All right, Don Quixote, I seriously doubt you're worth my time.evilthecat said:
All right, Don Quixote, I seriously doubt you're worth my time.evilthecat said:
Unisex bathrooms? Are you mad?!seydaman said:OT: Good news and stuff, maybe next we should have unisex bathrooms and disregard clothing rules. I can see bathrooms easily turned into law, but no idea about the clothing stuff...
Err..Aramis Night said:You just brought up 3 distinct differences with men and women in regards to our brains. Quantities of androgenic hormone, brain development and brain size.
No, I agree that brains are often dissimilar from those of the opposite sex, but I'll get onto that in a minute.Aramis Night said:So clearly you do agree that we have brains that are dissimilar from those of the opposite gender.
That depends what you mean by "function"..Aramis Night said:Do you honestly believe that these differences serve no function?
No. Just.. no..Aramis Night said:But the physical brain differences themselves do separate us into a nice neat sexual binary. These are defining physical characteristics of our brains that separate us and is reflected in mature brain size. It isn't the result of choice or social conditioning, it simply is. Even those with ambiguous sexual characteristics fall into one or the other when it comes to mature brain size.
..Is what I would say if I couldn't answer. Fair enough.Chatney said:All right, Don Quixote, I seriously doubt you're worth my time.
I allowed you to define the parameters of the discussion based on your own observation's and now you are attempting to backpedal out of it. I was willing to settle on your 3 distinctions rather than bring up some of the other known distinctions(number of neurons, ratio of white/grey matter to name a couple). Honestly even one observable distinction is enough to prove that a gender binary does exist. It just seems that now your attempting to twist the observations to prove otherwise when these were your observations in the first place.evilthecat said:Err..Aramis Night said:You just brought up 3 distinct differences with men and women in regards to our brains. Quantities of androgenic hormone, brain development and brain size.
Androgenic hormones (the only one of your example which might theoretically count as "chemistry") are primarily produced in the gonads. It's not a difference in the brain at all. My point is that any differences which do exist between the sexes have to be explainable as the direct product of androgenic and estrogenic hormones. "Gender" is not one of those things.
No, I agree that brains are often dissimilar from those of the opposite sex, but I'll get onto that in a minute.Aramis Night said:So clearly you do agree that we have brains that are dissimilar from those of the opposite gender.
Just as two men producing different levels of androgenic hormones during development will also have brains which are in some ways dissimilar. It is not a simple binary switch, in this regard. There are many factors which can cause two people's brain development to be dissimilar, none are accorded the social importance of sex/gender.
That depends what you mean by "function"..Aramis Night said:Do you honestly believe that these differences serve no function?
If what you're saying, however, is that social trends must be explainable through reference to untested assumptions about relatively small neurological differences, then no. I don't accept that and neither should you.
Not every difference between the behavior of human beings manifests simply in the brain. I'm not going to say you couldn't one day find the root causes of certain behavioral trends in the general population, but pretending you can connect the specific social and behavioral roles of men and women to these very slight developmental differences in the brain is ludicrous.
No. Just.. no..Aramis Night said:But the physical brain differences themselves do separate us into a nice neat sexual binary. These are defining physical characteristics of our brains that separate us and is reflected in mature brain size. It isn't the result of choice or social conditioning, it simply is. Even those with ambiguous sexual characteristics fall into one or the other when it comes to mature brain size.
God, in his infinite wisdom, did not sit on a cloud somewhere and decide that there would be these two categories of people and that they would have different brain size.
What actually happens is that brain size correlates to body size, because the the same mechanism which cause bodies to grow larger also cause their brains to grow larger. In this case, the relatively high levels of androgenic hormones (which are steroids) in the male body lead to increased growth in both the brain and the body in general.
This does not mean that all men have similar brains or that all women have similar brains. It means that men's brains tend to be in proportion with their larger bodies. However, there are many other reasons why people may grow large bodies, which is why some women are still very tall or massive. Those women will generally have brains proportionate to their body size, which does not mean they have "male" brains.
Brain size is not a definitive male trait.
..Is what I would say if I couldn't answer. Fair enough.Chatney said:All right, Don Quixote, I seriously doubt you're worth my time.
Your ideas are fringe and politically motivated. The idea that "gender" refers strictly to social roles is a modern interpretation and not as universal as you like to think.evilthecat said:snip
Darken12 said:I would like to thank OhJohnNo for bringing this up to my attention. You deserve all the credit.
I have selected an array of websites that tell the same story from different angles, and focusing on different issues. You may peruse these at your leisure:
From Slate [http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_sweden_s_new_gender_neutral_pronoun_causes_controversy_.html]. From Care2 [http://www.care2.com/causes/sweden-adopts-a-gender-neutral-pronoun.html]. From The Economist [http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/04/gender].
The highlights reel, for those without the time or inclination to read the full articles:
- * Sweden has incorporated a pronoun ("hen"), which is intended to be gender-neutral (as opposed to "han" and "hon", which are the feminine and masculine pronouns).
* Sweden does not intend to eliminate masculine and feminine pronouns from use, but to incorporate the gender-neutral pronouns as an alternative when gender is irrelevant (as is in almost every facet of life).
* Other advances towards gender neutrality include a reformation of pedagogy, the education system, children toys and children books.
This is a cause for celebration for those of us who seek the systematic destruction and deconstruction of gender in society, and these news fill my heart with much-needed hope and joy. It is my sincerest hope that this ushers a new wave of change and progress in the world.
Since I know how these types of threads go and I don't want to see it locked because people can't tolerate divergent opinions, I have one thing to politely request of everyone:
[HEADING=3]If you vehemently disagree with gender deconstructivism and its goals and you cannot phrase your disagreement politely, neutrally or within the board rules, please hit the back button or close the tab. You are completely free to start your own thread on the matter to bemoan these terrible news.[/HEADING]
[HEADING=2]This thread is intended by me as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show my support. This is a positive thread. Please keep counter opinions or disagreements in polite and measured tones. Thank you.[/HEADING]
ironically in english, HEN is a female chicken.White_Lama said:Being a Swede, I will never use the word hen. Ever. Unless I'm joking about how silly it is.
It's just a silly word and I don't care.
You know, i really woudl love them to do that here. At least in English you got "it". Here we only have a "He" and "she". so a table would be a "he". This is why i often call inanimate objects he or she here, it just doesnt... translate right.Darken12 said:
- * Sweden has incorporated a pronoun ("hen"), which is intended to be gender-neutral (as opposed to "han" and "hon", which are the feminine and masculine pronouns).
Well,i dont think any nation in europe has a guaranteed right to free speech, so they cant ever say "fuck you" to a politician, something i like doing on a regular basis.Res Plus said:Yes, in fact if you pop up Northern England, "Hen" is a pretty old school term on endearment for women, similar to "love", "doll" etc. in London. Coincidently this the very sort of harmless, historic liguistic peccadilo that the "-ism" Taliban want to excise from English through social bullying. Is that chap up there honestly arguing that unisex toilets should be legally impelled? I mean really? Quite funny how a tiny minority hijack the language of development("progressive", "advancement") to call for the repressive and aggressive legal imposition of a niche philosophy on to an entire nation's means of communication. I think this is probably the biggest failing of the far left (which is where this nonsense is generated), misguided, zealot-like belief in one's one intellectual and moral superiority leading to a dicatorial desire to impose your unimpeachable beliefs on society. Bigotry is bigotry.Jegsimmons said:ironically in english, HEN is a female chicken.White_Lama said:Being a Swede, I will never use the word hen. Ever. Unless I'm joking about how silly it is.
It's just a silly word and I don't care.
then again, i guess calling everyone 'cock' just wouldnt fly at all.
Larger brain = more neurons. Is that really hard?Aramis Night said:I was willing to settle on your 3 distinctions rather than bring up some of the other known distinctions(number of neurons, ratio of white/grey matter to name a couple).
See above.Aramis Night said:Honestly even one observable distinction is enough to prove that a gender binary does exist.
This is really not difficult.Aramis Night said:I never made a case as to how it affects it. It is simply a distinction relative to gender that i allowed you to frame without argument.
I guess we can't discount the possibility that astrology is true, either, but that doesn't make it a valid scientific premise. "Ludicrous" is not the same thing as impossible, but what it means is that, within the current paradigm of how we understand the laws of the universe to work the notion simply does not make sense to a degree which makes it a comical thing for anyone to seriously believe.Aramis Night said:On the other hand i'm also not choosing to be dismissive by labeling a possible outcome as "ludicrous". science has no room for such biases outside of theory. And typically theories like that tend to be bad ones.
I'm pointing out that you basically did just that.Aramis Night said:And i'm sorry but bringing up god in a discussion about science is a little out of place don't you think.
Well, let me know when you manage to publish to journal while misusing the word gender.Periodic said:Your ideas are fringe and politically motivated. The idea that "gender" refers strictly to social roles is a modern interpretation and not as universal as you like to think.
In what sense?Periodic said:The fact that you think so says a lot about your limited view of the world.
Larger brains do not necessarily mean more neurons. Neurons are more dense in certain areas of the brain than in others. If there is a difference in the relative sizes of those areas within a brain than it would have an effect on the number of neurons on a brain as a whole even if the brains were the same size. Larger brains simply have a greater overall likelihood of increased amount of neurons if they are identical. But one observation does not guarantee the other. For someone who likes to call out others for any jumping to conclusions, you sure aren't shy about doing the same.evilthecat said:Larger brain = more neurons. Is that really hard?Aramis Night said:I was willing to settle on your 3 distinctions rather than bring up some of the other known distinctions(number of neurons, ratio of white/grey matter to name a couple).
The "ratio" of white matter to grey matter is about the same in males and females, meaning that males, in actuality, have more white matter and grey matter (if anything, they have slightly higher proportion of white matter). The often-misquoted study responsible for this weird internet misunderstanding never claimed otherwise, instead it claimed that the areas for "general intelligence" in women were more heavily composed of white matter.
There are quite a lot of controversial areas in this research, most notably the attempts which have been made to to apply it to cognitive ability, which is just outright wrong. It was claimed, for example, that this research would explain the gender gap between men and women in subjects like mathematics and languages, ignoring the fact that these "gender gaps" only exist in the United States and a small number of other countries.
This is actually a good example of what I'm getting at, in terms of the basic problem of assuming that a sexual differences translate directly into a gender differences, even when there is absolutely no way that could possibly be true, as in this case. Knowing how a brain is structured is very important when you're trying to treat a brain injury, it's (as of yet) completely insignificant, however, when it comes to explaining sociocultural trends.
See above.Aramis Night said:Honestly even one observable distinction is enough to prove that a gender binary does exist.
This is really not difficult.Aramis Night said:I never made a case as to how it affects it. It is simply a distinction relative to gender that i allowed you to frame without argument.
a) "Women, on average, spend 2.6 hours a day on housework, whereas men spend 2.1 hours."
..is a gender difference.
b) "Men's brains are approximately 10% larger, on average, than those of women"
..is a sexual difference.
Now, are you seriously making the case that statement A is directly caused by statement B. Because that's what it sounds like you're saying, and if it is then it is absolute rubbish. If that's not what you're saying, then please explain how what you are saying is in any way relevant to this discussion.
I guess we can't discount the possibility that astrology is true, either, but that doesn't make it a valid scientific premise. "Ludicrous" is not the same thing as impossible, but what it means is that, within the current paradigm of how we understand the laws of the universe to work the notion simply does not make sense to a degree which makes it a comical thing for anyone to seriously believe.Aramis Night said:On the other hand i'm also not choosing to be dismissive by labeling a possible outcome as "ludicrous". science has no room for such biases outside of theory. And typically theories like that tend to be bad ones.
The notion that a person's path in life is influenced by the constellations which appeared in the sky when they were born is silly, just as the notion that the crude process which produce sexual differences carry detailed sociocultural data is silly. If at some point some of the original assumptions involved become explainable, maybe we can reconsider it. Until then, I'm afraid such assumptions do have a place in science.
I'm pointing out that you basically did just that.Aramis Night said:And i'm sorry but bringing up god in a discussion about science is a little out of place don't you think.
"Nature" is not a person. It doesn't "choose" anything. It doesn't "decide" anything. It doesn't have "reason" for anything. We cannot inflect things about it by trying to understand its "reason" or "motive". If you insist on treating nature as if it is a conscious being, I will continue to compare your beliefs on this subject to religious beliefs, because they basically are.