Physical Vs psychological difference between the sexes

[Bumpitybumper]

So Mumsnet seems a very gender critical place when it comes to physical sex based differences. The majority don't support men competing in the female category in sporting competitions or men being allowed in single sex wards or changing rooms. The reason being men and women are so fundamentally biologically different that an ideology can't just erase these difference.

However I have noticed that the majority do not support the assertion that male and females may be psychologically different and as a class have different inclinations, behaviour and desires. Many reject the idea that girls may be drawn to different toys, subjects or types of play than boys. They reject the idea that women may naturally have predisposition as a class towards certain occupations and hobbies. They simply cannot accept that women have different desires when it comes to having children and also raising them and the role they play in providing care.

I feel like the insistence that men and women want the same things and behave in the same way is because traditional feminine occupations and interests have been so undermined, undervalued and used to repress us in a patriarchal society. Rather than explore the idea of what women have a natural biological propensity towards and seeking equal value for these things, it is easier to suggest our feminine preferences are all a result of socialisation and conditioning and actually our underlying psychology is the same as men's. This seems very dangerous to me and almost playing into the patriarchy's hands.

Am I alone is seeing this distinction in how physical and psychological differences between the sexes are viewed?

I was referring to the fact that many now believe a woman is anyone who identifies as one, regardless of biology. I was suggesting that a lack of research into biological sex differences has contributed to this existential shift and to the rise in misogyny that has accompanied it.

No, I think it’s the opposite. TRAs use the lady brain argument to argue that some men who don’t conform to male stereotypes are in fact women. If you argue that women are wired to prefer certain jobs and activities you will get males popping up saying that they must be women because they also prefer those jobs and activities.

@LaughingPriest
Studies have not always shown fuzzy and insignificant differences between the sexes. Some show bigger differences stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

Using your hypothetical study though, what would it mean? Well if it would depend on lots of things including what the study showed at the extremes? Most show more significant and pronounced difference at the far end of the spectrum. If the most empathetic women are significantly more empathetic than the most empathetic men then it would make sense that these women may be drawn to exercise this skill in an associated profession which is usually an occupation that provides a service to others that relies heavily on empathy. Even if this was say 3% of women, this would still be hundreds of thousands of women in the UK alone and could be a very significant element of a particular industry. Then we look at how these industries are valued in terms of pay and status. If they are relatively poorly paid and of lower status than comparably skilled male dominated industries then the discrimination is pretty undeniable.

All humans have a desire to do something that they are good at. By devaluing industries that women may be more biologically predisposed to want to join because of their innate skills and desires, we are effectively socialising them towards joining other sectors. These same women that have exceptional levels of empathy may well not have such exceptional skills in other areas and may be more square pegs in round holes in occupations where they can't properly utilise their skillset but need to pursue in order to ascertain the money and status they desire.

All of the above is assuming the difference in empathy was proven to be biological. If it was proven to be driven by socialisation then I think we need to look at what we can do to make men more empathetic and to close the skills gap. The world would certainly be a better place if such an empathy gap could be closed.

Here's an interesting meta study from 2021

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33621637/

@RoseslnTheHospital
You for example seem to support the idea that there should be no additional effort to increase participation in STEM careers for women and girls, because really they just don't want to do them and aren't as good as the men anyway and so won't even have a fulfilling career. Whilst also being miserable at being in the workplace when they'd rather be at home looking after their children. How does this benefit women? So, might you argue that instead any money that would have been spent on that should be spent on increasing pay for childcare workers or care workers instead, is that right?
Completely and depressingly wrong.

The socialisation around STEM has been so misogynistic that we absolutely do need to target resources at removing the stereotype threat associated with these subjects. I think this is pretty indisputable and there is plenty of evidence to support this.

Biological difference though may come into play when studying certain aspects of STEM subjects involving for example spatial awareness, but then equally women may have an advantage in other areas. It would be useful to understand this if possible so that provision could be made to equally support learning for both sexes.

Biological difference may also come into it when it comes to this STEM education combining with other personality traits and trends at a population level to determine occupations. So for example, my GP friend tells me that she and some of her female doctor friends have chosen to be GPs or specialised in certain other areas because they offer the flexibility they desire whilst they have young children. These areas are almost always on the lower paid and lower status end of the scale for doctors and considered generally undesirable by male colleagues. What does this mean?

Well if these women are making these choices as a result of socialisation then obviously you would look to tackle this so that women didn't lose out on the more lucrative careers. However, if you believe that a significant proportion women (not all!) have a biological propensity to want to spend more time with their children whilst they are young then there are bigger questions to ask such as why can't the more lucrative careers be made more accessible to women who want a different work:life balance and why are some considered inferior when actually there isn't necessarily justification for this, other than it's an area that would be typically dominated by women working PT.

The impact of hormones is not fully understood. The menstrual cycle alone can affect the brain in ways we are only just beginning to understand. I accept not all women feel the same, but my mood, desires and ability to focus can fluctuate massively during any given cycle. Oxytocin and dopamine can bond a mother with a baby so powerfully and quickly that it is almost incomprehensible when compared to any other bonding process humans experience.

As a human I don't just see my biology, but I feel it. It pushes and pulls me in different directions and to sometimes act against my own rational self interest. My biology is unique but also is female and I empathise (ironically!) with others who don't want to be erased or homogenised with men.

Right so we're just hand waving away a massive meta study. Ok.

What you might need to recognise about your personal experience with your hormones is that it is personal to you. Not representative of women as a whole. Obviously.

Thanks for the reply, Bumpity - If they are relatively poorly paid and of lower status than comparably skilled male dominated industries then the discrimination is pretty undeniable.

Right - but what do we do? what action does that inform?

Would it be, though, legally, if it related to 3% of women? Couldn't one argue that the equivalent % of men are really good at (e.g. some low-status profession like) window cleaning and that should be better paid? Or would you say that's down to the free market...

I think what I'm not quite clear on - you seem to want to map 'women' onto 'people who are inclined to caring professions' quite solidly. But why? Can't we treat 'people who are inclined to caring professions' as a deserving group on their own? Then we don't have to worry about the characteristics of which people do and don't fit into this description - it becomes a category on its own. Is this purely for Equalities Act discrimination purposes? As someone with relatives who work in social care etc I strongly believe funding and training should be prioritised far more than it is

• I'm not sure on the mechanism that would make it happen, I think the fact that social care has traditionally been done for free by women, because of the roles they have been historically put into, is a huge factor in that specific type of job, and we need to break free of that.

If it was proven to be driven by socialisation then I think we need to look at what we can do to make men more empathetic and to close the skills gap.

That is a good point.

The 'caring professions' is another thing where it's hard to draw a line between role and characteristics. 'Soft skills' like empathy/caring are likely to be valued (and devalued) in plenty of other jobs. E.g. if you are a manager in a bank, you might be a more productive and successful one if you are empathetic to your staff. Or, you might have to make hard-hearted business decisions and a less empathetic person may be more successful. Writing technical manuals requires you to put yourself in the mindset of someone else and the questions that might arise.

There are so many confounding factors to 'success' and choice of role etc, things get fuzzy quickly.

(I pretty much picked 'empathy' at random, but it seems like a useful example).
Sorry, a lot of this post is me thinking out loud...

OP, you sound like you’re reinventing the wheel. All of this stuff has been said before, including that our periods affect our brains. It was used against us for centuries. We even have some idiots saying women can’t be pilots because our PMT might affect us. We’re just beginning to move past that and now you want to start it up again but weirdly dress it up as trying to help women. You’re not. Don’t want a career in STEM? Don’t have one. Want to stay home with your kids? Do it. Believe that your periods affect your career choices? Believe it but don’t impose it on others.
Proving that women are natural caregivers will only devalue care, not increase its value. We already know that women do most of the care, work the jobs men don’t want to do, get paid less etc. It does us no good to say “ooh did you know it’s biologically determined that we want to do these jobs”. The studies (done by actual scientists) found there aren’t brain differences so why are you so intent on proving that there are?

I accept not all women feel the same, but my mood, desires and ability to focus can fluctuate massively during any given cycle

These are states. We were discussing traits, I thought - characteristics, behaviour, inclinations that are fairly stable over time within oneself. Whether you are naturally good at Maths, languages, artistic, logical arguments, driving, understanding others, quick to recall facts, assertive - these are the sorts of things I thought we were talking about.

If you're talking about moods, affect, psychological stability, rationality - I think that's a separate conversation.

(I'm trying not to take any of this personally, but I am fairly sure OP would see me as "mannish" with my various traits...)

Here's what I think I know.

1. The vast majority of women work two jobs. By and large working outside the home has not diminished their role as primary carer even when their husbands are supportive. If that role is not biologically driven than women are still just brainwashed puppets of the patriarchy incapable of self determination.
2. The vast majority of women prioritise family over work to the determent of their career. If this choice is not biologically driven than women are still just brainwashed puppets of the patriarchy incapable of self determination.
3. The most undervalued women in society are stay at home mothers. How sad is that if nurturing is infact a biological driver? How sad is that regardless?
4. There are fundamental differences in how men and women respond to parenting. More often than not men are actually asleep when the baby is screaming. They are not just pretending. If this is not biologically driven then the patriarchy is tampering with the water.
5. Even in Scandinavia, when presented with choice, women choose careers that are in the main family friendly. If this is not biologically driven than Scandinavian women are still just brainwashed puppets of the patriarchy incapable of self determination.

And no I am not a 'tradwife'. I am a single working mother who just spent the day chainsawing. And the fact I feel the need to qualify the above with this is bloody sad too.

Why are you going on about brainwashed puppets? It doesn’t at all mean that the choice is between biological determinism and being brainwashed. Women are oppressed by the patriarchy and for many there is no realistic choice because of lower wages, men refusing to go part time, no decent childcare or inflexible employers etc. Why will it make anything better if you think it is natural or biologically determined? It’s still shit and unfair.

And when women can afford it, they outsource a lot of the work which doesn’t make sense if it’s all due to a biological drive. If it was, wouldn’t women want to do it all themselves instead of getting night-nannies, daycare and cleaners? As for men who sleep through a screaming baby, yes, a lot of them are pretending to avoid having to do it.

So you'd rather state that women are naturally inclined to do these things rather than being brainwashed puppets of the patriarchy incapable of self determination. Ok then. Both seem pretty depressing to me.

The other way of looking at it is that far from being brainwashed puppets, women are operating in a system that discriminated against them in its very structures because it was not developed with the best outcomes for women in mind. It was developed to suit men who wanted to be able to control women to further their own lifestyles. And not be held back by inconvenient practicalities like caring for their offspring. So women are constrained in their choices by the expectations of them socially, with regard to family and children. Rather than spend time and effort proving scientifically that women are prone to caring roles and empathetic careers that enable long periods of time away from work to care for children, just focus on what can be done to change society to allow for women to have families, to spend time with young children, to pick up work/career more easily when/if they do want to work. Care work should be paid better and valued more because it's vital to society and will become more so as populations continue to age. Nursery workers/childminders should be valued and paid well because society recognises that high quality childcare is better for everyone. Social work should be a respected career that's paid well because it's of value to society etc etc etc.

Do men and women biologically lean to different types of jobs?

One way to find out would be to make women’s jobs as high status and well paid as men’s. Then see if men go into them.

What I don’t understand is why we think if one sex is good at one thing, the other sex have to be bad at it. Women obviously have more empathy than men at a collective level but that doesn’t mean they can’t be logical or gifted at maths and science. Why would it?

@RoseslnTheHospital
I actually agree with the vast majority of your post. I guess our difference lies in how important we think it is to understand the origins of our differences and how this could inspire change.

The other way of looking at it is that far from being brainwashed puppets, women are operating in a system that discriminated against them in its very structures because it was not developed with the best outcomes for women in mind. It was developed to suit men who wanted to be able to control women to further their own lifestyles. And not be held back by inconvenient practicalities like caring for their offspring. So women are constrained in their choices by the expectations of them socially, with regard to family and children.

This

They are already saying those things. And they are also saying that sex is a social construct and that biology doesn't matter. And I don't believe that women are wired for certain jobs. I do believed they are wired to nurture their young though. Just like every other biological animal.

Sorry, I think I have been unclear.

My original point was meant to be that our biology will influence our behaviour. I suppose this incorporates both traits and states and how they interact.

I suppose like using the chimp example from upthread. The juvenile chimps were influenced by a surge of testosterone in adolescence (state) to act in a way that annoyed other chimps and thus created violent experiences they were a part of. The study found that they then went on to be more aggressive adult chimps (trait) not because they still had more testosterone but because they were exposed to more violence (socialisation). Ultimately biology is driving the change with a heavy dose of socialisation.

Shed loads of "biological" animals don't nurture their young. Like most fish. Famously seahorse females don't do any nurturing. Male emperor penguins brood eggs whilst the females bugger off to sea to fish. Many bird species share care equally,midwife toad males brood their eggs.... it would probably make more sense to refer to our nearest relatives, the other Great apes rather than all animals. Maybe mountain gorillas might make a good comparator...

Biological difference though may come into play when studying certain aspects of STEM subjects involving for example spatial awareness, but then equally women may have an advantage in other areas. It would be useful to understand this if possible so that provision could be made to equally support learning for both sexes.

What's interesting is that even the three-dimensional mental rotation which shows largest sex differences and has been used to explain the scarcity of women in some STEM fields is affected by training. When a computer game for girls was created to practise this skill, all the girls got better on the test.

The point about this is that the games boys traditionally play tend to be like practising for this particular skill (various ball games, building things with blocks etc.). So even differences we believe might have an innate basis are not just that.

I also believe that the traditional play for girls practises language skills in a similar manner (doll tea parties etc.), so some of the women's superiority in verbal tests may also be due to training.

The point is that it's very hard to separate environmental effects from biological effects, and some recent research suggests that things might be even more complicated with possible causalities going in different directions between the two (not about these particular examples, but more generally).

This discussion feels to me like this one with TRAs where you have to prove 'scientifically' men have an advantage in sport and you get so tired of having a cite studies to demonstrate something clearly observable and interpretable (and point out over and over again you know not all women are stronger than all men that's not the point) that you just give up.

Yes maybe all human behaviour for thousands of years just started and continued as an evil plot to suppress women and is in no way related to reproductive roles influencing behaviour and decisions like with all other animals, and no evolutionary drives at play, just manipulated socialisation to oppress women.

But doesn't that seem highly unlikely apart from anything else?

A small group of 21st century western feminists seem to be the only people ever to look at human behaviour and claim it's 100% socialisation and it's up to you to prove otherwise.

Yes maybe all human behaviour for thousands of years just started and continued as an evil plot to suppress women and is in no way related to reproductive roles influencing behaviour and decisions like with all other animals, and no evolutionary drives at play, just manipulated socialisation to oppress women.

Stop making out that feminists are saying that.

It’s far more complex than that.

It is entirely possible that women are more nurturing by nature whilst at the same time also exploited and socialised for that propensity.

What feminists are saying is that it doesn't matter to the outcomes for what needs to be done to society to make it work better for women. And actually, men have been dominating women for centuries. It's not just a happy accident that men used the reproductive vulnerability of women to control them. Men weren't unfortunately just driven by testosterone to deny women rights and access to vast parts of society.

"It is entirely possible that women are more nurturing by nature whilst at the same time also exploited and socialised for that propensity*

Totally agree with this.

But this thread veers from there is no evidence for any innate behaviour difference. Prove it.

To even if there was knowing wouldn't help.

To this discussion is bad.

Then back to all difference is socialisation.

It's circular.

If women are likely to continue to make choices in a certain direction and social manipulation is unlikely to eradicate this it is worth knowing because we'd have to adjust our strategy for equality and give up on socialisation to change everything as the only strategy.

Also it's just good to try to understand reality.

If women are likely to continue to make choices in a certain direction and social manipulation is unlikely to eradicate this

It’s not about having more social manipulation, it’s about having less.

Equality of opportunity (real, not just legal) may not lead to 50/50 but it will lead to more than it is now.