Are there really any innate psychological differences between women and men?

[pecksniff]

We tend to throw around such generalizations casually -- e.g., men are better at math and science and engineering -- and certainly men are better represented in such fields professionally -- but is that a matter of innate nature, or culture?

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/7/75/how_it_works.png

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/7/7c/savannah_ancestry.png

 

[pecksniff]

I'll admit there are innate psychological differences with regard to sexual behavior. The male sex drive might not really be any more powerful than the female -- but it is definitely more urgent and less discriminate. E.g., there has never been a human society where male prostitutes serving women were a sector comparable to females serving men. There are male prostitutes, but, in all times and places, most of their customers are men.

 

[Cubantripod]

I'll admit there are innate psychological differences with regard to sexual behavior. The male sex drive might not really be any more powerful than the female -- but it is definitely more urgent and less discriminate. E.g., there has never been a human society where male prostitutes serving women were a sector comparable to females serving men. There are male prostitutes, but, in all times and places, most of their customers are men.

Humans are one of the few species that have sex for pleasure, but lets not forget its part of the reproductive process. In every species, the male chases the female and tries to convince her to mate with him. The male has an innate need to keep his genes going.

 

[pecksniff]

Humans are one of the few species that have sex for pleasure . . .

Oh, I'm sure every species that reproduces sexually (even in a non-copulatory manner, as with fish) is genetically programmed to enjoy it.

One theory I've encountered, though, is that humans developed the unique-among-primates capacity for the females to be in season at all times -- as a way to keep the males around, supporting them and their young. So that we shouldn't live like deer, among whom the bucks and does only come together in the autumn rutting season, and ignore each other the rest of the year, the bucks wandering the woods alone, the does with their fauns. Deer can afford to do that, but human nutritional needs are more complicated, requiring both meat and vegetables. (And I hope we won't hear from any vegans in this thread.)

 

[KimGordon67]

Whatever innate differences might exist are massively exaggerated by culture, to the point that they are largely social and not 'natural'. Often to uphold the 'two distinct and completely different' sexes framework. The similarities between men and women are far far more prevalent than any differences.

Cultural exaggeration would all be fine if appeals to 'innate traits' argument weren't then used to rationalise a whole range of inequalities and shitty behaviour. E.G. that men have an 'innate need' to impregnate women, so can't be held responsible for their actions. Which is just so much horse poo.

 

[pecksniff]

Whatever innate differences might exist are massively exaggerated by culture, to the point that they are largely social and not 'natural'. Often to uphold the 'two distinct and completely different' sexes framework. The similarities between men and women are far far more prevalent than any differences.

But, are there any rigorous scientific studies to support that?

Either way?

 

[KimGordon67]

But, are there any rigorous scientific studies to support that?

Either way?

Yes. But I truly cannot be bothered finding any of them right now. It takes hours to do the research to adequately support what I'm saying.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes. But I truly cannot be bothered finding any of them right now. It takes hours to do the research to adequately support what I'm saying.

Girls suck at research!

 

[KimGordon67]

Girls suck at research!

This girl just got totally sick of providing research to support her arguments on the GB, only to have every single bit of evidence completely ignored.

 

[pecksniff]

This girl just got totally sick of providing research to support her arguments on the GB, only to have every single bit of evidence completely ignored.

GB is mostly for porn pics. This is the forum where you belong.

 

[pecksniff]

BTW, transgenderism is only marginally relevant to this discussion, and homosexuality not relevant at all.

 

[bellisarius]

There are absolutely measurable differences. On the whole there are a great deal of overlaps as Kim pointed out.

IQ. There is no difference between men and women re. mean IQ. Studies tend to indicate that the curve for males is broader which means that there are more men at the extremes. More men fall into the high 'genius' category. But before the males here go around high fiving themselves, there are also more men in the drooling, mouth breathing moron, category as well.

Preferences. Women tend to show a preference for people while men show a preference for things. This accounts for the over-representation of women in the medical related fields and the over-representation of men in the engineering related fields.

Aggression. In any confrontation between the sexes if you pick the male as the aggressor you'd be right................but only 60% of the time. This seriously manifests itself at the extremes of the population curves. This explains why there are far more men in prison than women.

 

[rae121452]

BTW, transgenderism is only marginally relevant to this discussion, and homosexuality not relevant at all.

i question that. transgenderism is defended(?) defined(?) explalined (?) by the idea that there are definite physiological and psychological differences between the sexes, that when the hard wiring, as it were, is screwed up then you are trans. but, the only real way to tell if your hard wiring is screwed up is in a psychological context. if there is a legitimate case for transgenderism, then your question is answered.

 

[BidudeinWi]

We tend to throw around such generalizations casually -- e.g., men are better at math and science and engineering -- and certainly men are better represented in such fields professionally -- but is that a matter of innate nature, or culture?

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/7/75/how_it_works.png

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/7/7c/savannah_ancestry.png

Stupidest post ever!

 

[Bud_Spencer]

yes, there are, and at the tails of the distribution curve is where it's most apparent.

 

[pecksniff]

i question that. transgenderism is defended(?) defined(?) explalined (?) by the idea that there are definite physiological and psychological differences between the sexes, that when the hard wiring, as it were, is screwed up then you are trans. but, the only real way to tell if your hard wiring is screwed up is in a psychological context. if there is a legitimate case for transgenderism, then your question is answered.

An M-to-F transgender is someone who wants to be/really is a woman in the social sense -- in clothing, in sexual behavior -- but that does not necessarily have implications for, e.g., mathematical talent.

As for homosexuality -- there do appear to be some differences -- it is not just a stereotype that gay men are more esthetically sensitive than straights, that much of women's fashion is designed by gay men, that gay male athletes tend to fields involving some element of esthetic expression, such as gymnastics or figure skating.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Women like shoes.

 

[rae121452]

An M-to-F transgender is someone who wants to be/really is a woman in the social sense -- in clothing, in sexual behavior -- but that does not necessarily have implications for, e.g., mathematical talent.

As for homosexuality -- there do appear to be some differences -- it is not just a stereotype that gay men are more esthetically sensitive than straights, that much of women's fashion is designed by gay men, that gay male athletes tend to fields involving some element of esthetic expression, such as gymnastics or figure skating.

you're stereotyping A WHOLE LOT of people and claiming that psychology is also hard wired. i think you need to meet more gay people. and are you saying that a transgender person, divorced from any social setting, would no longer feel they are the other sex?

as for mathematical talent, see: "hidden figures".

 

[BidudeinWi]

We tend to throw around such generalizations casually -- e.g., men are better at math and science and engineering -- and certainly men are better represented in such fields professionally -- but is that a matter of innate nature, or culture?

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/7/75/how_it_works.png

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/7/7c/savannah_ancestry.png

The most stupid, irrelevant post EVER! Congratulations!

 

[pecksniff]

Women like shoes.

Men go barefoot.

 

[rae121452]

i never thought i'd live to say it but i'm tending to somewhat agree with bidoodoo.

 

[LupusDei]

Women like shoes.

I know at least one man who I believe possess more pairs of shoes than any woman I know.

That's the thing, differences between individuals by far swamp out any innate group differences. Then, we to significant degree define the groups exactly by identifying certain differences, making the group difference self fulfilling. That's also where the difference between physiological, psychological and cultural gender comes from.

Physiologically humans have notable sexual dimorphism. All else being equal, males are taller and more muscular while females have more compact bodies. There's also different sexual organs and reproductive functions. It seems quite expected that such differences would lead to different behavior patterns and thus also to psychological differences even if none of the physiological differences would have any impact on cognitive functions directly, but there may be some.

Men may better see in the dark, while females may discern more colors (having two different sets of color receptors through a genetics trick mostly unavailable to men). Are there any statistically significant differences by sex in the brain? I have seen claims that there is. Women may be better at multitasking, or it could be just another stereotype or cultural consequence.

However, the instrumental phrase above is "all else being equal" -- but in practical natural settings it never is. Humans come in all sizes and shapes. There are short males, frail males, soft males, there are tall, stocky and/or muscular females, larger and more powerful than most men. Again, extremes between individuals by far exceed the average differences by sex.

Even to conduct a pure, controlled experiment to directly measure such differences would be prohibitively difficult if at all possible.

Sure, with some simplification it could be said that all fetuses start female, and, at least in theory, by somehow controlling gene expression (there's at least twelve that code sex differences, including different sets for internal and external genitals) it should be possible to grow both female and male versions from the same genetic material by cloning (yes, XX male is a male, Y chromosome isn't required, but yes, there's also a significant risk to end up with something inbetween -- an intersex person -- if something goes awry, as it does in nature quite often).

And even if we succeed with that, things like person's adult height and body size depends on nutrition and health during childhood to a significant degree, on things like gut microbiome, hormonal balance, infections and even excercise. And then we would have to ensure our experimental subjects would have exactly the same experiences perceived in exactly same contexts. Large groups of subjects would be still absolutely necessary for any statistically significant observations.

Well, the physiological sex at least is clear binary for some 98.3% of population or so, even perhaps 99%+ given same slack for little off features like extra large clitoris or not properly dropped balls or urethra not exactly at the end of the dick and similar, but that's where the relative simplicity ends.

For oldish people hanging out on a nudist beach gender isn't at all something necessarily immediately apparent from distance. Even in those circumstances you would actually rely far more on presentation for preliminary gender assumptions than hoping/trying to (rudely) catch visual confirmation of the external genitals (that may not necessarily be conclusive evidence anyway).

As soon there's anything -- makeup, body paint, clothes, armor suits or any other accessories above or in addition to the nakedness, the social gender becomes mostly presentation along cultural tradition, norms, standards, expectations, and is almost all there is to contemplate about gender along with mannerisms and voice modulations that are to a large degree similarly culturally defined and can differ by culture and context greatly. And nothing of that is fixed or definitive. All sorts of oddities are observed in nature around the world throughout history. Social gender can easily be fluid, and (I'm sure I will anger some, and it's just opinion) is a choice to a significant degree.

Psychological gender may not be. It not matching genitals may be a real struggle for some. It's not that simple as just the preferred social gender, although perhaps could be compared to sexual partner preference by gender/sex. However I think we do lot of harm trying to assign labels and black/white logic. I believe psychological gender just like sexual preference exists on a spectrum.

Just like nobody is perfectly 100% straight, nobody at all is 100% man or woman. On those two we all are somewhere in between, the only question is where on the curve.

So what's gender anyway?

Physiological sex:
female -- intersex -- male

Psychological gender:
woman -- either -- man -- neither -- ??

Sexual preference:
heterosexual -- bisexual -- gay -- asexual -- ??

Social gender: presentation and roles, and...
dress -- beard -- peacock paint -- whatever

Four independent dimensions, each with it's own distribution curves and quirks, but we try to pretend a discussion about clear cut duality makes sense.

 

[pecksniff]

So what's gender anyway?

Physiological sex:
female -- intersex -- male

Psychological gender:
woman -- either -- man -- neither -- ??

Sexual preference:
heterosexual -- bisexual -- gay -- asexual -- ??

Social gender: presentation and roles, and...
dress -- beard -- peacock paint -- whatever

Four independent dimensions, each with it's own distribution curves and quirks, but we try to pretend a discussion about clear cut duality makes sense.

Because most people are of one of two physiological, psychological, sexual and social genders.

 

[LupusDei]

Because most people are of one of two physiological, psychological, sexual and social genders.

And because people expend far too much energy and effort to convince themselves they are so far more than they actually are. There's seemingly little people are more afraid from than to admit truth about their own sexuality to themselves.