Reddit reviews Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences

Actually the research is there and a lot of is very reputable stuff carried out by psychologists with controls and peer review and so on.

For example did you know that when a woman is taking a test in a male-dominated room of people also taking the test, her score (once you control for natural aptitude which the researchers are able to do statistically) is inversely proportional to the number of men in the room?

Stuff like this is all around us. Men don't know it and don't see it, and therefore don't think it exists. Women know it exists, but men don't listen to us.

Source

All those muhfuckas need to read Delusions of Gender and then they need to go sit in their rooms and think about what they've done.

I usually don't say things to these people. I give them books, sometimes alongside gifts of really luscious teas, food or other things they might like. Usually, they read the books and come back a little changed and more amenable to new ideas.

I don't have any titles in particular for your situation because I haven't come across that specific problem in years, but DELUSIONS OF GENDER by Cordelia Fine is my current go-to, all around.

I think they are trying to be 'one of the guys', and honestly, I think their reaction is part of a denial of feminism that comes from being totally overwhelmed by the patriarchy. Gender fatigue, I think it's called. (So, maybe a book on that.) It usually breaks a few years later if they're lucky. Hope you're able to make it work! (And good on you for fostering this program!)

And here's a refutation of how this study is being interpreted, from this book that is exactly about the title of this thread.

Since people have already answered about the anarchist part thoroughly, just throwing my two cents out there: veganism is not necessary for being an anarchist (and in fact, depending on the country it is illogical to expect for everyone to be vegan). As for the fact that there can be 20 genders, that is a very complex topic. Essentially, gender is a social construct that assigns certain roles, characteristics, features, stereotypes to each sex (for example: women need to wear make-up, use high-heels in certain jobs, pink-color coded, long hair, they are more submissive, passive, and also nurturing; while men are strong, 'they like blue', are aggressive, usually short hair, etc. Super basic, but there are some books you can check if you're interested: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Delusions-Gender-Science-Behind-Differences/dp/1848312202#reader_1848312202) Gender would be something like 'femininity' and 'masculinity'. Women, in this axis, are and have been historically oppressed due to their sex (this all for Engels started with Agriculture, you can read his 'Private Property, Family and the State'). It is for that reason that gender differs from society to society, it is not a universal concept (for example, in China, girls had to undergo foot binding). Sex is a material reality, that is, humans as a species are sexually diphormic, that is, there are two sexes (which also include 'deviations' from these sexes which come with complications such as intersex and different syndromes but that are still included under sexual diphormism). But sex does not equal gender. Brains aren't gendered. The mainstream left seems to have sided with a very liberal notion that identity makes reality, in which everyone can decide their gender (whatever that means? and which has no impact on reality), and instead of abolishing gender and letting everyone just be, it seems to side with the fact that femininity and masculinity equal sex, rather than divorce sex from the social construct that is gender and accept it as a material reality. While radical/materialist/marxist feminism proposes the abolition of gender, in doing so, sex would have no connotations at all as to how a person should dress, behave, or what their role in society is, etc and would be free to be themselves. In my opinion, it is radical feminism which has more solid foundations and a very solid theory. This is not even scratching the surface on the topic, though, and I'm not sure it's understandable, but I hope my comment was of some help. I strongly recommend you research this thoroughly, always keep a critical stance on what you read (on whatever you read, honestly), and come to your own conclusions, which can change when you know more, and they should.


As for 'left-wing', many ideologies can be lumped there, so you've got to be careful and always have a critical eye.

Hmm, not a PDF copy. Unless this works? It's £2.50 on Kindle! And only £7.30 on Prime. Amazon link.

Anyone who wants to learn more about this should read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delusions-Gender-Science-Behind-Differences/dp/1848312202

> Like what reading? I like to read!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sexing-Body-Politics-Construction-Sexuality/dp/0465077145

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Bodies-Matter-Discursive-Limits-Sex-Routledge-Classics/041561015X/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=CNDN34DGBXQGMJRNHAEQ

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sexing-Brain-Lesley-Rogers-2000-06-01/dp/B01HC0RD82/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481591782&sr=1-2&keywords=sexing+the+brain

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Delusions-Gender-Science-Behind-Differences/dp/1848312202/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=CNDN34DGBXQGMJRNHAEQ

http://bennorton.com/gender-is-not-alone-the-social-construction-of-sex/

http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2003/Extreme_Problems_with_Essential_Differences/

would be good places to start, plus numerous other papers, some books and blog posts I don't have quite the google-fu to relocate, and a lot of more tangential stuff. (I originally came to this mostly through the study of the theory of bodies and embodiement in art, as well as my spouse's academic studies in gender and sexuality). In getting to grips with this material and the general position it's important to move away from the facile strawman of the idea that biology is disregarded in a social constructionist view; more profoundly, social constructionists realise that social environment reshapes biology.

>Yeah it is. If you believe trans women only transition because of quote unquote "gender" which is purely social...you're wrong.

But what is a 'gender role'? If you restrict it to something as facile as 'girls like pink' then you can make anything absurd. It's worth remembering that the term 'gender roles' was originally coined by the sexologist John Money to describe the behaviours inhabited by unassigned intersex individuals trying to express a single binary gender identity. From a performative standpoint, gender roles are the entirety of the behaviour with which we signal the gender identity we wish to and are trained to project towards society. To say such things are not bound up in the trans experience is simply wrong; many trans folk experience feelings of dysphoria at being identified as their wrong gender, and lessening of these feelings or even positive counter-feelings at being identified as their correct gender. This is purely a matter of social perception. Therapeutically speaking, people transition because it helps to alleviate their feelings of dysphoria. Whether the underlying cause of the dysphoric state is genetic, epigenetic, foetal or psychological (or even spiritual) or some subtle combination of factors which differs on an individual basis is immaterial to the benefits provided by transition to the majority of those who seriously seek it. This is, it is important to note, only the medically legitimised narrative of the trans experience.

Dude, all I can say is read this book, because I don't have time to quote all the studies mentioned in it:

Delusions of Gender:The Real Science Behind Sex Differences
by Cordelia Fine

I will address what I have time to off the top of my head:

>Mens' brains are, on average 10% larger. Wikipedia, Web M.D., DailyMail, reporting on research done by the University of Cambridge

Sir, brain size as a link to intelligence was a thing in Victorian times. But there is still no strong correlation between brain size and intelligence. if it were true, Elephants would be the dominant species of the land. Are you going to cite phrenology next?

>Men are better suited to withstand pain.

childbirth
Also you would not believe how often gender being primed in a study affects the results. Were these people told we're seeing who can stand more pain. Were men feeling their masculinity was at stake and withheld longer? Also why does this come into equality. When it comes to choice I have seen a hell of a lot more women endure.

>The difference in laymans' terms, is that grey matter is associated with processing and depth of analysis, while white matter is associated with speed of response and speed of neural activity. I.e, men potentially process 6-7 times more heavily, while women process potentially 6-7 times less deeply, but at a rate that is potentially 10 times faster.

Well this is misleading as hell. You do dance around the fact at what it suggests, and what its assumed parts of the brain do, but negate to mention the overwhelming lack of evidence connecting these brains structures with measurable human behaviors. Humans have wildly varying brains, and on average which is they key word all over your argument, women and men can have different structure, but the structures being responsible for measurable differences? No, someone looked at it and said 'oh, must be why women are good at languages'. Also you speak as if all of these areas are mutually exclusive. That a person will be one way or another. But negate to include the numerous humans who are good at both languages and mathematics?

Interesting one researcher who is a big advocate of gender differences Simon Baron-Cohen, when discussing his tests for empathy quotients, and typing brains into a female and male type brain, was able to show (under his conditions of what a male brain is) that most men have a male brain. But even his research found that just under 50% of women have a female types brain. Research has consistently shown there is a great number of women who are much more similar to what we believe the average man is. So many in fact, that anyone who insists on segregating all people on the basis of gender is negating that their theories fall flat when faced with the people to whom 'on average' does not describe.

Generally your whole argument- (and its sad, because I can see how confident you are in this, you really do feel superior and justified in your neurosexism) - is flawed because nearly all of it is based and correlation and causation assumptions. (i.e - more men do maths, mens brains are different, therefore, mens brains make them good at maths) Well, Kids whose parents own coffee makers are proven to be are more intelligent, that doesn't mean proximity to coffee makers raises IQ.

You are not unbiased here. You had beliefs, and saw something to back them up, and took it, have you looked for flaws, have you actually tries to say 'now, is it possible this isn't so simple?) I'm guessing not, because you don't want to, you are comfortable with what you believe.

You don't want to think about poor controls, gender priming in exams, stereotype bias or anything that would require you to doubt yourself for a split second.

I'm proven to have a gender neutral brain. I don't fit female patterns, my psychiatrist suggested I have mild autism. What do you have to say about me and my right to equality?

Actually, I can't be assed to pull out my kindle and search for each of your points, seriously, just read the book.
It covers everything you've mentioned. With lots of cited research articles so you can double check it all. The point of the book is that we are astoundingly sure that science backs up sexism as a society, but under further investigation, most of the science can be debunked, and what little there is at best shows a slight margin. Socialization is overwhelmingly responsible for the result on which most assumptions are based.

Read that, then we'll talk.

I also recommend bad science by Ben Goldacre. Which covers the topis of people relying on studies way to easily and not realizing how shoddy the methodology is.

> Because Men and Women are different. How many women engineers do you know? What about male hairdressers? Yes, there are both (and more power to them) but men and women choose different careers because that is what they want to focus on.

If you tried facts in your arguments rather than debunked scientific sexism, you might actually be correct for once, rather than massively wrong, and sexist.

edit: just for you, some suggested reading. don't come back until you've read it.

I think for the sake of discussion people interested in the topic of gender differences in the brain need to read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. In this book she works her way through the scientific literature that has been published on the subject of sex differences in the brain...and among other revelations of poor study design and tentative conclusions being blown out of proportion by the media, she agrees with your conclusion: "Male and female brains are almost completely alike".