[hirundo]

> [Male wooly mammoths] were more likely to do silly things, like die in tar pits

Apparently, across many mammalian species, males are more likely to take risks and explore than females. This seems to be good evidence that not all gendered behavior is socialized. That would seem to be a silly straw man argument to knock down, if it were not so widely held.

[vecplane]

A related theory is the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis

The idea being that males tend to have flatter/wider distributions of traits, leading to higher populations at the extremes of those traits. This can include aggression, risk aversion, etc.

More at the Heterodox Academy - https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-greater-male-variability-hy...

[eloff]

It is a silly straw man argument that should be knocked down. Society has completely lost it trying to ignore science and claim that there's no biological differences between genders. It's a joke if you're even slightly educated on the subject.

[mcv]

Is anyone claiming that there are no biological differences between genders? It's very blatantly obvious that there are. I think the idea that many people oppose, is that the existence of some biological differences justifies other social differences.

[weego]

Yes, unfortunately there are a number of people, some in positions of power and authority over some sporting bodies, that believe there is no meaningful difference between sexes.

The most notable result I've seen is a transgender (recently transitioned) MMA fighter fracturing the skull of an opponent in an appallingly one sided and brutal fight.

Denying the most basic facts of hormone effects (muscle and bone density effects of testosterone and then the bone density sparing effects of estrogen) that have not even been questioned for decades is now unfortunately a thing.

[derefr]

I feel like the technically-correct thing to say is that there are no essential differences between genders (since you can have whatever gender identity you want) or between sexes (because your sex doesn't guarantee your hormonal makeup) but there are essential differences between people of who have had long periods of differing hormonal makeup—whether natural or induced.

Which is to say, we probably shouldn't be grouping athletes by gender/sex, but rather imposing a threshold of testosterone, and having a league for people with (historic) low T and a league for people with (historic) high T.

There'd likely be an interesting opportunity in the middle for co-ed athletics leagues, where the people of both physical sexes that have "average" historic T levels (i.e. who fall on the mean of T levels of all humans) could compete fairly with one-another.

Also, as a tangent: an interesting question brought up by that, is that some athletes actually have an inherent T level that would be considered "using steroids" if a person of average T took TRT to achieve that level. Should such athletes be allowed to compete, if others aren't allowed to achieve their level? (IMHO, it's a bit like a sport where tallness is an advantage allowing people with natural gigantism, but banning people who've been given limb-lengthening surgery.)

[StavrosK]

Why was the fighter even allowed to compete in the new league? Do you have a reference for the fight?

[leereeves]

Fallon Fox vs Tamikka Brents

[StavrosK]

Thanks, that was brutal.

[eloff]

Surprisingly, this is a real position of many people today, that gender is entirely a social construct. It's pretty clear there are both social and biological underpinnings to gender - I don't know why some people insist on taking the black or white view.

[empthought]

Gender is an entirely social construct. You and the earlier commenters are using the word “gender” when you mean “sex.”

[daenz]

I think it is closer to the truth to say that gender is a social construct in the same way language is a social construct. The Universal Grammar Theory[0], pioneered by Noam Chomsky, gives evidence that language arises from a biological predisposition that is cross-cultural. The social construct arises from the biological construct.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

[leereeves]

This is another example of people redefining words then claiming other people are unenlightened because they use the original meaning and not the redefinition.

Gender has been used as a synonym for sex for a long time. Merriam-Webster and The Free Dictionary list that meaning before the more recent meaning.

You're simply wrong to claim the way you use the word is the only way it can be used.

[mcv]

It could be useful to have a way to distinguish between the biological and social aspects of sex/gender, though. Because those are different things, so it kinda makes sense to have different words for it.

[eloff]

Those words are used interchangeably in modern discourse. But it's not like the craziness goes away if you define the terms more carefully. There are people who seriously beleive there is no biological difference between the sexes when it comes to internal characteristics like mind and personality. The external differences are, I hope, obvious to all with eyes to see.

[daenz]

Not answering your question exactly, but there are many people, especially in academia, who believe that there are no biological differences between the genders that account for our interests:

8:10 and 33:00 https://vimeo.com/19707588

(The whole piece is excellent though)

[LocalH]

The notion that there are any biological differences between genders that can affect anything other than explicitly gendered biological processes, seems to be commonly considered highly "toxic" and "problematic" amongst modern progressives.

[everdev]

Knowing the common predispositions of genders is useful if you need to make an educated guess about the expected behavior of a random person.

Sometimes the problem lies in trying to raise boys or girls to fit these "expected predispositions". Or judging someone who is "outside their gender norm".

So, yes if I pick a random boy and girl out of a crowd, I would expect differences and could make reasonable guesses about those differences.

So, it's not bad if you know these common gender differences as long as you are able to quickly discard them when you're getting to know someone at a deeper level than their gender.

[danharaj]

> Society has completely lost it trying to ignore science and claim that there's no biological differences between genders.

Could you describe in more detail some specific claims you've seen made that fall under this?

[danaris]

The reason some people claim this is twofold:

First, that contrary to prior common belief, the range of possible physical strength, endurance, pain tolerance, and all types of personality expressions of women is effectively the same as that for men.

Second, that regardless of scientific evidence, the belief in differences between the sexes has been very widely used to oppress women in so many ways, including but in no way limited to prohibiting them from voting, limiting what types of job they were legally permitted to hold, and effectively treating them as the property of their husbands or fathers, with no will or agency of their own.

Until the generations that were actively involved in doing these things finish dying out, and probably the ones that were taught by them, too, claiming there is no biological difference between men and women, regardless of its veracity, will be a completely justifiable defense mechanism against being told to shut up and make sandwiches for the rest of their lives.

[empthought]

Males are certainly more likely to be ostracized for aggressive behavior in social species... why assume their apparent solitude is because they are “taking risks and exploring” instead of having nowhere else to go?

[roenxi]

Aggressive behaviour is extremely risky, the payoffs and costs are both very high. And indeed, one of the potential costs is social ostracism. It counts under the taking risks part of 'taking risks and exploring'.

[empthought]

I am not sure of the point you are trying to argue here.

[kbenson]

> why assume their apparent solitude is because they are “taking risks and exploring” instead of having nowhere else to go?

Pretty sure the point was to note that the "taking risks" part of that could have been the initial aggressive stance that got them ostracized. As the GP noted, there's a specific risk/payoff to behavior in a social group that might pay off well (more social status) or be very detrimental (ostracization), and given how detrimental being ostracized could be, I think many would consider that "risky behavior".

[dymk]

The comment you’re responding to only suggests that some behavior is related to biological sex and not socialized, and doesn’t call out any particular behavior.

[empthought]

It specifically calls out “taking risks” and “exploring.”

[dymk]

Those are pretty general, nonspecific traits, unlike “enjoys tar pits”

[PunchTornado]

your comment seems to suggest that animals aren't social and their behaviour is pure biological.

[dymk]

It literally does not and I’m not sure how you interpret “some behaviors” as “all behaviors”

[brosinante]

How dare you injure my tiny fragile male ego thusly.

[PunchTornado]

> that not all gendered behavior is socialized

animals also live in societies, complex societies in cases of elephants. it can be that those behaviours are learned in those societies.

nobody says that gendered behaviour is caused by society norms only in humans.