Here's an interesting survey of brain difference studies you my find interesting, Steve.
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404/
-
It's about the subset of trans-identified folks who are "early-onset GD androphilic (homosexual) MtFs and early-onset GD gynephilic (homosexual) FtMs. The early onset of GD and sexual orie…
It's about the subset of trans-identified folks who are "early-onset GD androphilic (homosexual) MtFs and early-onset GD gynephilic (homosexual) FtMs. The early onset of GD and sexual orientation are key points in the following analysis".
What they found was that there was evidence that this particular subset of trans folks differ in brain scan measurements from both non-trans males and non-trans females. That is, they could distinguish 4 phenotypes, not just two, from the scans: cis male, cis female, MtF, FtM. And they suggest analogizing this subset as perhaps a form of intersex brain.
There are some interesting implications. One would be that there is no more scientific reason to (based on brain scans) group these MtF folks in with cis females under one label ("women") any more than to group them under the label "men", as their brains differ from both (and from FtM as well). This does not scientifically support the slogan "trans women are women", but it would support treating them humanely, as we try to treat intersex people.
In other words, a good deal of the socio-political problems come from trying to collapse a set of 4 brain phenotypes into two categories, which they do not fit well. Treat them more honestly as 4 categories.
I do want to note that the above does not apply to all trans folks. There are those who discover their trans nature later in life, often fitting the Autogynophile (AGP) profile, which differs in various ways from the group whose brains were studied above. There are the social contagion cases of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. There is the huge fad of identifying as various flavors of non-binary or asexual. Some activists include under the "trans umbrella" those with "cis" gender identities but who get sexual arousal from transvestism. Those would require separate analysis, but I speculate that they are less likely to show up as distinguishable from their birth sex in brain scans.
Imagine in a world 20 years from now, we've come to our senses and we use brain studies to medically and relatively objectively identify MtF and FtM individuals via brain scans, and give them whatever treatments (plural) have been found objectively most successful. They are treated humanely as our fellow citizens whose minority brain type is not their fault and who deserve no stigma, just like intersex people or those born with other abnormalities. They could be treated in ways that are compatible with traditional liberal values of compassion and support, but also compatible with science and medicine, without ideological blinders getting in the way. In different domains they may be treated:
(1) as new categories FtM and MtF trans, provably distinct from cis folks
(2) by their body sex
(3) by their "gender identification"
For every circumstance, we would see which of these three ways work best. For example, for sports, option #2 might work best, while for eg: women writers contests #3 might (or might not) make the most sense, or separate contests just for trans folks (#1) might be good.
And that pragmatic lumping could change with experience, because it would not be based on pretending they are identical in all ways to their biological sex, nor their gender identity sex. Instead we'd be saying "for THIS specific purpose, let's try grouping them with others in a given way for pragmatic reasons" and see if any adjustments are needed later.
Nobody would be "erased", in fact they would be validated by brain scans and supported for their unique categories.
Thank you! I’m loving all the neuroscience I’m being treated to! I find this stuff absolutely fascinating 😁 But I’m still very leery of the idea of male and female “brain phenotypes.”
We don’t separate males and females because of brain phenotypes, and we no longer claim that women are incapable of certain types of work because of their fragile, feminine sensibilities. We separate them because of physical differences and societal norms of privacy.
Differences in brain chemistry, in the aggregate, don’t tell us anything useful about individual behaviour. And even if they did, I don’t think we’d need that to justify treating trans people humanely (I know you’re not suggestion we *would* need that).
The clearest evidence that trans brains are different from cis brains is that trans people suffer from gender dysphoria. I don’t think any further diagnosis is required. Nor would a brain scan remove the risk of transition regret. There’s the possibility of regret with any significant body modification. And because brain scans aren’t likely to be 100% perfect, some genuinely dysphoric people would probably slip through the cracks.
I just think we need to a) differentiate very clearly between conversion therapy and appropriate counselling for people about to make a decision that will lead to lifelong medicalisation, b) de-stigmatised gender “non-conformity,” and c) recognise that gender identity doesn’t trump biological sex in some instances.
Dividing people into male and female across the number of categories that we do is a clearly imperfect method. In many cases, the reasoning is obvious, but in others, it's not even done because there are meaningful differences between men and women, but to encourage more women and girls to participate in certain fields.
Men had such a head start with regards to almost everything, that boosting female participation requires a little effort. I'm all for creating trans spaces too. But sadly, trans people don't seem to want them. I understand some of the reasons for this, but they're basically all about reality butting up against their desire for affirmation. And we'll find ourselves in even more complicated waters if pre-pubertal transition becomes more common.
Gah! It's so frustrating! We're trying to unravel all of these incredibly complex, nuanced, interlocking issues, and it's taboo to talk honestly about pretty much every aspect of them.😅
And by the way, I for many decades held the feminist perspective that most gender roles were entirely socially constructed, other than those based on things like childbirth or upper body strength. Or more specifically, that there were no inherent mental or psychological differences between male and female minds or brains (tho some differences in bodies).
Studies of early infant preferences, preferences among other primates, cross cultural correlations, and occupations in countries with fewer gender barriers have convinced me that such a "blank slate" attitude is no longer scientifically supportable. If juvenile monkeys studied in their native habitat show marked gender preferences for rag dolls vs bright colored toy trucks with moving parts, it's hard to chalk that up to patriarchal conditioning. I reluctantly concede that there is good evidence of some non-trivial sex based underlying differences in proclivities and interests.
Of course, culture adds a whole bunch of other arbitrary associations on top of that; wearing lipstick or carrying purses is unlikely to have any biological roots. And individuals can be slightly or strongly atypical of group trends. So I continue to believe that, for example, both males and females should be welcomed into any occupation for which they are qualified and interested. In no way does my new recognition of some underlying propensities suggest that we erect sex-based barriers to individuals who want to pursue interests typical or atypical of their sex.
But it does cause me to question whether observing any deviation from 49%/51% ratios *automatically* implies discrimination or barriers. Sometimes it might, sometimes it may reflect free choices, and statistically differing proclivities.
So accepting that there are partially different male and female (and possible MtF and FtM) brain phenotypes does not imply any return to rigid stereotyping and restrictions. No need to shy away from recognizing the results of the analysis I linked because we are afraid of the implications of accepting the results.
" I for many decades held the feminist perspective that most gender roles were entirely socially constructed."
I think we more or less agree here. I don't think of gender roles as *entirely* socially constructed. As you say, we see differences in male and female behaviour across pretty much all animal species. But again, we’re talking in aggregates. Individuals are different.
Pick any masculine trait you like, and there’s a female out there who exhibits it to a greater degree than you. In fact, there’s an individual female who exhibits *all* of the traditionally masculine traits to a greater degree than you (and me too obviously, I’m not questioning your manhood😁). Strength, aggression, height, agreeableness (or a lack thereof), you name it.
So while it’s true that gendered behaviour is, in part, biological, and that observing these differences isn't necessarily discriminatory, the important point (which you make as well) is that individuals should still be left free to choose their own destiny. Because there is enormous variation in how individuals behave that defies the bell curves.
I'm leery of the idea of male and female brains, not because I don’t understand that males and females are different, but because population level differences are terrible predictors of individual tendencies. And I think a focus at the population level naturally tempts us to overlook this.
Your male brain works differently to my male brain. And each of our brains probably work very similarly to some women's brains. So the sweet spot for me is just to treat everybody as if they're the same unless there are clear physical reasons not to.
Steve, I think you may be suggesting that Gender Dysphoria is the gold standard for trans status, and I think we should question that.
First, consider that before the WPATH gender-affirmative care standard and puberty blockers. research on children with Gender Dysphoria showed that about 80% had that dysphoria resolve during puberty. (Most became gay or lesbian). That is, only about 1/5 of GD cases were actually trans. Being trans is not the only cause of GD.
And consider that almost all of the cases of ROGD (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, typically propagated by social contagion amongst teenagers - mainly girls - without previous GD) come to believe that they suddenly have GD - and who can say they do not? Does that 4000% increase in diagnosed GD reflect a 4000% increase in actual trans, or in "I believe I have GD and nobody can prove differently"?
Or consider the male prisoners who suddenly discover that they have GD in order to be transferred to a women's prison? Who's to say they didn't suddenly get GD (and perhaps spontaneously heal from it upon release)? GD is entirely subjective after all.
What I'm saying is that while I believe that there really is a subjective psychological condition of Gender Dysphoria, it's EXTREMELY imprecisely bounded (remember that sudden 4000% increase? Does that suggest that only 2.5% of the reported GD in that group is actually based on trans status?), and this can happen because there is zero objective evidence of it and many social or pragmatic reasons to delude oneself or others about it.
So GD is not the same as being trans, any more than having a fever is the same as having influenza. (And fevers can be objectively measured!)
If brain scans can fairly reliably determine 4 phenotypes (with FAR less than a 40 false positives to each true positive), that would likely be vastly more precise than relying on asserted subjective GD as the gold standard benchmark.
And yes, you are right that we agree that we don't need this to treat people humanely. Everybody should be treated humanely, trans or cis, GD or no GD.
This is more about society trying to (1) better understand the underlying nature of the problem (eg: 4 distinct phenotypes rather than only two with some people having perfect reversals, like a 100% female brain in a male body) as a guide to needed balances and tradeoffs, and (2) having some relatively objective validation. In other words, it could provide some tools for rationally making the tricky decisions needed to wisely make those humane policies.
You might have noticed the degree of irrationality involved today, and thus the need for any rational and humane assistance in threading a path. Not ironclad doctrine, just meaningful additional guidance from science, rather than relying exclusively on ideologically reshaped subjective reports.
"I think you may be suggesting that Gender Dysphoria is the gold standard for trans status, and I think we should question that"
Yeah, maybe I wasn't perfectly clear here. I do think gender dysphoria (GD) is the gold standard, but a) I think a lot of people calling themselves trans today don't actually have GD, b) GD status can change, and c) I'm talking about an official, not self diagnosis.
I'm not arguing that somebody with GD should automatically be given hormones and surgery. Especially when they're children. I think surgery and hormone treatments should be a last resort when all other efforts to help the person deal with their distress have failed.
Again, the significant and irreversible nature of gender affirming surgery means that some percentage of people will always have regrets. The aim is simply to make that number as small as reasonably possible.
Yes, most dysphoric children will outgrow their feelings and become (usually homosexual) children. I hate the fact that this has become one of the many taboos in trans discourse. That's why I think it's important to normalise gender "non-conformity".
I think, for a lot of these kids, if they were able to explore their relationship to their gender without learning to think they were in the "wrong body," they'd experience much less distress and would be much more comfortable waiting for adulthood to see if they were in that 80%.
ROGD should absolutely be assumed to be temporary (again, in most cases this would fail a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria), and medical interventions should at least wait until the child is an adult. Given that most cases of ROGD manifest well into puberty, I don't think this would be a big issue in most cases with proper care and counselling.
I think adults really underestimate how impressionable children are, and how much of their sense of identity they absorb from their parents and friends. We really need to give them the chance to develop into adults before making these life-changing choices. That the ~80% desistance rate isn't enough to convince people of this shows how lost we are.
But, since gender affirmative treatment has become required in much of the US, and counseling professionals can lose their licenses if they are perceived to have questioned whether a given client is actually trans or might have other conditions, and puberty blockers are fairly widely used, today it's close to illegal and certainly infeasible to reproduce any assessment of how often GD would desist on its own. So those advocating for this cause may be hoping that the pre-WPATH data on resolved GD will age out and be forgotten.
Some of the selling points of puberty blockers are: (1) it just delays puberty, but kids can always change their mind later, and (2) they do no irreversible harm in the meanwhile. However, nearly 100% of those taking puberty blockers continue on that path (while we have reason to believe that only perhaps 20% would absent chemical intervention). Apparently going through normal puberty (including developing sexual attractions) is part of what helps resolve the GD for many of the homosexual kids. Sigh.
"and counseling professionals can lose their licenses if they are perceived to have questioned whether a given client is actually trans or might have other conditions,"
Yep, this is the first layer of insanity that needs to be rolled back. I think the de-trans community are gong to be invaluable here, because they're the ones pushing for it the hardest and are the living proof that blindly affirming children isn't the answer.
Not only do (I think it actually *is*) 100% of children on puberty blockers go on to transition, but the claim that they're reversible or do no harm is a lie. Not only that, but as I think I mentioned earlier, putting prepubescent children on puberty blockers can actually make their gender reassignment *more* difficult.
Passion GBR covered the brain science about the same way I would have so I'll just add that Steven Pinker is the one who convinced me that there are in fact brain differences. There just aren't any IQ differences. Women's brains are designed *overall* to be better at communication and articulating emotion, and men are *in general* better at math and engineering functions, so we may always have some lopsided professions but that doesn't matter, what does is our value judgements about them. Right now, any time cognitive/neuroscientists talk about these brain differences they strike me as going overboard to emphasize this doesn't mean women should be kept out of certain professions (apparently no one worries there are hardly any male hairdressers who aren't gay :) ) or that women are somehow less intellectual than men. The right has traditionally used biological differences to oppress others (like you and me) and that's what the left justly fears - so why not challenge the value judgements rather than the reality?
I don't know if you've ever seen the movie Starship Troopers from the '90s (I may have mentioned this before, can't remember) but it presented a military in which men and women were completely equal and even showered together without the men trying to molest everyone. One of my co-workers said that was utterly unrealistic as in battle, male soldiers would absolutely be concerned with defending female soldiers and that it would be near-impossible to shower with them and not be aroused. I said that's the way it is today but I can foresee something like that happening in the future, once we shed enough of our prejudices and got used to women (and everyone else) as equals. And especially when the traditionalist, misogynist military gets over the idea that women exist to fulfill their sexual needs.
This is why I dislike identity politics as a solution to society's ills. I'd rather we work toward a society in which everyone does what they do best and no one cares if there aren't enough black people/white people/male/female/trans people/gays/Southeast Asians/whatever in a particular profession. I don't care if men are better at me than math - no one told me math is hard, that girls can't do math - certainly my parents never did, but I still sucked at it. (The way I was taught didn't help either - that's on crappy Southern schools in the '60s and early '70s).
I think evolving toward acknowledging differences without judgement is where we need to be. I'm good with lack of gender parity in STEM if every woman who wants to be there is, and is getting the same treatment as everyone else.
I certainly agree with your major points. In particular, our society needs to get over the idea that "our side" needs to suppress or distort true facts, because we are afraid that the other side will misuse such facts. That direction lies tyranny. Like the way that governments allowed *without accountability* to freely censor things for national security, will gravitate into abusing that power to censor embarrassments or challenges to the ruling party. We need to challenge the misinterpretations or false implications, not suppress any "inconvenient truths".
(This also fit's with Steve's questions of "is pretending that trans women are the same as biological women really the only way to support treating trans folks humanely?")
Small dissents.
Today, I would question whether human being (without editing their genomes) are ever likely to en masse avoid arousal from exposure to nakedness. Note how widespread coverage of the loins is cross culturally around the world. I think that may indicate an innate propensity which can only partially and inconsistently be overridden by culture. (For selective groups, it can certainly happen. I'm quite familiar with naturism etc. But what works for a selective subset like that may not work for the broad unselected society; and the military - composed largely of young folks - is going to be closer to the broader society than to naturists. Or perhaps worse.).
I would agree that it would be possible to culturally get past the "male soldiers losing focus due to protecting female soldiers" thing. After all, many cultures without chivalry concepts are willing to sacrifice women more easily than men, so that's obviously easily affected by culture. There are other reasons that women may relatively rarely make good combat soldiers; the major physical differences can be very relevant. How many woman can carry an average or above average weight wounded man over their shoulders? A few, not most. Reports are that standards are often watered down to allow women to pass. That works, in peacetime. (Of course, guiding a drone or repairing a helicopter or flying a plane is quite another matter).
There are some far more practical reasons to gird one's loins no matter where you live: Flies and other annoying critters that find the scent of one's butthole positively heavenly, LOL! We don't have bushy tails to chase them away like horses. In addition, women have a second orifice bugs might find terribly attractive.
We may think it's about keeping men's basest instincts (LOL) in check and I can't swear it isn't, but if I lived in the jungle with a bunch of women I'd still wear a skirt. If I had memory of modern life I'd wear a bra too, because I've always found braless uncomfortable.
When men see nudity all day long it stops being sexualized. Boy oh boy was my long hair sexualized when I was in Turkey; I was followed around by men all day long trying to get into my pants, as was my blonde friend with whom I was traveling. Chinese men sexualized women's feet at one point and Victorian men famously sexualized ankles and legs. And in those jungle/savannah societies, the men clearly don't go around in a state of arousal all day long at the sight of all those naked boobs.
About once in a century the world produces a mathematics genius who blazes new trails. The Frenchman Galois was one of them; Euler, Gauss, Cantor, Gödel, a few others. John Horton Conway, inventor of the famous Game of Life, may be one.
1) They are always men (Hypatia, a 5th century Greek woman. may have been one; there have been no other qualifying women in modern times).
2) They all do their best work before the age of twenty.
These are not just brilliant mathematicians, they are off the scale. They're far too rare to draw any statistically valid conclusions from.
Hypatia's father was a mathematician who supported her in her endeavours; many Greek fathers wouldn't have. Hedy Lamarr likely might have been a far greater engineer and inventor had she not been born a few decades later; she was self-taught. Imagine what she might have become had she been formally trained. When she tried to sell her 'spread spectrum technology' invention to the Navy after WWII, she was told she'd be more valuable selling 'kisses and war bonds'. Know you place, little girl!
There were women who wanted to go up into space in the 20th century; they were, as aviators, as accomplished as any man, but NASA and the military always found excuses to not send them even though they came close a few times. Somewhere deep inside the myriad excuses they offered was the one they couldn't admit to themselves, except occasionally to each other: Male astronauts were the new heroes, but if even a *girl* can go up into space, it can't be that hard.
I believe STEM can be more sex-integrated than it is if we remove the barriers for women, including just being more overall supportive of girls who show a knack for STEM skills and talents. I'm not sure it will ever achieve a 50/50 parity. I don't care as long as every woman (or POC)'s talents are being used, along with every white/male's, to the best of their ability.
I wouldn't argue with any of this, but the rarity of female math geniuses is very unlikely just another instance of keeping women down.
Who would argue against fairness in admissions? In STEM work? There has been more progress since 1980 in this kind of equality than in the millennia previous. May it continue to full equality.
I need to add something though and I don't seek to be offensive ... I recently removed myself from a blog community where three members would shoehorn unfairness to women into the most unrelated topics, daily bitter rants that got very old. They could not accept that any man was with them. In this chapter of this forum we're discussing gender issues. I don't deny a word of what you wrote but please don't make a habit of it. Thanks in advance.
My degree is in mathematics and I've been reading the history of mathematics since before my voice changed. I don't think you can make the case that the gender inequality of these trailblazing mathematicians can be lain at the feet of misogyny.
Poetess Emily Dickenson was unpublished in her lifetime; when her writings were discovered she was elevated to the highest esteem in poetry, and that was long before feminism. There have been stellar female mathematicians and physicists (Emmy Noether springs to mind) but the Galois/Gödel class seems reserved to young men.
As for representation in STEM I think it's more complicated than that. I'm a software developer and technical writer (my boss is an American woman though the company is in London) and concede that I have worked with very few women. There are a lot more of them in HR and the business side of the industry than writing code.
As you have said, the super geniuses are too rare to learn more statistically.
But it appears that in many related species, and across a surprising number of dimensions, males tend to have a higher standard deviation then females, so that there tend to be more at the high end and more at the low end even if the mean or mode or medians are basically the same. This can be true of, say, height or speed, and likely intelligence or many specialized aptitudes.
It's possible that this has some evolutionary advantage for a species, where there is a tension and tradeoff between "conforming to what works best today" and "preserving alleles which might help adapt to future changes". Maybe the relatively more expendable males have a slightly different setpoint.
This can mean an unequal distribution of sexes at the top or bottom end, even with equal opportunities and without external discrimination or cultural factors.
And obviously, this does NOT justify any sort of discrimination!! It says nothing about any individual, who may be typical or atypical.
It is however yet another reason to not automatically assume that discrimination can be assumed to be the only explanation for observation of unequal representation in situations requiring relatively rarified skills or interests.
I wasn't arguing that men are solely responsible for keeping women down, or that there'd be more female math geniuses if there were more fathers like Hypatia's. My father, who helped me with my math homework, NEVER taught me I couldn't do math, or that girls couldn't do it well. In fact I *told* him that and he refused to believe it. He was right, of course, and he dragged me through like ten years of math classes until I was no longer required to take them. I was NO budding Hypatia.
I suspect you're right, that there's more going on to the lack of female math geniuses than male holding back, and we're in less position to argue 'misogyny' now because I keep seeing the integration of women and POC in places they weren't in the last ten years. Like corporate websites and leadership pages and in higher-level positions.
I suspect we may spend awhile playing catchup due to historical male obstructionism, but I think we're making progress already. I'm seeing more female CTOs and VPs of IT; ten years ago, women on corporate websites were almost always VPs of Marketing, Communications, and HR. Is it affirmative action or merit? Who knows? Like it was in Hedy Lamarr's time.
We may *never*, in the best of future times, acheive parity with men in certain spaces, but that's okay, as long as the next baby Hypatia is allowed to pursue her talents and skills without being flayed alive by ignorant Christians :)
And in the meantime, there's nothing wrong with going back to the long-way-around way of getting to medical transition...living like the opposite gender for a year or two, lots of counseling, make sure this is what the person really wants. The trans movement is rushing medical transition on everyone for reasons I'm still trying to figure out. The medical community *used* to recognize surgical transition as a giant mother of a move not to be undertaken by either doctors or patients lightly; now the trans movement uses the threat of suicide, and encourages children to threaten this, to get what they want.
Given how prevalent suicide had already become *before* trans became a fad (and I do believe a lot of it is), I'm not at all convinced all 'trans' people are truly trans, or that their suicidality stems from genuine dysphoria.
But we humans are masters at distracting ourselves from whatever is *really* the underlying problem(s).
Here's an interesting survey of brain difference studies you my find interesting, Steve.
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404/
-
It's about the subset of trans-identified folks who are "early-onset GD androphilic (homosexual) MtFs and early-onset GD gynephilic (homosexual) FtMs. The early onset of GD and sexual orientation are key points in the following analysis".
What they found was that there was evidence that this particular subset of trans folks differ in brain scan measurements from both non-trans males and non-trans females. That is, they could distinguish 4 phenotypes, not just two, from the scans: cis male, cis female, MtF, FtM. And they suggest analogizing this subset as perhaps a form of intersex brain.
There are some interesting implications. One would be that there is no more scientific reason to (based on brain scans) group these MtF folks in with cis females under one label ("women") any more than to group them under the label "men", as their brains differ from both (and from FtM as well). This does not scientifically support the slogan "trans women are women", but it would support treating them humanely, as we try to treat intersex people.
In other words, a good deal of the socio-political problems come from trying to collapse a set of 4 brain phenotypes into two categories, which they do not fit well. Treat them more honestly as 4 categories.
I do want to note that the above does not apply to all trans folks. There are those who discover their trans nature later in life, often fitting the Autogynophile (AGP) profile, which differs in various ways from the group whose brains were studied above. There are the social contagion cases of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. There is the huge fad of identifying as various flavors of non-binary or asexual. Some activists include under the "trans umbrella" those with "cis" gender identities but who get sexual arousal from transvestism. Those would require separate analysis, but I speculate that they are less likely to show up as distinguishable from their birth sex in brain scans.
Imagine in a world 20 years from now, we've come to our senses and we use brain studies to medically and relatively objectively identify MtF and FtM individuals via brain scans, and give them whatever treatments (plural) have been found objectively most successful. They are treated humanely as our fellow citizens whose minority brain type is not their fault and who deserve no stigma, just like intersex people or those born with other abnormalities. They could be treated in ways that are compatible with traditional liberal values of compassion and support, but also compatible with science and medicine, without ideological blinders getting in the way. In different domains they may be treated:
(1) as new categories FtM and MtF trans, provably distinct from cis folks
(2) by their body sex
(3) by their "gender identification"
For every circumstance, we would see which of these three ways work best. For example, for sports, option #2 might work best, while for eg: women writers contests #3 might (or might not) make the most sense, or separate contests just for trans folks (#1) might be good.
And that pragmatic lumping could change with experience, because it would not be based on pretending they are identical in all ways to their biological sex, nor their gender identity sex. Instead we'd be saying "for THIS specific purpose, let's try grouping them with others in a given way for pragmatic reasons" and see if any adjustments are needed later.
Nobody would be "erased", in fact they would be validated by brain scans and supported for their unique categories.
Thank you! I’m loving all the neuroscience I’m being treated to! I find this stuff absolutely fascinating 😁 But I’m still very leery of the idea of male and female “brain phenotypes.”
We don’t separate males and females because of brain phenotypes, and we no longer claim that women are incapable of certain types of work because of their fragile, feminine sensibilities. We separate them because of physical differences and societal norms of privacy.
Differences in brain chemistry, in the aggregate, don’t tell us anything useful about individual behaviour. And even if they did, I don’t think we’d need that to justify treating trans people humanely (I know you’re not suggestion we *would* need that).
The clearest evidence that trans brains are different from cis brains is that trans people suffer from gender dysphoria. I don’t think any further diagnosis is required. Nor would a brain scan remove the risk of transition regret. There’s the possibility of regret with any significant body modification. And because brain scans aren’t likely to be 100% perfect, some genuinely dysphoric people would probably slip through the cracks.
I just think we need to a) differentiate very clearly between conversion therapy and appropriate counselling for people about to make a decision that will lead to lifelong medicalisation, b) de-stigmatised gender “non-conformity,” and c) recognise that gender identity doesn’t trump biological sex in some instances.
Dividing people into male and female across the number of categories that we do is a clearly imperfect method. In many cases, the reasoning is obvious, but in others, it's not even done because there are meaningful differences between men and women, but to encourage more women and girls to participate in certain fields.
Men had such a head start with regards to almost everything, that boosting female participation requires a little effort. I'm all for creating trans spaces too. But sadly, trans people don't seem to want them. I understand some of the reasons for this, but they're basically all about reality butting up against their desire for affirmation. And we'll find ourselves in even more complicated waters if pre-pubertal transition becomes more common.
Gah! It's so frustrating! We're trying to unravel all of these incredibly complex, nuanced, interlocking issues, and it's taboo to talk honestly about pretty much every aspect of them.😅
And by the way, I for many decades held the feminist perspective that most gender roles were entirely socially constructed, other than those based on things like childbirth or upper body strength. Or more specifically, that there were no inherent mental or psychological differences between male and female minds or brains (tho some differences in bodies).
Studies of early infant preferences, preferences among other primates, cross cultural correlations, and occupations in countries with fewer gender barriers have convinced me that such a "blank slate" attitude is no longer scientifically supportable. If juvenile monkeys studied in their native habitat show marked gender preferences for rag dolls vs bright colored toy trucks with moving parts, it's hard to chalk that up to patriarchal conditioning. I reluctantly concede that there is good evidence of some non-trivial sex based underlying differences in proclivities and interests.
Of course, culture adds a whole bunch of other arbitrary associations on top of that; wearing lipstick or carrying purses is unlikely to have any biological roots. And individuals can be slightly or strongly atypical of group trends. So I continue to believe that, for example, both males and females should be welcomed into any occupation for which they are qualified and interested. In no way does my new recognition of some underlying propensities suggest that we erect sex-based barriers to individuals who want to pursue interests typical or atypical of their sex.
But it does cause me to question whether observing any deviation from 49%/51% ratios *automatically* implies discrimination or barriers. Sometimes it might, sometimes it may reflect free choices, and statistically differing proclivities.
So accepting that there are partially different male and female (and possible MtF and FtM) brain phenotypes does not imply any return to rigid stereotyping and restrictions. No need to shy away from recognizing the results of the analysis I linked because we are afraid of the implications of accepting the results.
" I for many decades held the feminist perspective that most gender roles were entirely socially constructed."
I think we more or less agree here. I don't think of gender roles as *entirely* socially constructed. As you say, we see differences in male and female behaviour across pretty much all animal species. But again, we’re talking in aggregates. Individuals are different.
Pick any masculine trait you like, and there’s a female out there who exhibits it to a greater degree than you. In fact, there’s an individual female who exhibits *all* of the traditionally masculine traits to a greater degree than you (and me too obviously, I’m not questioning your manhood😁). Strength, aggression, height, agreeableness (or a lack thereof), you name it.
So while it’s true that gendered behaviour is, in part, biological, and that observing these differences isn't necessarily discriminatory, the important point (which you make as well) is that individuals should still be left free to choose their own destiny. Because there is enormous variation in how individuals behave that defies the bell curves.
I'm leery of the idea of male and female brains, not because I don’t understand that males and females are different, but because population level differences are terrible predictors of individual tendencies. And I think a focus at the population level naturally tempts us to overlook this.
Your male brain works differently to my male brain. And each of our brains probably work very similarly to some women's brains. So the sweet spot for me is just to treat everybody as if they're the same unless there are clear physical reasons not to.
Steve, I think you may be suggesting that Gender Dysphoria is the gold standard for trans status, and I think we should question that.
First, consider that before the WPATH gender-affirmative care standard and puberty blockers. research on children with Gender Dysphoria showed that about 80% had that dysphoria resolve during puberty. (Most became gay or lesbian). That is, only about 1/5 of GD cases were actually trans. Being trans is not the only cause of GD.
And consider that almost all of the cases of ROGD (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, typically propagated by social contagion amongst teenagers - mainly girls - without previous GD) come to believe that they suddenly have GD - and who can say they do not? Does that 4000% increase in diagnosed GD reflect a 4000% increase in actual trans, or in "I believe I have GD and nobody can prove differently"?
Or consider the male prisoners who suddenly discover that they have GD in order to be transferred to a women's prison? Who's to say they didn't suddenly get GD (and perhaps spontaneously heal from it upon release)? GD is entirely subjective after all.
What I'm saying is that while I believe that there really is a subjective psychological condition of Gender Dysphoria, it's EXTREMELY imprecisely bounded (remember that sudden 4000% increase? Does that suggest that only 2.5% of the reported GD in that group is actually based on trans status?), and this can happen because there is zero objective evidence of it and many social or pragmatic reasons to delude oneself or others about it.
So GD is not the same as being trans, any more than having a fever is the same as having influenza. (And fevers can be objectively measured!)
If brain scans can fairly reliably determine 4 phenotypes (with FAR less than a 40 false positives to each true positive), that would likely be vastly more precise than relying on asserted subjective GD as the gold standard benchmark.
And yes, you are right that we agree that we don't need this to treat people humanely. Everybody should be treated humanely, trans or cis, GD or no GD.
This is more about society trying to (1) better understand the underlying nature of the problem (eg: 4 distinct phenotypes rather than only two with some people having perfect reversals, like a 100% female brain in a male body) as a guide to needed balances and tradeoffs, and (2) having some relatively objective validation. In other words, it could provide some tools for rationally making the tricky decisions needed to wisely make those humane policies.
You might have noticed the degree of irrationality involved today, and thus the need for any rational and humane assistance in threading a path. Not ironclad doctrine, just meaningful additional guidance from science, rather than relying exclusively on ideologically reshaped subjective reports.
"I think you may be suggesting that Gender Dysphoria is the gold standard for trans status, and I think we should question that"
Yeah, maybe I wasn't perfectly clear here. I do think gender dysphoria (GD) is the gold standard, but a) I think a lot of people calling themselves trans today don't actually have GD, b) GD status can change, and c) I'm talking about an official, not self diagnosis.
I'm not arguing that somebody with GD should automatically be given hormones and surgery. Especially when they're children. I think surgery and hormone treatments should be a last resort when all other efforts to help the person deal with their distress have failed.
Again, the significant and irreversible nature of gender affirming surgery means that some percentage of people will always have regrets. The aim is simply to make that number as small as reasonably possible.
Yes, most dysphoric children will outgrow their feelings and become (usually homosexual) children. I hate the fact that this has become one of the many taboos in trans discourse. That's why I think it's important to normalise gender "non-conformity".
I think, for a lot of these kids, if they were able to explore their relationship to their gender without learning to think they were in the "wrong body," they'd experience much less distress and would be much more comfortable waiting for adulthood to see if they were in that 80%.
ROGD should absolutely be assumed to be temporary (again, in most cases this would fail a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria), and medical interventions should at least wait until the child is an adult. Given that most cases of ROGD manifest well into puberty, I don't think this would be a big issue in most cases with proper care and counselling.
I think adults really underestimate how impressionable children are, and how much of their sense of identity they absorb from their parents and friends. We really need to give them the chance to develop into adults before making these life-changing choices. That the ~80% desistance rate isn't enough to convince people of this shows how lost we are.
Yep.
But, since gender affirmative treatment has become required in much of the US, and counseling professionals can lose their licenses if they are perceived to have questioned whether a given client is actually trans or might have other conditions, and puberty blockers are fairly widely used, today it's close to illegal and certainly infeasible to reproduce any assessment of how often GD would desist on its own. So those advocating for this cause may be hoping that the pre-WPATH data on resolved GD will age out and be forgotten.
Some of the selling points of puberty blockers are: (1) it just delays puberty, but kids can always change their mind later, and (2) they do no irreversible harm in the meanwhile. However, nearly 100% of those taking puberty blockers continue on that path (while we have reason to believe that only perhaps 20% would absent chemical intervention). Apparently going through normal puberty (including developing sexual attractions) is part of what helps resolve the GD for many of the homosexual kids. Sigh.
"and counseling professionals can lose their licenses if they are perceived to have questioned whether a given client is actually trans or might have other conditions,"
Yep, this is the first layer of insanity that needs to be rolled back. I think the de-trans community are gong to be invaluable here, because they're the ones pushing for it the hardest and are the living proof that blindly affirming children isn't the answer.
Not only do (I think it actually *is*) 100% of children on puberty blockers go on to transition, but the claim that they're reversible or do no harm is a lie. Not only that, but as I think I mentioned earlier, putting prepubescent children on puberty blockers can actually make their gender reassignment *more* difficult.
Passion GBR covered the brain science about the same way I would have so I'll just add that Steven Pinker is the one who convinced me that there are in fact brain differences. There just aren't any IQ differences. Women's brains are designed *overall* to be better at communication and articulating emotion, and men are *in general* better at math and engineering functions, so we may always have some lopsided professions but that doesn't matter, what does is our value judgements about them. Right now, any time cognitive/neuroscientists talk about these brain differences they strike me as going overboard to emphasize this doesn't mean women should be kept out of certain professions (apparently no one worries there are hardly any male hairdressers who aren't gay :) ) or that women are somehow less intellectual than men. The right has traditionally used biological differences to oppress others (like you and me) and that's what the left justly fears - so why not challenge the value judgements rather than the reality?
I don't know if you've ever seen the movie Starship Troopers from the '90s (I may have mentioned this before, can't remember) but it presented a military in which men and women were completely equal and even showered together without the men trying to molest everyone. One of my co-workers said that was utterly unrealistic as in battle, male soldiers would absolutely be concerned with defending female soldiers and that it would be near-impossible to shower with them and not be aroused. I said that's the way it is today but I can foresee something like that happening in the future, once we shed enough of our prejudices and got used to women (and everyone else) as equals. And especially when the traditionalist, misogynist military gets over the idea that women exist to fulfill their sexual needs.
This is why I dislike identity politics as a solution to society's ills. I'd rather we work toward a society in which everyone does what they do best and no one cares if there aren't enough black people/white people/male/female/trans people/gays/Southeast Asians/whatever in a particular profession. I don't care if men are better at me than math - no one told me math is hard, that girls can't do math - certainly my parents never did, but I still sucked at it. (The way I was taught didn't help either - that's on crappy Southern schools in the '60s and early '70s).
I think evolving toward acknowledging differences without judgement is where we need to be. I'm good with lack of gender parity in STEM if every woman who wants to be there is, and is getting the same treatment as everyone else.
I certainly agree with your major points. In particular, our society needs to get over the idea that "our side" needs to suppress or distort true facts, because we are afraid that the other side will misuse such facts. That direction lies tyranny. Like the way that governments allowed *without accountability* to freely censor things for national security, will gravitate into abusing that power to censor embarrassments or challenges to the ruling party. We need to challenge the misinterpretations or false implications, not suppress any "inconvenient truths".
(This also fit's with Steve's questions of "is pretending that trans women are the same as biological women really the only way to support treating trans folks humanely?")
Small dissents.
Today, I would question whether human being (without editing their genomes) are ever likely to en masse avoid arousal from exposure to nakedness. Note how widespread coverage of the loins is cross culturally around the world. I think that may indicate an innate propensity which can only partially and inconsistently be overridden by culture. (For selective groups, it can certainly happen. I'm quite familiar with naturism etc. But what works for a selective subset like that may not work for the broad unselected society; and the military - composed largely of young folks - is going to be closer to the broader society than to naturists. Or perhaps worse.).
I would agree that it would be possible to culturally get past the "male soldiers losing focus due to protecting female soldiers" thing. After all, many cultures without chivalry concepts are willing to sacrifice women more easily than men, so that's obviously easily affected by culture. There are other reasons that women may relatively rarely make good combat soldiers; the major physical differences can be very relevant. How many woman can carry an average or above average weight wounded man over their shoulders? A few, not most. Reports are that standards are often watered down to allow women to pass. That works, in peacetime. (Of course, guiding a drone or repairing a helicopter or flying a plane is quite another matter).
There are some far more practical reasons to gird one's loins no matter where you live: Flies and other annoying critters that find the scent of one's butthole positively heavenly, LOL! We don't have bushy tails to chase them away like horses. In addition, women have a second orifice bugs might find terribly attractive.
We may think it's about keeping men's basest instincts (LOL) in check and I can't swear it isn't, but if I lived in the jungle with a bunch of women I'd still wear a skirt. If I had memory of modern life I'd wear a bra too, because I've always found braless uncomfortable.
When men see nudity all day long it stops being sexualized. Boy oh boy was my long hair sexualized when I was in Turkey; I was followed around by men all day long trying to get into my pants, as was my blonde friend with whom I was traveling. Chinese men sexualized women's feet at one point and Victorian men famously sexualized ankles and legs. And in those jungle/savannah societies, the men clearly don't go around in a state of arousal all day long at the sight of all those naked boobs.
Male arousal by breasts is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Covering the genitalia probably has more to do with their vulnerability than the potential for arousal leading to rape.
About once in a century the world produces a mathematics genius who blazes new trails. The Frenchman Galois was one of them; Euler, Gauss, Cantor, Gödel, a few others. John Horton Conway, inventor of the famous Game of Life, may be one.
1) They are always men (Hypatia, a 5th century Greek woman. may have been one; there have been no other qualifying women in modern times).
2) They all do their best work before the age of twenty.
These are not just brilliant mathematicians, they are off the scale. They're far too rare to draw any statistically valid conclusions from.
Hypatia's father was a mathematician who supported her in her endeavours; many Greek fathers wouldn't have. Hedy Lamarr likely might have been a far greater engineer and inventor had she not been born a few decades later; she was self-taught. Imagine what she might have become had she been formally trained. When she tried to sell her 'spread spectrum technology' invention to the Navy after WWII, she was told she'd be more valuable selling 'kisses and war bonds'. Know you place, little girl!
There were women who wanted to go up into space in the 20th century; they were, as aviators, as accomplished as any man, but NASA and the military always found excuses to not send them even though they came close a few times. Somewhere deep inside the myriad excuses they offered was the one they couldn't admit to themselves, except occasionally to each other: Male astronauts were the new heroes, but if even a *girl* can go up into space, it can't be that hard.
I believe STEM can be more sex-integrated than it is if we remove the barriers for women, including just being more overall supportive of girls who show a knack for STEM skills and talents. I'm not sure it will ever achieve a 50/50 parity. I don't care as long as every woman (or POC)'s talents are being used, along with every white/male's, to the best of their ability.
I wouldn't argue with any of this, but the rarity of female math geniuses is very unlikely just another instance of keeping women down.
Who would argue against fairness in admissions? In STEM work? There has been more progress since 1980 in this kind of equality than in the millennia previous. May it continue to full equality.
I need to add something though and I don't seek to be offensive ... I recently removed myself from a blog community where three members would shoehorn unfairness to women into the most unrelated topics, daily bitter rants that got very old. They could not accept that any man was with them. In this chapter of this forum we're discussing gender issues. I don't deny a word of what you wrote but please don't make a habit of it. Thanks in advance.
My degree is in mathematics and I've been reading the history of mathematics since before my voice changed. I don't think you can make the case that the gender inequality of these trailblazing mathematicians can be lain at the feet of misogyny.
Poetess Emily Dickenson was unpublished in her lifetime; when her writings were discovered she was elevated to the highest esteem in poetry, and that was long before feminism. There have been stellar female mathematicians and physicists (Emmy Noether springs to mind) but the Galois/Gödel class seems reserved to young men.
As for representation in STEM I think it's more complicated than that. I'm a software developer and technical writer (my boss is an American woman though the company is in London) and concede that I have worked with very few women. There are a lot more of them in HR and the business side of the industry than writing code.
As you have said, the super geniuses are too rare to learn more statistically.
But it appears that in many related species, and across a surprising number of dimensions, males tend to have a higher standard deviation then females, so that there tend to be more at the high end and more at the low end even if the mean or mode or medians are basically the same. This can be true of, say, height or speed, and likely intelligence or many specialized aptitudes.
It's possible that this has some evolutionary advantage for a species, where there is a tension and tradeoff between "conforming to what works best today" and "preserving alleles which might help adapt to future changes". Maybe the relatively more expendable males have a slightly different setpoint.
This can mean an unequal distribution of sexes at the top or bottom end, even with equal opportunities and without external discrimination or cultural factors.
And obviously, this does NOT justify any sort of discrimination!! It says nothing about any individual, who may be typical or atypical.
It is however yet another reason to not automatically assume that discrimination can be assumed to be the only explanation for observation of unequal representation in situations requiring relatively rarified skills or interests.
I wasn't arguing that men are solely responsible for keeping women down, or that there'd be more female math geniuses if there were more fathers like Hypatia's. My father, who helped me with my math homework, NEVER taught me I couldn't do math, or that girls couldn't do it well. In fact I *told* him that and he refused to believe it. He was right, of course, and he dragged me through like ten years of math classes until I was no longer required to take them. I was NO budding Hypatia.
I suspect you're right, that there's more going on to the lack of female math geniuses than male holding back, and we're in less position to argue 'misogyny' now because I keep seeing the integration of women and POC in places they weren't in the last ten years. Like corporate websites and leadership pages and in higher-level positions.
I suspect we may spend awhile playing catchup due to historical male obstructionism, but I think we're making progress already. I'm seeing more female CTOs and VPs of IT; ten years ago, women on corporate websites were almost always VPs of Marketing, Communications, and HR. Is it affirmative action or merit? Who knows? Like it was in Hedy Lamarr's time.
We may *never*, in the best of future times, acheive parity with men in certain spaces, but that's okay, as long as the next baby Hypatia is allowed to pursue her talents and skills without being flayed alive by ignorant Christians :)
And in the meantime, there's nothing wrong with going back to the long-way-around way of getting to medical transition...living like the opposite gender for a year or two, lots of counseling, make sure this is what the person really wants. The trans movement is rushing medical transition on everyone for reasons I'm still trying to figure out. The medical community *used* to recognize surgical transition as a giant mother of a move not to be undertaken by either doctors or patients lightly; now the trans movement uses the threat of suicide, and encourages children to threaten this, to get what they want.
Given how prevalent suicide had already become *before* trans became a fad (and I do believe a lot of it is), I'm not at all convinced all 'trans' people are truly trans, or that their suicidality stems from genuine dysphoria.
But we humans are masters at distracting ourselves from whatever is *really* the underlying problem(s).
"The trans movement is rushing medical transition on everyone"
... while at the same time flying into rage at any suggestion that GD has a medical dimension