It's not sexist to accept that biology affects behaviour

[markeverett49]

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/biology-sexist-gender-stereotypes

The author, Simon Baron-Cohen, is best-known for his work on autism but perhaps most controversially known for his work on “sex-differences.” (He once suggested that perhaps autism is so much more common among boys than girls because autism may be seen as ‘an extreme form of the male mind.’) I’m old enough to remember a time when ANY difference between the sexes (other than genitalia) was denied and those who thought differently were considered bigots and fools. The pendulum has swung away from the “blank slate” theory of mind, but how far will it go???

 

[Jala]

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/biology-sexist-gender-stereotypes

The author, Simon Baron-Cohen, is best-known for his work on autism but perhaps most controversially known for his work on “sex-differences.” (He once suggested that perhaps autism is so much more common among boys than girls because autism may be seen as ‘an extreme form of the male mind.’) I’m old enough to remember a time when ANY difference between the sexes (other than genitalia) was denied and those who thought differently were considered bigots and fools. The pendulum has swung away from the “blank slate” theory of mind, but how far will it go???

So in other words, all men are exactly alike and all women are exactly alike, behavior-wise? Not that I’ve noticed. No two people–even of the same gender–are exactly alike biologically. I’d be interested in knowing how the author differentiates normal biological variations between people and societal influences?

Any kind of stereotyping–sexism, racism, etc.–says “I’m too lazy to think for myself.”

Jala

 

[jimmy]

So in other words, all men are exactly alike and all women are exactly alike, behavior-wise? Not that I’ve noticed. No two people–even of the same gender–are exactly alike biologically. I’d be interested in knowing how the author differentiates normal biological variations between people and societal influences?

Any kind of stereotyping–sexism, racism, etc.–says “I’m too lazy to think for myself.”

Jala

I don’t think anyone implied that all men act the same, and all women act the same. What was said was that men act differently from women based on their genetic difference. Everyone has their own behavioral patterns but there are tendencies that are much stronger for men than for women, and vice versa.

This only makes sense considering that men have higher concentrations of testosterone and other hormones or neurotransmitters. And women have higher concentrations of estrogen and other hormones and neurotransmitters. These hormones have an affect on how people behave.

 

[markeverett49]

So in other words, all men are exactly alike and all women are exactly alike, behavior-wise?

No. That claim, and no claim like that claim, was made in the article.

 

[Jala]

I don’t think anyone implied that all men act the same, and all women act the same. What was said was that men act differently from women based on their genetic difference. Everyone has their own behavioral patterns but there are tendencies that are much stronger for men than for women, and vice versa.

Thank you, Jimmy, I do understand what you are saying.

What I meant was, if you have (for example) 2 men with extremely different behaviors, how does one determine if this is due to normal biological differences, or due to societal influences?

And what does this mean for men who exhibit “feminine” behaviors and women who exhibit “masculine” behaviors?

I found the example of math skills and computer programming interesting. My daughters and I all excel at math; my father was a draftsman and very math/logic-oriented, and that’s how I was brought up (and how I raised my daughters)–even though my mother was my primary caretaker, and I spent relatively little time with my father.

I just so happen to be a computer programmer, and the majority of the programmers and statisticans that I work with are female, even at the highest levels. Now I have to wonder if we were all raised the same way? Or is there some reason that we all seem to have whatever biology makes us “act like males?” This might make for some interesting discussion tomorrow, when I meet three of my colleagues (two are female) for lunch.

Jala

 

[markeverett49]

This only makes sense considering that men have higher concentrations of testosterone and other hormones or neurotransmitters. And women have higher concentrations of estrogen and other hormones and neurotransmitters. These hormones have an affect on how people behave.

Exactly, though hormones aren’t the only factor. Girls learn to talk sooner than boys do and the parts of the brain necessary for that tend to develop sooner in girls than boys. Not ALL girls but most. Girls tend to become socially adept quicker than boys do. Girls tend to be quicker than boys at noticing when someone in the group is uncomfortable. Girls tend to have more empathy for others than boys do. Again, not in every case. There are mean girls and sensitive boys but overall, there are more mean boys and more sensitive girls.

 

[Crumpy]

regarding the OP:

I agree it’s not sexist to accept that biology affects behavior.

Chemistry and Engineering News is a news magazine that reported interesting results (originally reported elsewhere) on genetic studies of bees (not sure which kind, now).

Although bees have a similar genetic makeup, occasionally one develops into a queen and stays a queen for its entire life. There are other bees (maybe drones) that also stay drones for their entire life.

But, nursing bees and forager bees are said to have relatively stable, but mutable behavior patterns, changing roles when conditoins in the hive demand it.

In the former cases, it is thought that the non-dna genetic material which is referred to collectively as the epigenome, is modified in a permanent way to produce the mentioned behavior, but that in the latter case, the epigenome changes the way the dna is working, and thus affects the behavior of the bees.

I ( not a biologist) find these results very interesting when extrapolated to the human population (assuming genetics works in this “standard” way in humans, as in bees).

Assuming that these results are truly scientific, and therefore, reproduceable, it opens the doors wide on a whole array of human diseases and behaviors.

I find it interesting that nowhere, over a long period of time (centuries), mankind has not even stumbled on any chemicals or drugs that can change behavior. There’s certainly a lot of behavior that we, as society, would like to change, and even individuals would like to change about themselves. I just spotted a thread someplace about somebody asking about changing their libido level. So, I’m not the only one, for sure, looking at chemical / medical therapies for changing behavior and modifying disease states, for example.

That would be an altogether radical “anti-biotic” if we could turn off infectious diseases, for example, with genetic control.

Research into the epigenome is just beginning, but it probably is the place science should be looking, for changing behavior and disease states. I think that’s the direction that the human genome project wanted to take us, even in its earliest stages.