have been around all over the world since language started.
It's a definition, not a scientific term.
We're animals, mammals. We know what the sexes are and I'd be surprised if there was a culture in the world that didn't have names for them.
It's like saying this is an elephant. Oh really? Prove to me it's a elephant. How can you be sure this rhino isn't an elephant?
And the laws etc have been changed on the basis of.. clownfish?
Nope.
It's the same old misogyny.