Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
Turncoat said:I believe it to be mostly a morphic principle that can be gregariously steered, and that much of what has men seen as being in the "superior" position is over men having made the canon criteria people are otherwise judged on. While we can note physiological differences that root back towards our more basic functions, those were more clear cut during more Darwinian times when those who otherwise showed unrelated traits didn't survive.
Men and women seem quite different to me, especially in regards to how our brains are wired (and temperament by extent). The male and female patterns for distribution of gray and white matter are stark. Cognitive literature has long noted differences in sexes as well. Even if culture is skewed or the roles were inverted, a woman won't develop a corpus callosum as thick as a man's just because she acts masculine. The neural cells migrate in the womb. By the time you're out, you're pretty much set. I think this is important, because it means the sexes operate with different skill sets and are wired to respond differently to things. David Reimer's life is probably a great example of the weight of biology.
Wikipedia said:David Reimer (born Bruce Peter Reimer; 22 August 1965 – 4 May 2004) was a Canadian man born male but reassigned female and raised as a girl following medical advice and intervention after his penis was severely injured during a botched circumcision in infancy.
The psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. The academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer's realization that he was not a girl crystallized between the ages of 9 and 11 years and he transitioned to living as a male at age 15. Well known in medical circles for years anonymously as the "John/Joan" case, Reimer later went public with his story to help discourage similar medical practices. He killed himself after suffering years of severe depression, linked to financial instability and a troubled marriage.
Wikipedia said:The parents, concerned about their son's prospects for future happiness and sexual function without a penis, took him to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore in early 1967 to see John Money, a psychologist who was developing a reputation as a pioneer in the field of sexual development and gender identity, based on his work with intersex patients. Money was a prominent proponent of the "theory of gender neutrality"—that gender identity developed primarily as a result of social learning from early childhood and that it could be changed with the appropriate behavioural interventions. The Reimers had seen Money being interviewed in February 1967 on the Canadian news program This Hour Has Seven Days, during which he discussed his theories about gender.
Money and physicians working with young children born with intersex conditions believed that a penis could not be replaced but that a functional vagina could be constructed surgically. Money also claimed that Reimer would be more likely to achieve successful, functional sexual maturation as a girl than as a boy. For Money, a case where identical twin boys were involved where one could be raised as a girl provided a perfect test of his theories.
Money and the Hopkins team persuaded the baby's parents that sex reassignment surgery would be in Reimer's best interest. At the age of 22 months, David underwent a bilateral orchidectomy, in which his testes were surgically removed and a rudimentary vulva was fashioned. David was reassigned to be raised as female and given the name Brenda (similar to his birth name, "Bruce"). Psychological support for the reassignment and surgery was provided by John Money, who continued to see Reimer annually for consultations and to assess the outcome. This reassignment was considered an especially important test case of the social learning concept of gender identity for two reasons: first, Reimer's identical twin brother, Brian, made an ideal control because the brothers shared genes, family environments, and the intrauterine environment; second, this was reputed to be the second reassignment and reconstruction performed on a male infant who had no abnormality of prenatal or early postnatal sexual differentiation.
Wikipedia said:By the age of 13 years, Reimer was experiencing suicidal depression and he told his parents he would take his own life if they made him see Money again. Finally, on March 14, 1980, Reimer's parents told him the truth about his gender reassignment, following advice from Reimer's endocrinologist and psychiatrist. At 14, having been informed of his past by his father, Reimer decided to assume a male gender identity, calling himself David. He underwent treatment to reverse the reassignment, including testosterone injections, a double mastectomy, and phalloplasty operations.
Turncoat said:Now that Darwin is out of the picture beyond gregarious social climate, "The Natural State of Woman" has more room to be questioned over if that's natural or simply how it ended up, but I ultimately believe that applying a different construct onto society could easily change how the genders are seen and, following that, how likely they are to procreate physically as a result of a philosophy shift sociologically, much like we are otherwise seeing now.
When you refer to the natural state of women, I'm not sure what that means. We have some things that are quantifiable. Women tend to be more social than men and use more words on average a day. Men tend to be better at spatial reasoning. There are major differences in mating preferences that parallel other primates. I am skeptical those things would change because of new norms. We're seeing more promiscuity, not so much a complete change in taste.
Turncoat said:Men vs Women are mostly split based on E vs T count averages and how their muscles respond to life challenges, but as life's challenges change so too do people (alongside their breeding habits and nurturing). If it was for a long enough time popular for bitch boys to fuck amazonian women, we'd potentially see a shift in our understanding of gender from the offspring produced.
A true Xena utopia.
It's possible to thicken the corpus callosum through years of musical training, and working for proficiency in 3 and 4 languages.
But only if kids start around age 4. Birth to 6 years is the crucial time for brain development, with windows at various milestones up to age 12.
Pop science is lovely isn't it?
I find that most people have troubles comprehending the reality of science being a contentious means to discern material truths because of what you see above. Not only must you hypothesize, experiment, and infer but you too must deal with the hypothesis, experiments, and inferences of others whom have not only differing hypothesis but experimental data to back them up which is quite troublesome because you too may have experimental evidence to back your own hypothesis.
Those in the general public will have an idea and use confirmation bias to find and select popular articles in order to support their own ideals. The latest example I've seen here is Inqs use of 'Myths about X' websites that are full of explanations that confirm a specific bias while not taking into account or completely ignoring legitimate scientific hypothesis put forward by respectable scientists who have empirical and experimental data to give credence to the hypothesis.
This type of behavior not only alludes to a misunderstanding of scientific development in a historical context but a complete misunderstanding on how science is done in the first place. Paradigm shifts are common in the sciences and they often come with an overturning of old hypothesis that were treated as objective fact prior along with complete shifts in perception in dealing with certain problems, a shift that is beneficial. An examples of this is Einstein's overturning of Newtons notion of absolute time which was not only seen as correct but was a crucial part of most theories of that time, hence with its death came a collapse of all that came before it.
I do not blame these articles per say as they are just reporting on some hypothesis for a quick buck, though the titles are obviously inappropriately concrete, and I don't view education to be the medias responsibility. I instead blame are education system which has botched our understanding of not only scientific developments but the nature of the discipline. You take a STEM class and you briefly go over the scientific method in your first week not to touch upon it again except implicitly as students do experiments. While doing these experiments the physics and chemistry, and our means to calculate certain results, are explored while the connection of those experiments with method and historical context is not. Not only is method missed but so is the historical context of that experiment which not only revealed some result but overturned the understanding of others. It is hardly known with each experiment there was a contention between hypothesis which acted as motivation. That along with the reality that all is taught as 'X is a fact', 'Y is a fact', 'Z is a fact', most students become acquainted wit the idea that scientific developments are not only continuous and smooth but that anything stated in a scientific context should be accepted as objectively true.
last edit on
11/25/2020 4:55:20 PM