Maybe people are just picking and choosing to fit their agenda, I don't know.
Quote from: SpartanT on September 09, 2015, 08:22:18 PMMaybe people are just picking and choosing to fit their agenda, I don't know.Basically any time science meets politics.
Quote from: Kupo on September 09, 2015, 08:27:02 PMQuote from: SpartanT on September 09, 2015, 08:22:18 PMMaybe people are just picking and choosing to fit their agenda, I don't know.Basically any time science meets politics.Apparently biological sciences have a really terrible time getting funding in Norway because of the generally-progressive political climate.
Brace yourself:http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/picture-yourself-as-a-stereotypical-maleSpoilerBefore you lose your goddamn mind, I want to point out that the studies mentioned in this link have been highly criticized in regards to their replicability -- as in, almost entirely refuted. But the previous article highlights a really severe problem with popular science in the masses' willingness to accept anything vaguely scientific at face value. https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/tag/stereotype-threat-and-womens-math-performance/
I've yet to see compelling evidence to suggest that gender identity has any type of biological ties whatsoever.
I don't know, maybe it's just to help rid the idea that people have to stick strictly to specified gender roles.
You haven't looked hard enough then.
We've observed gendered behaviour in humans just one day old.
the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
"Maybe it wonβt surprise you to know that a girlβs math performance is empirically shown to decrease in proportion to the number of male test-takers around her, or that conscious reminders of gender differences will significantly decrease femalesβ math test scores."Stopped there.
>neuroanatomical differences associated with gender identity.>neuroanatomical>anatomical
The word "gender" isn't even used once in the entire article.
The present study aimed to ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin
You know I can't really say that I even care enough to bother looking into the research and forming an opinion on this.
Nothing about the definition of gender precludes biological explanations for such phenomena, and it's ridiculous to pre-suppose that it does.
(bearing in mind the study was written in 2000, so I'm not at all surprised they don't use the term gender):
102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin
does that mean there's a 70% chance in getting heads?
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.
Q: Isn't this all in your head? There can't be any science behind this.A: Actually, there is. One leading theory (supported by research) about female-to-male transgender individuals is that the hormone wash that occurs during the first trimester of pregnancy is misfired in FtMs, altering the brain chemistry of the fetus to essentially create a male-wired mind in a female-wired body.1 There are other theories and studies out there concerning the etiology of transsexuality,2 and studies have shown that the transgendered brain is more chemically similar to the identified sex than the biological sex.3,41 Dr. J.-N. Zhou. βA Sex Difference In The Human Brain And Its Relation To Transsexuality." 1995.2 http://www.avitale.com/etiologicalreview.htm3 http://mindhacks.com/2009/04/05/imaging-the-transgendered-brain/4 http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/TRANSGENDER.pdf
Irrelevant; the study has literally nothing to do with probability.
Biology is the reason men are innately more violent; it's the reason women tend to go into work in jobs which are more "people-oriented"; it's the reason why we see more auto-segregation in more equal countries and it's the reason we see greater personality differences in more equal countries.
Relevant excerpt:
Prove it. I don't accept any of this.
No idea is this is useful or not towards the idea of a non-binary concept of gender but I saw this posted recently.QuoteQ: Isn't this all in your head? There can't be any science behind this.A: Actually, there is. One leading theory (supported by research) about female-to-male transgender individuals is that the hormone wash that occurs during the first trimester of pregnancy is misfired in FtMs, altering the brain chemistry of the fetus to essentially create a male-wired mind in a female-wired body.1 There are other theories and studies out there concerning the etiology of transsexuality,2 and studies have shown that the transgendered brain is more chemically similar to the identified sex than the biological sex.3,41 Dr. J.-N. Zhou. βA Sex Difference In The Human Brain And Its Relation To Transsexuality." 1995.2 http://www.avitale.com/etiologicalreview.htm3 http://mindhacks.com/2009/04/05/imaging-the-transgendered-brain/4 http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/TRANSGENDER.pdf
Why do progressives deny biology?
