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?

Psychological differences, yes definitely. Innate psychological differences demonstrably independent of socialisation, and which apply to a majority of men/women? I doubt it.

I get where you are coming from OP and agree a little. However - I guess the exact magnitude of the differences is debated.

In the West it is often assumed that children should choose a career that they are ‘drawn’ to as opposed to what will give them a stable, comfortable life. In my culture both girls and boys are pushed to do high paying jobs. This leads to some mental health issues - as people are pushed down a route they dislike. But for some, ending up in accountancy or stem field means a decent income and choice.

I agree that many female dominated professions are poorly paid and should be paid better. However, this is unlikely to change in my kids’ generation and I would caution them about the drawbacks if this was what they choose to go into.

Influence of culture is interesting. In my company there are so many high performing women with maths/ data analytics backgrounds from India. All making absolute fortunes and in massive demand. If they are innately less good at maths, no one seems to have noticed …

"Invisible Women" by Caroline Criado-Perez goes through tons of data that shed light on some of the self-fulfilling prophecies about women and work. I really recommend it if you're genuinely interested (op and anyone! )

When I was at school, if you'd have asked me if I thought there was any sex differences in Maths ability, I would've thought that the stereotype was that girls were good at Maths. All my female friends were, and many of them studied Engineering when we went to university. I didn't know any boys that did.

I only found out there was some kind of "girls are no good at Maths" fallacy when I watched American teen movies!

Interestingly (or not), in retrospect I realise my parents were in quite stereotypical careers for their sexes. But I have definitely inherited my dad's STEM-y brain (whereas my mum did most of the "bringing me up") So heritability must also be an entangling factor - and I don't think we know that much about it iirc.

”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.”

I find this an odd argument on a board where it is regularly and strongly argued that males should not be moved into women’s spaces because men are, on average, more violent.

Looking at the animal kingdom, it seems likely there are some innate behaviours that have a tendency to be influenced by sex. I am aware that in years gone by, some feminists have suggested there are no differences, but I can’t say that’s an attitude I have noted on this board. There are even some lib fems on Twitter who believe in the myth that there’s no real physical difference in female and male strength, defying all rational evidence to the contrary, but I haven’t seen that here much either.

Perhaps it’s me that’s incorrect, and there are a lot of women here that believe there are no or few differences, but my impression is that most accept there are average differences (whether innate or learned) but that boys and girls should not be constrained by those if they feel differently from the average member of their sex.

I also think there are a huge range of opinions here, on many topics. Can you show me some threads where this strong insistence occurs OP? A lot of people come here and make assumptions about what the women here think, which are based on their own prejudices and expectations and not based on what is actually being said.

The trouble is though that as pp have pointed out, what counts as “work women are drawn to” varies hugely across time and culture. I work in a field that was almost entirely male dominated until about 1970, and now is female dominated. It wouldn’t make sense to say women are drawn to it, when for most of history they haven’t been or haven’t been allowed to be. What about medicine? Used to be almost entirely male, but it’s now starting to be majority female students studying medicine. Are women naturally drawn to it? How could you tell?

There is a lot of research suggesting that it’s only after a profession changes from majority male to majority female that pay and conditions decline relative to more socially coded “masculine” jobs (eg teaching, medicine, etc.). That would make more sense — that society values jobs less well when they become female dominated, and pay declines — than that women are drawn to low paying fields!

I’m not sure it’s very easy to maintain that women are drawn to particular jobs by virtue of innate psychological desire or aptitude, when this is clearly not stable over time, and so many jobs that we tend to think of as “feminine/female” work have not always been so.

I find this an odd argument on a board where it is regularly and strongly argued that males should not be moved into women’s spaces because men are, on average, more violent.

Not odd at all. Violence, like any other behaviour, isn't innately male. The causes of male violence are societal - the patriarchy if you will.

The result being that women have good reason to be cautious around men.

It doesn't negate the argument that men and women are innately the same psychologically.

”Not odd at all. Violence, like any other behaviour, isn't innately male. The causes of male violence are societal - the patriarchy if you will.”

Observations from other mammals might indicate that testosterone plays a significant role. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s proven (or even likely) that male violence is entirely down to nurture, if that’s what your suggesting.

…you’re…

You should read this thread! Lots of informative posts and links to studies discussing cultural and social factors that contribute.

We're a bit more intelligent than all other animals - so not sure why the behaviour of some species proves a point about some behaviour in humans but I'm sure there's a 'gotcha' you can come up with somewhere.

This is a case for... Gina Rippon and the gendered brain!

www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/05/the-gendered-brain-gina-rippon-review

It's sexist to assume that men and women's personalities are stereotyped to their sex.

Society has stereotypes which are communicated very young. The stereotypes are based in / evolved from the fact that females reproduce and are physically different to males but that doesn't mean and shouldn't mean that our minds/ personalities/ likes and dislikes conform to tbe stereotypes.

Some people are more susceptible to their peers' interests and the gender stereotypes they experience within society (media, in the home etc).

Some are less bothered (many people with autism can be less interested in conforming- hence more individuals with autism are being diagnosed with gender dysphoria.)

It's an unpopular opinion on this board, but I understand where you are coming from, OP. To me, it just seems so improbable that the evolutionary factors that have driven such profound physical differences between the sexes exerted absolutely no influence on our brains at all. Surely not?

From an evolutionary perspective, females that were most successful at nurturing their infants would be more likely to have genetic progeny.

There is an impact of testosterone in men but it's been shown that both negative gender stereotypes can exacerbate this and also that testosterone can be reduced when males take on caring roles.

It's not nature v nurture; it's nature and nurture.

Just to be clear, I absolutely agree that cultural factors and socialisation far outweigh any innate, population level differences. But I struggle to believe that male and female brains are utterly indistinguishable.

Indistinguishable before nurture takes hold ? Probably yes

As many have said, it is almost impossible to separate nature and nurture.

And even if there were, on average, difference in preferences between men and women, the effect sizes are tiny (if they were big, psychologists would know by now). This may means that, even if this is true when you average 1000s of people together, it doesn't tell you anything about one individual.

This blog post describes the stats better then I can. mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/sex-differences-in-brain-size/

But they are indistinguishable, certainly with our current knowledge and understanding. No expert could look at an anonymised brain scan and tell you the sex of that brain.

What difference would there be in the world if we found there are innate psychological differences between men and women? Or if we accept your assertion without evidence, what do you think we should be doing differently now?

The physical differences have a meaningful impact - women and girls can get pregnant; women and girls need their own sporting categories.

”It's sexist to assume that men and women's personalities are stereotyped to their sex”

We were specifically discussing violence.

Those medically transitioning FtM showed elevated rates of criminal behaviour. One might assume the addition of testosterone might have been a factor.

It is also noted in male dogs that are castrated after puberty, that the removal of testosterone can increase aggression, which is assumed to be because testosterone can give a sense of increased confidence. Similarly those transitioning MtF do not seem to reduce criminal (including violent) offending, which might be related to the above.

I think the assumption that human intelligence means that behaviours are all socialised and none innate is very arrogant. And isn’t it the case that higher rates of male violence are noted in all societies? Surely they aren’t all randomly affected by patriarchy?

I apologize OP. It seems there are some women here who believe that despite anatomy (including brain anatomy) and hormones being significantly different in males and females, that there are no innate average differences in behaviour. Obviously there are outliers, and in an ideal society, people shouldn’t feel constrained by any gendered norms, innate or otherwise. But to deny innate differences exist at all, is a bizarre concept to me. Pretty much the same as suggesting humans are not animals, but instead, some form of higher being.

Even if men are innately predisposed to violence, for example due to testosterone, what would we do about that in the real world? People who commit violent crimes should be sentenced for those crimes, whether male or female.

Would men get let off because they couldn’t help it?

Or would women have more severe punishment because their crime was less ‘natural’?

So the only identifiable difference is on propensity to violence related to testosterone and so to males?

Is there any other effect that can be reasonably said to have such a clear link to the sexes ?

Nope

In other words the clarity of causal link between violence, testosterone and males suggests that if other effects existed we might know by now

Agree with @pastaandpesto and @WarriorN . It’s just highly biologically improbable that there is no average difference in behaviour (eg effect of testosterone or cyclical hormones in women or menopause changes). But the relevance of these behavioural changes to everyday life (eg would high testosterone necessarily make you a better soldier or police officer? - or might a more calm, less reactive person fare better in certain situations?) and the magnitude of the differences compared to other factors (eg socialisation etc) may not be that great.

If I was being really controversial, I'd speculate that it is actually socialisation that is driving men and women out of gendered roles.

Think about pack animals like, say, big cats. The mother cat doesn't take her female cubs aside for extra lessons on how to raise cubs of their own. She doesn't praise her boy cubs for being brave and good at fighting other boy cubs and being promiscuous.

Yet instinctively female lions understand how to nurture and protect their offspring. Should the mother die, leaving the cubs orphaned and vulnerable, the father doesn't try and step in, or even appear distressed. He quite literally doesn't give a shiny shit what happens once he's done his bit at conception.