1) science is not based in fact and is subjective

No, science reaches objective facts on the basis of a defined epistemology.

>potential
>may
>hypothesis

These words should not inspire a particularly high degree of confidence within you.

They don't, which is precisely why I've used several studies throughout this thread and linked you to a Norwegian documentary which has biologists quite explicitly confirming the research strongly points to biology as being at least partially the basis for gender identity.

What, just because I don't accept it, that means I didn't read them?

No, because you claimed the first two helped your case more than mine which is completely and utterly false--especially in the case of the second study.

I don't automatically accept everything that I read on the Internet, and neither should you.

Neither do I; I accept good science. You know full well I don't automatically believe everything I read on the internet. This seems more of an underhanded tactic to denigrate my argument because it doesn't confirm your priors, as opposed to an actual objection.

This basic idea that there's more to sex than just penises and vaginas, and that gender is something else entirely.

Which is a completely unwarranted assumption. How many academic studies have you actually tried to find which confirms this explanation of gender you've been given your whole life? Come on Verb, you know full well people are stupid. You have to deal with people practically every day who haven't got a fucking clue when it comes to philosophy, and I'm the same with economics; there's no reason that phenomenon shouldn't exist in the realm of biology either, especially not when the opposing side is a highly politicised field which makes a mockery of the principles of science.

I'd like to just point out, too, that this argument is pure semantics.

Let's not play the linguistic relativism game; you and I both know "gender" is defined in terms of how one perceives one identity in terms of masculinity and femininity. If you want to change that definition to preclude biological explanations for this, then I can't stop you, but it's a poor and unscientific way of arguing your case. If you literally define gender as "the way people act according to social pressure" you've just saddled yourself with something utterly unrelated with the established discourse, and something which wilfully ignores the room for scientific debate on the topic.

I'm not even using "my own" definition of gender. I haven't said anything about biology or social constructionism in the definition--unlike you--because my interest is in taking the established definition which relates to actual human behaviour and look at the reasons behind why that behaviour arises, and the evidence is pretty clearly in favour of some kind of biological influence.

And even if you did redefine "gender" it would be totally irrelevant, because we're still discussing exactly the same thing at the end of the day. We'll just have to call it something else, and you'll have to realise that while your definition of gender may suit you, it has absolutely no bearing on either the current literature and will have no bearing on the future literature unless sociologists literally abandon science altogether.

Say, for instance, we define sex as the biological parts of a human's personality and gender as the socially constructed parts of a human's personality. I think this is a poor definition, but the argument doesn't actually change; we're still trying to determine to what extent behaviour is motivated by biology over socially constructed roles. We're still discussing to what extent are masculine and feminine traits are determined biologically. . .

I see no purpose in conflating biological sex and gender identity. It only serves to muddy the waters further.

Nobody's conflating anything.

Sex = A purely biological, chromosomal configuration.

Gender = Self-perception with regards to either masculine or feminine traits.

The question is how much, if at all, the latter is driven by biology.

Loving the assault rifle, too. It's got such a sweet retro look.

I read the first two articles and found that the first one helped me more than it helped you

Not really:

One potential reason for this difficulty may be that our evolutionary history has shaped the human mind in ways that tend to perpetuate intergroup conflict. The male warrior hypothesis argues that, for men, intergroup conflict represents an opportunity to gain access to mates, territory and increased status, and this may have created selection pressures for psychological mechanisms to initiate and display acts of intergroup aggression.

and likewise with the second article.

Again, not really:

The results for sociosexuality were most consistent with a hybrid model—that both biological and social structural influences contribute to sex differences

constitute strong evidence that evolved biological dispositions underlie these sex differences—dispositions
that show through the ‘‘noise’’ of cultural variations

For example, girls often show greater variability in their preferences for sex-typed toys than boys do (Zucker, 2005). Sex differences in trait variability could result from both biological factors (e.g., sexual selection) and environmental factors (stronger cultural influences on one sex than the other).

Baumeister (2000) presented evidence suggesting that women’s sexual behaviors tend to be more variable, flexible, and subject to social and cultural influences than men’s, whereas men’s sexual behaviors tend to be more
rigid, inflexible, and channeled by biological urges than women’s.

Superimposed on this biological ‘‘main effect’’ are cultural influences, which affect women’s sociosexuality more than men’s

The observed crossover effect was consistent with the hybrid model’s prediction that men’s and women’s biological predispositions interact with ‘‘cultural presses’’ to influence the variability of men’s and women’s sociosexuality differently across cultures.

Honestly it doesn't seem as if you've read them at all.

Third study:

Regression analyses explored the power of sex, gender equality, and their interaction to predict men's and women's 106 national trait means for each of the four traits. Only sex predicted means for all four traits, and sex predicted trait means much more strongly than did gender equality or the interaction between sex and gender equality. These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.

Fourth study:

levels of occupational sex segregation are only weakly predicted by economic development, and cultural modernity often coincides with more, not less, sex segregation overall (Roos 1985, Charles 1992, Jacobs & Lim 1992, Blackburn et al. 2000). In fact, some of the highest levels of occupational sex segregation are found in reputably egalitarian Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden.

preferences of autonomous men and women. Sex segregation of college majors, caring occupations, and domestic work is widely presumed to reflect self-selection—and self-expression—by formally equal but innately different men and women.

Fifth study:

Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N = 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development--including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth--were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality.

And it has fuck all to do with biology.

There isn't a single thing about the definition of gender that precludes biological explanations, at all. Look at Nuka's post about the possibly causes of transgenderism.

Guardian live blog.

Well fuck me, I can't believe we're giving credence to this moron's views. At least the election's over though; it was needlessly long, complicated and badly administered.

Just like the last Labour government.

I am.

Different herbs are definitely effective for common illnesses. If you make tea out of echinacea, for example, it will cure a sore throat faster than any other kind. Some natural things, believe it or not, do have medicinal properties. To claim that no plant across the board has any trace of them is just ignorance.

Extracting medicinal properties from plants != homeopathy.

Do you know why? Because alternative medicine which works is just called medicine.

I finally just felt like I was naturally at peace with myself and it was easier to just be myself without constantly being self conscious. It cured the depression I had for 9 years and I just feel comfortable in my own skin.

I'm glad you managed to transcend your situation. . .







No, in all serious that's great. It's hard enough to feel as if you lack a sense of identity, let alone having depression alongside it. I'm happy for you.

There are actual effective herbal cures for moderate sicknesses like that.

I agree that we as a society use too many drugs, but the claim that homeopathy has any efficacy at all outside of a placebo effect is simply incorrect.

Quote from: eggsalad on September 09, 2015, 10:16:31 PM

r/notits

same

What the fuck is the matter with you?

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 10, 2015, 12:19:52 AM

Quote from: Carsonogen on September 09, 2015, 11:27:42 PM

Let me guess - this is where we start making fun of homeopaths in general, even though this is just some isolated incident?

Oh trust me, homeopaths being stupid is not an isolated incident. It's actually universal.

"any solution that's not shoving manmade chemicals down your throat is a bad one"

"if it's not manmade, it must be good!"

Keep sucking Mother Nature's cock.

Prove it. I don't accept any of this.

Do I really need to provide you with a source that men are more innately violent than women? The fact that men are universally more violent than women--from Saudi Arabia to Norway--really ought to be evidence enough that culture just cannot be the deciding factor.

But, okay:

Evolutionary explanation for male violence.

Gendered behaviour is primarily biological (sociosexuality) [1].

Gendered behaviour is primarily biological (general) [2].

High degrees of auto-segregation in egalitarian countries.

Another paper from the APA on innate gender differences.

The idea of "biological gender" is controversial everywhere outside of biology and psychology. . . and I know who we ought to be listening to when it comes to this (it isn't the sociologists).

Relevant excerpt:

A x2 test demonstrated that there was a significant association between sex and stimulus preference (x2 5 8.3, df. 5 2, p 5 0.016). An analysis of adjusted residuals demonstrated that the significant result is due to more of the male babies, and fewer of the female babies, having a preference for the mobile than would be predicted. In other words, male babies tend to prefer the mobile, whereas female babies either have no preference or prefer the real face. This result is supported by considering the mean percentage looking times for male and female babies (see Table 2). A repeated measures ANOVA, comparing percentage looking times for males and females for the face and mobile, found that neither the main effect of sex [F(1, 100) 5 1.03, p . 0.3] or of stimulus type [F(1, 100) 5 0.10, p . 0.7] were significant. There was, however, a significant sex x stimulus type interaction [F(1, 100) 5 5.28, p 5 0.02]. The interaction was investigated using t tests which demonstrated that males looked significantly longer at the mobile than females did (t 5 2.3, df. 5 100, p 5 0.02) and also that females looked longer at the real face than at the mobile (t 5 2.4, df. 5 100, p 5 0.02). The results from the ANOVA were replicated when the age and weight of the baby, duration of trial, and the length of gestation were entered as covariates.

Taylor Swift-shake it off

This.

And Celine Dion's My Heart Will Go On.

Any British person who doesn't like Only Fools and Horses should be hanged for treason.

Best scene: