• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are sex differences "inborn" or "learned"?

C

cwjerome

Diamond Member
More studies have been coming out in the past few years that seem to restore public sanity to a society still reeling from extended exposure to feminist ideology. Modern notions of sexual differences being learned as mere "social constructions" of a "patriarchal" culture have been popular, and efforts have been aimed to breed out such differences with various social engineering.

Common sense, supported by volumes of scientific data, appears to be making a comeback. I would argue that denying or attempting to erase these natural differences can lead to great harm. What do you think?
 
considering the number of conservatives who think homosexuality is a choice.. i don't think science and reason is making a come bacxk
 
Of course there are natural differences. It's called testosterone vs. estrogen and progesterone. Even if there were no socialogical differences in upbringing, simply the dominant hormones would lead the two sexes towards diverging behavioral pattterns. If anything it's the social upbringing that modulates the natural impulses and smoothes out gender differences, not the other way around. If not for social constructs such as marriage, gender roles would be what they were 20,000 years ago when men dragged around women by the hair and organized into an Alpha and subordinate male social structure like apes where the strongest male is the only one reproducing.
 
nature + nurture.
more techincally "sex differences" are nature, they are there. they can be changed, through hormone and surgery.
gender differences can be worn and manipulated in a psycho-social manner.

 
A lot of folks tend to oversimplify the sexuality/nature/nurture argument. It is not an either or proposition, but rather both.

There is no reason to rehash the nature/nurture argument. It has been done ad nauseum. The fact of the matter is, whatever the cause, homosexuality is becoming less taboo. Sexuality won't change. As homosexuality gains acceptance, the number of people with homosexual tendencies that will identify themselves as "homosexuals" will increase.

Human beings have a tendency to label, to stereotype. Sexuality is more complex. It defies labels, since it is not a binary concept.

Sexuality is a relative thing. Some people are "straighter" than others. Some relatively "gayer" than others. I am not referring to mannerisms - I'm talking about sexual appetite. Some like men, some women, some both.

... and none of it matters.

 
I think that you (and those unnamed "studies") should consult with psych people before coming to any conclusions. My understanding (from others, I'm an engineer 😉) is that the psych field is increasingly supporting the idea that most personality traits are learned through experiences, not inborn. So while there are obvious differences between the two sexes (the pumbing being an obvious one), I don't think we can say for certain what traits are learned and what are genetic.

So, what does it matter? I think the problem is that if we use our "common sense" to think about "these natural differences" (as you put it) we're likely to come up with conclusions that support our bias. As an engineer, I'm surrounded by male peers, many of them threatened by women in the engineering field, who confidently state that women should not be engineers because they are naturally bad at math and science. Maybe so, but maybe that is learned, girls aren't pushed in math and science like boys are in our education system.

You cite "volumes of scientific data" and "common sense" as your two supports for your (apparent) view that sex differences are inborn. As far as volumes of scientific data, I find that hard to believe without seeing some of it in detail. When the prevailing psych wisdom says that most traits (of any kind) are learned, why would the main differences between men and women be the total opposite. Secondly, it seems obvious to me that our society treats men and women very differently. I find it hard to believe that has no or little effect on their respective traits, when being raised differently affects most people in strong ways. As far as common sense goes, "common sense" is a term I like to use to describe support people use when they have a bias, but don't know what they are talking about. This is science, be scientific.

From a subjective standpoint, going to a large school in central Iowa, I've seen a wide variety of girls here. The more "traditional" girls who view the woman's place as mainly at home, who want to have some kind of traditional female career (nurse, teacher, secretary) if they want one at all (many are here to "meet guys"), etc, etc, tend to come from very rural, conservative parts of Iowa (they also voted Bush, strangly enough 😉). Not saying there aren't exceptions, but I've noticed more of a skew than randomness would dictate. Makes me wonder how much your upbringing has to do with "natural differences".

Edit: Said objective instead of subjective 🙂
 
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
A lot of folks tend to oversimplify the sexuality/nature/nurture argument. It is not an either or proposition, but rather both.

There is no reason to rehash the nature/nurture argument. It has been done ad nauseum. The fact of the matter is, whatever the cause, homosexuality is becoming less taboo. Sexuality won't change. As homosexuality gains acceptance, the number of people with homosexual tendencies that will identify themselves as "homosexuals" will increase.

Human beings have a tendency to label, to stereotype. Sexuality is more complex. It defies labels, since it is not a binary concept.

Sexuality is a relative thing. Some people are "straighter" than others. Some relatively "gayer" than others. I am not referring to mannerisms - I'm talking about sexual appetite. Some like men, some women, some both.

... and none of it matters.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the op posing a homosexual question. I took it as a comment/question about the inheret differences in men and women.

If that is indeed the case, it's genetics reinforced with thousands of years of societal influence. Men are generally better at some tasks than women, and vice versa. Yes, exceptions abound.

Here is one difference. Babies make different crys. Women instinctively know what the cry means. Fear, or hunger or whatever. They know,

Few men can do the same thing, the great majority have to learn to do this. Some men simply cannot do it at all.

 
Am I the only person who read the OP and didn't think it was about gays at all? I saw it as an "attack" (sorry, can't think of a better word) on women than gay people. Was I wrong, or is it both?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Am I the only person who read the OP and didn't think it was about gays at all? I saw it as an "attack" (sorry, can't think of a better word) on women than gay people. Was I wrong, or is it both?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I didn't see either.

If you take a hundred babies, and dress them all alike the sexes can be divided by someone with experience most of the time.

There was a male who was deliberately treated as a female in order to prove it. It misfired horribly. They wound up with a neurotic male on their hands, but with definite male behavior.

Edit:

Also, recent advances in brain image technology show that men and women process differently.
 
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
A lot of folks tend to oversimplify the sexuality/nature/nurture argument. It is not an either or proposition, but rather both.

There is no reason to rehash the nature/nurture argument. It has been done ad nauseum. The fact of the matter is, whatever the cause, homosexuality is becoming less taboo. Sexuality won't change. As homosexuality gains acceptance, the number of people with homosexual tendencies that will identify themselves as "homosexuals" will increase.

Human beings have a tendency to label, to stereotype. Sexuality is more complex. It defies labels, since it is not a binary concept.

Sexuality is a relative thing. Some people are "straighter" than others. Some relatively "gayer" than others. I am not referring to mannerisms - I'm talking about sexual appetite. Some like men, some women, some both.

... and none of it matters.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the op posing a homosexual question. I took it as a comment/question about the inheret differences in men and women.

If that is indeed the case, it's genetics reinforced with thousands of years of societal influence. Men are generally better at some tasks than women, and vice versa. Yes, exceptions abound.

Here is one difference. Babies make different crys. Women instinctively know what the cry means. Fear, or hunger or whatever. They know,

Few men can do the same thing, the great majority have to learn to do this. Some men simply cannot do it at all.
Click to expand...

I don't know how I misinterpreted that... I think I read Dave's trolling about "girly men", and it skewed my interpretation of the thread.

The same analysis applies. Genes make one more suited to be a mother or a hunter. Whether you are talking XX or XY, there are certain genotypes which have been selected over the years. They will undoubtedly play a part.

Natural selection is not as vital nowadays as it once was, but it still is relevant. Society still dictates, notwithstanding Betty Friedan's rhetoric, that women should behave a certain way, and some women will fall in line. Others will not.

It is all terribly grey. To deny that women are different is to deny that chemically they are different from men. Hormonally, thankfully, that is not the case.

Are they as capable as men? Yes. In most endeavors - to the extent that they are genetically "selected against" for the activity (mostly due to the XX).
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Am I the only person who read the OP and didn't think it was about gays at all? I saw it as an "attack" (sorry, can't think of a better word) on women than gay people. Was I wrong, or is it both?
Click to expand...

I was thrown off by Dave's incessant trolling. Sorry... I helped derail the thread.
 
I was thinking men and women personally....

It's no more of an attack on women than it is an attack on men. Just differences. You bring in your own baggage.

I certainly agree the psych world is "generally" resistant to ANY genetic influences because it diminishes their role/authority in matters such as these.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I was thinking men and women personally....

It's no more of an attack on women than it is an attack on men. Just differences. You bring in your own baggage.

I certainly agree the psych world is "generally" resistant to ANY genetic influences because it diminishes their role/authority in matters such as these.
Click to expand...

Nah... psychology relies on an interplay of human biology and the psyche. The whole mind/body connection...
a lot of that is genetics.
 
Nah... psychology relies on an interplay of human biology and the psyche. The whole mind/body connection...
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more along the lines of how much of a person is hardwired. Psychs tend to believe in a tabula rasa mode because it suits their needs much better. I think genetics plays a larger role in who we are than most people believe.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I was thinking men and women personally....

It's no more of an attack on women than it is an attack on men. Just differences. You bring in your own baggage.

I certainly agree the psych world is "generally" resistant to ANY genetic influences because it diminishes their role/authority in matters such as these.
Click to expand...

Well you don't seem particulary enthused with the feminist movement, and seem more in favor of "natural differences". But the problem is that those differences seem to have put women at a disadvantage for much of history. After all, up until recently, the natural differences didn't allow women to vote.

Perceived sexual differences have not traditionaly favored women. Supporting them as "natural" puts women in a weaker position, whether that's your intention or not. My only baggage is that I don't think we can responsibly say that without a lot more evidence backing it up. Well that and the fact that I think women still have a ways to go towards equality, it sure as hell isn't time to say "wow, we've overdone it here".

And as far as baggage goes, you seem remarkably quick to jump on one particular side here not to have an agenda of your own. You'll notice, even with my stated views, I'm saying it's probably some of both. I'm not seeing that in your posts...
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Nah... psychology relies on an interplay of human biology and the psyche. The whole mind/body connection...
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more along the lines of how much of a person is hardwired. Psychs tend to believe in a tabula rasa mode because it suits their needs much better. I think genetics plays a larger role in who we are than most people believe.
Click to expand...

Personal attacks make for bad science...everybody has an agenda, that's why we look at the facts, not opinions. The nature crowd certainly has an agneda too, it limits our liability for how people turn out, and doesn't require us to rethink our society very much. If parents today are raising kids who shoot up their classrooms, blaming "genetics" is easier that blaming the parents.

I have an engineering inclined brain. I like to fix all sorts of mechanical problems, do carpentry stuff, work with computers, things like that. And I'm good at it. Was I born this way? Or was it because I used to watch and help my Dad when he did all that kind of stuff? Maybe some of both? I'm smart, I always do very well on aptitude and intelligence tests. Did it help that my parents read to me constantly before I could even sit up without falling over? Or was I just born with that, too?

There are a lot of odd coincidences to be explained if nurture doesn't play a major role in who we are. Actually, our election provided us with a great one. Urban areas are usually liberal, rural areas are generally conservative. Now tell me those results come from random genetic placement and not living in those areas.
 
Yes, women have historically been discriminated against in unsavory ways. What I'm saying is recognition of differences doesn't automatically lead to oppression. I hope people aren't that politically correct. Past injustices does not mean we ignore or deny reality.

I bring this up because a lot of brain-based research in education and learning shows subtle differences in the sexes. One that usually stands out is how girls will often have higher verbal/linguistic abilities.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, women have historically been discriminated against in unsavory ways. What I'm saying is recognition of differences doesn't automatically lead to oppression. I hope people aren't that politically correct. Past injustices does not mean we ignore or deny reality.

I bring this up because a lot of brain-based research in education and learning shows subtle differences in the sexes. One that usually stands out is how girls will often have higher verbal/linguistic abilities.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can agree that recognition of differneces need not be negative. I'm all for celebrating our differences (or something that doesn't sound so Disney 😉).

But again, I think we don't have enough data to say what is the cause of differences with any certainty. Those verbal abilities may stem from the fact that girls are raised to solved problems with words, while guys are generally "supposed" to slug it out if necessary. But maybe that's just a built in trait. Who knows?

All I'm saying is I'm not sure we can say it's either way. A month or so ago, I was arguing with a psych person at my school who was saying it's all nurture. I don't buy that either 😉
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Nah... psychology relies on an interplay of human biology and the psyche. The whole mind/body connection...
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more along the lines of how much of a person is hardwired. Psychs tend to believe in a tabula rasa mode because it suits their needs much better. I think genetics plays a larger role in who we are than most people believe.
Click to expand...

Not true. My grandmother is a psychologist, and she keeps me kinda up to date, since I have clients with "issues" all the time.

She admits that there is "hard wiring" of certain behaviors, but that you can lessen some of the problems through behavior modification, in combination with medications.

Many psychologists refer patients for meds, and psychiatrists refer clients to psychologists for therapy.

That is a sweeping statement, which is just incorrect.
 
I would think that homosexuals would rather their sexual orientation be considered a choice over a matter of genetic wiring.

Procreation is a necessary factor in the survival of any species...granted, homosexuals are now capable of reproducing through the wonders of medical science and other social arrangements in our society, but homosexuality in and of itself is counter to the reproductive cycle required for the furthering of a species.

If you equate homosexuality to a genetic base, you open the door for discussions or establish the potential for homosexuality being a genetic defect that can be corrected, again through the wonders of science.

If you equate homosexuality to a choice, established through a combination of factors ranging from personal preference to social conditioning, you establish homosexuality as simply something you choose...and it is more difficult to target or criticize people for simply how they choose to live...more difficult to make a case against choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top