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.

And thank you for finding me those passages. I'll go over them, but don't be surprised if they don't change anything.

>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.

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?

Numerous. Probably one of the most famous is Doing Gender—the link itself contains numerous other studies that cite it as a source.

Couple more:
Article discussing parental influence of gender.
Second chapter of a sociology textbook discussing the social construction of gender.

The reason why you never really see me cite anything during arguments is because, frankly, I just prefer to argue for myself a priori. I think this sort of issue is tautological. Not to mention, it's easy as hell to accuse people of cherrypicking. I could cite as many sources as I want, and people would still find problems with them, just as I have problems with theirs. It's a fruitless and time-consuming practice.

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.

Positing that the latter is driven by biology would be conflation of the two things. If it's driven by biology, it is a characteristic of sex, period.

But hey, it just hit me—you're arguing that gender itself is a sex characteristic. It's within the sex blanket.

I don't see any real use for that, but whatever. I can't really disagree with it, but I don't hold that point of view at all. Gender is the footprint that sex leaves on the zeitgeist. It's the water in the pitcher—it's not the pitcher itself. The water just takes its shape. Footprints aren't a part of you—they're just what you leave in your wake.

Positing that the latter is driven by biology would be conflation of the two things.

Only by the worst definitions imaginable.

The issue here is that you're literally defining gendered identity as socially constructing, you're partitioning it there. I can't provide evidence against that so much as I can say it's a poor way of defining gender. Just think about it; transgenderism has biological causes. A case wherein somebody is chromosomally male but perceives themselves as female. The best reference point we have for reasonably defining the term "gender identity", and yet sociologists apparently ignore this because it goes against their dogma.

But, fuck it, I'll agree to your definitions. It's quite clear at this point that the biologists are defining gender differently to how the sociologists define it; I think the biologists have it correct in that it ought to be considered some kind of gendered behaviour irrespective of the underlying causes, and you think the sociologists have it correct in that gender ought to be defined as the socially constructed expectations of masculinity and femininity.

If I agree to this partition, the content of the debate doesn't really change. It just shifts from our original question to "Are the differences we see in behaviour chiefly the result of sex or gender", using your definitions. It seems pretty clear to me that biology and (evolutionary) psychology has answered this question, and the answer is sex.

If I agree to this partition, the content of the debate doesn't really change. It just shifts from our original question to "Are the differences we see in behaviour chiefly the result of sex or gender", using your definitions. It seems pretty clear to me that biology and (evolutionary) psychology has answered this question, and the answer is sex.

I don't find this question terribly interesting, personally. I'm more interested in the implications of gender being a social construct. Because if it is, then that makes our quibbles over it as a society quite insignificant. No longer would anyone be able to make vapid appeals to nature with regards to how people should be treated, or how people should be expected to behave, based solely on their biological sex—the only thing they'd have left to go off of.

Gender roles would be destroyed. This can only be a good thing.

No longer would anyone be able to make vapid appeals to nature with regards to how people should be treated, or how people should be expected to behave, based solely on their biological sex

Wow, some serious fucking Deja Vu right now.

Nevertheless, people oughtn't do that anyway. You don't need to hope gender is one way or the other in order to call somebody a fucking cunt for forcing his wife to be the "homemaker". Even if gender identity are (largely) biological and innate, that's no justification for treating women are more or less respectfully.

It's just a case of cunts will be cunts.

EDIT: Goddamn, trying to write a post about this is like walking through a fucking minefield.

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 10, 2015, 05:27:10 PM

Nevertheless, people oughtn't do that anyway. You don't need to hope gender is one way or the other in order to call somebody a fucking cunt for forcing his wife to be the "homemaker". Even if gender identity are (largely) biological and innate, that's no justification for treating women are more or less respectfully.

It's just a case of cunts will be cunts.

Right—but I'm saying it would be even less of a justification.

Did you read my articles, or are you in the process, or what? I'm going over the last couple articles you posted right now.

Quote from: le peanut butter man xd on September 10, 2015, 05:22:20 PM

So you're saying it is at least partially determinable by biology. Which is what I was attempting to show.

I'm sorry, I seem to have been under the delusion that this thread was about people that believe gender was totally separated from biology. Which is like conceding that fire burns stuff and then denying that it's hot.

Right, yeah, and Karl Benz is responsible for 30,000 American deaths per year, because without him, there wouldn't be any automobiles. Sure. Fair logic.

clearly everything about life is rooted in biology, in the sense that even social constructs are created by a biological apparatus called a "brain"

that's not the issue

Um, are you ok?

You do realize I was only responding to the op, which was about people that claim gender is totally separated from biology. I never implied that's what you were saying.

Quote from: le peanut butter man xd on September 10, 2015, 05:41:03 PM

You do realize I was only responding to the op, which was about people that claim gender is totally separated from biology. I never implied that's what you were saying.

I'm one of those people, though. Except nobody actually believes gender is totally separated from biology—I've yet to meet one. What most people on my side argue is that gender is influenced by societal expectations and environmental factors (your upbringing & conditioning) FAR more than it is dictated by any negligible biological factors. To the point where you may as well not even bring biology up, and instead say, "these are SEX characteristics."

That's fine, I guess that's what I get for posting after only reading the op.

"However much we’d like to think of gender as a social construct, science suggests that real differences do exist between female and male brains."

sigh

just like there are differences between male and female genitalia

so what

yeah, the brain

just like literally everything else