[lm28469]

Ew, I can't for the life of me understand this "everything is a social construct" mindset.

The average man is biologically different than the average female. Testosterone alone can explain why men are generally more violent and sexually aggressive than women. And there are many many many other factors in effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

Why do people get angry about facts, there is no value judgment in saying "The average women is inclined to do X while the average man is more inclined to do Y", it doesn't mean "every woman HAS to do X and every man HAS to do Y". Why would every animals of different sex present different behaviours but somehow humans are all 100% equal and every difference is due to "society" ? Is biology a social construct now ?

[akerl_]

I’m not claiming that “everything” is a social construct.

I replied to the claim that wanting “to win” is a masculine trait, and compared it to the feminine trait of personalization/creativity. It seems pretty far fetched to claim that biology causes boys to be more interested in winning Lego programming competitions.

[lm28469]

> It seems pretty far fetched to claim that biology causes boys to be more interested in winning Lego programming competitions.

Why ? The "Lego programming competitions" is a detail there, the important part is "does winning at X triggers the same biological pathways as winning at Y ?" and "are men more inclined to be competitive ?".

For example men are more inclined to do dangerous activities for fun, like racing cars or rock climbing. Does it means that biology ""wants"" men to race cars, no, just that racing cars trigger biological pathways somehow perceived as more beneficial for men than female.