Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009
Special Snowflake syndrome.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009

Ponsonby Britt posted:

What exactly is a "fundamental" difference? How large does a difference in brain structure have to be to be counted as "fundamental", and must it be present from birth, or can it develop as a child is socialized into society? I'm not aware of any feminists who would deny the empirical fact of dimorphism,* but to say that this difference is "fundamental" implies a value judgment about its importance. Some feminists might say that the empirical differences are too small to be considered "fundamental". Some feminists might say that the differences are large enough to be considered, but are the product of socialization and are thus transient and changeable rather than "fundamental". Some feminists might say that sexual dimorphism in brain structures is "fundamental", and that society should recognize and account for these differences.

I am not a neuroscientist, so I am not sure which of these models most accurately reflects reality. But I think it's worth remembering that earlier generations of racists made strong assertions about fundamental difference between races, based on the empirical fact of difference in skin color, hair texture, and so on. It turns out that these people were letting their political ideas about white supremacy cloud their scientific judgment. The empirical differences they saw were (A) totally unimportant and/or (B) the result of societal factors, rather than fundamental biological ones. As I said, I don't really know the brain science, and I'm not saying it's inherently sexist to speculate about this stuff. I just think we need to be especially careful about avoiding the same error that previous generations made.

Fake edit: actually, I think many feminists would conceptualize biological sex as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. "Male" and "female" are not closed boxes, but two poles around which most individuals cluster. There are various kinds of intersex person living in the middle - what does "sexual dimorphism" mean to someone with an XXY makeup? But I don't think any feminists would deny that most individuals have most of the characteristics of either "male" brain structure or "female" brain structure, which seems like the spirit of your question. (Again, not a neuroscientist, if someone is please correct me.)

Yeah, I thought from what I've read that verifiable differences between the brains of men and women consist of a spectrum, rather than a strict "male brain/female brain" dichotomy.

Mercury_Storm posted:

Gender dysphoria is when one believes they are living in the wrong gender role that society has assigned to them as a result of their birth sex, and naturally stems from someone with body dysphoria, but not necessarily so. Even a person with body dysphoria might reject the notion of being required to perform in a masculine or feminine manner, regardless of their present physical sex.

The concept of "gender disphoria" (as opposed to body disphoria) disturbs me. If someone feels content with their body, but feels that they were born into the wrong gender role, isn't the problem with gender roles, rather than that the individual was born the "wrong" gender?

  • Locked thread