Did you watch the video? Someone does believe that…
I don’t need to watch a video to know that no one believes ALL our characteristics are ‘determined by society.’
Wish society would get it’s shit together. I’ve been waiting on broader clavicles for what feels like FOREVER.
2 Likes
So male and female aren’t the reproductive sexes. Oh ok.
Some people are born without arms. Human beings have arms which function to manipulate their environment.
Some people are born without sight, perhaps even eyes. Human beings have the sense of sight, as a function of eyes.
Exceptions don’t make the rule. You can’t go looking for medical abnormalities,disorders and oddities and then go “gotcha.” It doesn’t work.
No, the definition of what those characteristics are, are determined by society. That’s what the guy in the video argues. It’s only 12 minutes… I wouldn’t drop a 3 hour long blab fest.
But yes, there are certainly people who believe that, a scary amount of them, actually.
Wait–what’s a ‘reproductive sex’? And how did it become the thing we are talking about?
A good rule can account for typical findings. A better rule can account for all findings.
I’m missing the part where you state that he used the word all vis a vis the proportion of “characteristics” (whatever that means) that are determined by society.
Can you tell us the condition of the individual?
Remember that part in the Bible where God was bringing all the animals before Adam and he was naming them and that became their name. Like that…
In the pic? Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome.
Not every digestive organ of every person functions as normal (if at all). They’re still digestive organs.
It doesn’t work, Eye.
I’m still trying to understand your definition of male and female. All I know thus far is, it has something to do with penises.
Would you be open to dating trans? And, besides, seeing the propagation of the species out in the world, I have a feeling you’ve had basic anatomy/bioloigy.
In the first 3 minutes of that debate, he’s saying, male and female, “none of this is biological.” Beware of anyone who attempts to simplify something as complex as sex and gender differences into one side of a false dichotomy.
Later in the clip, he clarifies that he’s not just talking about gender, but also that male and female biological categories are meaningless because you can find “exceptions.” I also interpreted Russell as saying it’s ALL just environment.
We’re all just blank slates, and our hormones and biology have no bearing on anything, because he can find exceptions?
If you follow his logic, the discovery of a platypus means we should take everything we know about mammals and throw it in the garbage. Lol. That’s now how it works. Pointing out an exception does not disprove a rule. Finding outliers like an XY male who doesn’t have a penis does not mean that we must now discard all rules or categories.
He’s a postmodern history professor, so I’d imagine he wouldn’t be surprised if biologists and neuroscientists might not care about his ideas.
4 Likes
Well, I’ll check with my wife, but I have a feeling she won’t let me.
Hypothetically. Hope all is well with the family.
1 Like
@ The Rogan clip. For people who watched it and want to talk science here.
I see a lot of oversimplification, and scientific problems.
It would be more accurate, but less sexy, to say that gender and sex differences in complex behaviors involve a complicated interaction between sociocultural factors and neurobiological sex differences. That would be OK. Saying that gender roles change over time, and have some cultural variation? True, he’s right about that. That’s all fine, but that does not mean there are zero meaningful biological differences between men and women. He’d have to twist himself into a pretzel to explain how male primates have been influenced by Marxist oppression. He’s engaging in some false equivalence, faulty logic again.
This would be better. “There is variation in masculine and feminine traits due to variations in genes expressed; the hormones secreted during development; the intra‐uterine environment; as well as influences of maternal nutritional status, stress, and the hormones of puberty. These biological processes are further modified by individual experience and sociocultural factors that can differentially affect females and males.” - Journal of Neurosciece Research, Sex Differences, Gender and Addiction, 2016.
@ It’s all environment. Male children are typically more active, move more than females. This is true across cultures, and it’s also true in primate studies. We have more male children with ADHD. Finding a very active little girl doesn’t disprove this rule. Finding one village with less active males doesn’t disprove the rule. The presence of outliers doesn’t mean that there is NOT a strong bimodal distribution based on sex. He’s wrong.
There is now a huge body of research on the neurological differences between men and women. Literally thousands of studies.
This guy just simply isn’t up to this conversation. I’ve never seen Rogan debate someone who was this ridiculous.
@ No biological differences, we’re all the same? Then we have no need to have female research subjects. right? We can study anxiety in only male animals, so we don’t have to worry about the female hormone cycle as a confound? Why, because people like Gloriea Steinem wanted there to be no differences? Feminists in the 1970s objected to even studying male and female differences, so the science is settled? We now know that there are important differences at every level, down to molecular differences. Where men and women exhibit the same behaviors, sometimes the pathways that mediate that behavior are different. There are important differences in the incidence of mental illness, and the response to some medications. There are important differences in how alcohol or cocaine effects the brains of men and women. If we want to understand addiction, we cannot ignore these factors.
@ the TG issue.
Increased interest in understanding Trans people is going to fuel this research. There are many sex-specific biological differences, and we can now see that some males have more typically feminine neurological characteristics, then that’s affirming to some Trans individuals in the desire to understand why their chromosomes may not match their psychology, self-image. Russell wants to criticise them for even wanting to validate meaningless categories. Well, you can imagine thaIt would be a relief if you were a TG person, to find that you may have very real physical neurological differences that shapes your experience. Young women with autism have a much higher incidence of being MTF trans. It’s hypothesized that the factors that cause autism also “hypermasculinize” the brain, which may be why we see extreme systemizing behavior, or interest in things over people in autistic men. This kind of thing is good to know, and helps us better understand these disorders.
This guy references 1950s Kinsey data to back up his claims about the prevalence of certain sexual behavior. I wonder why he doesn’t cite more recent studies with better methodology? Many of Kinseys estimates have been shown to be wildly inaccurate, and have been cut in half or less. Much of the Kinsey data is now 70 years old. Kinsey’s subjects were not representative of the general population. His surveys erred in including self-selected people who were likely far more sexually active, adventurous, and willing to talk openly about their sex lives. Russell is quoting these numbers because he has an interest in exaggerating differences in order to support his ideological argument.
Anyway, there are more recent and scientifically sound studies, including 2002 NIH data. This guy has an agenda to try to exaggerate the prevalence of exceptions.
4 Likes
Good thing, because she’s a firm ‘no’ on this.
But hypothetically…If you’re talking about a post-op trans-woman, then it would be a possibility. If she still has a penis, then no.
Would it only be a ‘possibility’ you would date women? Or, are just post-op trans with a firm no on pre-ops?
Again, speaking hypothetically…For any given woman, it is only a possibility that I would date her, because it is only a possibility that I would find her attractive. (Setting aside the equally important issue of whether she found me attractive.) That is what I meant above.
I cannot envision a scenario in which I am attracted to a woman with a penis, which is why I feel I can confidently assert such women are a firm ‘no’ for me.