If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Real Clear Science)   How do feminists explain immunology? Huh? How about it sweetcheeks   (realclearscience.com) divider line 118
    More: Interesting, immunology, social construction, feminists, Lawrence Summers, antiviral drugs  
•       •       •

5994 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Nov 2012 at 1:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-09 11:25:34 AM
In certain circles, it is politically incorrect to suggest that men and women are different.

Oh, christ, you're really breaking out this strawman? And then bringing up the guy who basically tried to extend the much derided The Bell Curve to gender bias in engineering professions?

Hey, buddy, I know you've never seen a vagina nor touched a breast, but everybody else is quite aware that women are different than men in several important ways.
 
2012-11-09 01:14:23 PM
Why is a hack article from a political website on the Geek tab, exactly? Is it not bad enough that we shiat up the politics tab with this crap, you gotta put the derp here too now?
 
2012-11-09 01:19:26 PM
No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences. I'm getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things.
 
2012-11-09 01:26:33 PM
I've read hundreds of medical articles and have published a few myself. I've never heard accusations of "sexism" following any finding of differences between men and women. I've heard plenty of criticisms of analyses that did _not_ take into account differences in demographic and comorbid factors. If you don't take gender into account in your analyses, you're much, much less likely to be taken seriously (if you're even lucky enough to get published). The fact that men and women are acknowledged to be different isn't limited to some isolated part of biology that the evil feminists have yet to squelch. Anyone (feminist, misogynist, . . . pretty much everyone but the Creationists & IDers) who does research in any medical field learns to adjust/control for/account for differences by age, race, sex, comorbidity status, etc.

The author is debating a strawman feminist, not a real person. Less interesting than watching Clint Eastwood debate a chair.
 
2012-11-09 01:27:36 PM
I submit the quote from TFA Ignoring the entire field of biology in dedication to the farkette who scoffed at my biology argument a few weeks ago in some thread, when I reminded the women of fark, no matter how well you do in business or how much education you have, that little pussy of yours was meant to be stuffed full of dick.

Happy Friday!
 
2012-11-09 01:31:19 PM

JerkyMeat: no matter how well you do in business or how much education you have, that little pussy of yours was meant to be stuffed full of dick


Eloquently put...
 
2012-11-09 01:33:50 PM
Boys have penises and girls have vaginas.
 
2012-11-09 01:35:16 PM
I wonder what this means for us transgender people. Does my body have female immune responses? If so, was that because of having a female brain structure, or because of the hormones I'm taking?
 
2012-11-09 01:40:48 PM
*clicks link*

WTF is RealClearScience? Like RealClearPolitics?

*reads first lines*

Yep, just like RealClearPolitics.

*closes tab*
 
2012-11-09 01:43:38 PM

Myria: I wonder what this means for us transgender people. Does my body have female immune responses?


Interesting question. Are the gender specific immune response differences caused by hormones? Is it genetic/chromosomal? Something else?
 
2012-11-09 01:44:31 PM

Chiad: No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences. I'm getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things.


It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Here is an amusing, interesting Norwegian documentary that documents these assertions in Norwegian society today. It's 38 minutes and seeks to explain how in Norway, one of the most feminist oriented, egalitarian societies, old stereotypes regarding preferences and professions seem stronger than ever.

Brainwash: The Gender Equality Paradox - Documentary NRK - 2011
 
2012-11-09 01:45:44 PM

Honest Bender: Myria: I wonder what this means for us transgender people. Does my body have female immune responses?

Interesting question. Are the gender specific immune response differences caused by hormones? Is it genetic/chromosomal? Something else?


That sounds like a question... *booming voice* FOR SCIENCE!
 
2012-11-09 01:46:04 PM

Myria: I wonder what this means for us transgender people


I don't think you could draw broad conclusions about transgedered people, only because there are so many different varieties of transgendering. The cases of biological transsexuals, with people who have physical traits that derive from both sexes, would be radically different from people who are transgendered in a social sense. Hormone treatments would further confound matters.
 
2012-11-09 01:47:27 PM

RoyBatty: It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.


No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.
 
2012-11-09 01:47:42 PM
While correct, TFA is a solution looking for a problem. I don't think feminists honestly believe that there aren't any biological differences between men and women. It's a well known fact that men and women have different neurological responses to the same stimuli. Those neurological responses, while not absolutely determinate, drive a lot of the behavior differences between men and women.
 
2012-11-09 01:49:59 PM
This guy doesn't understand the distinctions between sex, gender, and cultural gender norms.
 
2012-11-09 01:52:07 PM

t3knomanser: RoyBatty: It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.


Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.
 
2012-11-09 01:52:53 PM
There exist common physiological distinctions between two groups therefore it is ok to judge group B on numerous other attributes that are not universal. Because I'm in group A.


Moron.
 
2012-11-09 01:53:48 PM

tortilla burger: drive a lot of the behavior differences between men and women.


The confounding issue with this is the open question of how much behavior is truly derived biologically. Obviously, everything has a biological basis. But while that may lay a foundation, when we look at different cultures, we see such wildly divergent approaches to establishing gender roles. Activities that are considered "feminine" in one society are considered "masculine" in another. The only thing that seems universal (and I'm certain that there are counter-examples out there) are that women play a greater role in child-rearing. This makes a certain evolutionary sense, since they're far more invested in the project.

Slightly changing subjects, one of the things we take as biologically determined is sexual orientation. And while, again, there's certainly a biological component, "being gay" is clearly a social role. In our society, if you suck a dude's dick in front of an audience, you're not just gay, but super gay. In the Moche civilization, you wouldn't be gay- you'd be a priest. And not in the Catholic way- fellatio was part of their religious rites.

In short: it's complex and multivariable and very non-linear.
 
2012-11-09 01:55:20 PM

RoyBatty: I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that,


Really, your link contains people making the claim that men can carry children to term? I can't watch it at work, but I very much don't believe you. In fact, I am going to Farky you as a liar, because you are.
 
2012-11-09 01:58:57 PM

t3knomanser: In certain circles, it is politically incorrect to suggest that men and women are different.

Oh, christ, you're really breaking out this strawman? And then bringing up the guy who basically tried to extend the much derided The Bell Curve to gender bias in engineering professions?

Hey, buddy, I know you've never seen a vagina nor touched a breast, but everybody else is quite aware that women are different than men in several important ways.


How dare you besmirch "The Bell Curve". I guess some people get uncomfortable around the truth.
 
2012-11-09 02:00:26 PM

t3knomanser: Except Danny Devito.


earthprime.com

And Remmy.

www.oocities.org
Lister gave birth to twins!
 
2012-11-09 02:02:37 PM

t3knomanser: RoyBatty: I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that,

Really, your link contains people making the claim that men can carry children to term? I can't watch it at work, but I very much don't believe you. In fact, I am going to Farky you as a liar, because you are.


Farky me however you would like.

I respond to Chiad's claim that feminists would never claim there are no differences between men and women by providing a documentary where Norwegian scientists do exactly that over and over.

You come in to say that unless I can find someone that says men can give birth that I have failed to make my claim, which of course has very little to do with my claim, Chiad's claim, or the documentary.

I point that out and you respond you need to farky me as a liar.

Hey, go for it. Whatever.

Of course, there have now been at least two men who have given birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy) and Robert Winston, MD, scientist, says that men could give birth.

a pioneer of in-vitro fertilization, told London's Sunday Times that "male pregnancy would certainly be possible" by having an embryo implanted in a man's abdomen - with the placenta attached to an internal organ such as the bowel - and later delivered by Caesarean section.[7][8][9] Ectopic implantation of the embryo along the abdominal wall, and resulting placenta growth would, however, be very dangerous and potentially fatal for the host, and is therefore unlikely to be studied in humans.[7][10] Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services, a British fertility clinic, noted that the abdomen is not designed to separate from the placenta during delivery, hence the danger of an ectopic pregnancy. "The question is not 'Can a man do it?'" stated bioethicist Glenn McGee. "It's 'If a man does have a successful pregnancy, can he survive it?

But if farkying me as a liar gets you through your day at work, I'm all for it.
 
2012-11-09 02:07:01 PM
Oh feminists! You were once a much-needed avenue for important social justice reforms. Now you're just a pathetic self-parody who stagger around comically for my amusement!
 
2012-11-09 02:09:17 PM
Yeah, crazy dude, immunology already knows. You doctor will ask about your racial background when screening you for genetic disorders, too, medicine don't really care about PC and never has.
 
2012-11-09 02:15:30 PM

tortilla burger: While correct, TFA is a solution looking for a problem. I don't think feminists honestly believe that there aren't any biological differences between men and women.


I think the misunderstanding begins with what is the age the feminist. When I was in college in the late '80s, the arguments I studied were mostly to remove any recognizable differences in reference to sex because we are all humans first. They were over-stating their argument to gain whatever political/philosophical ground they could gain. The younger, more modern feminists appear to believe they need to recognize the differences but not make one sex greater than the other. You still see a lot of older feminists who get into active debates on the community channels with younger ones over which philosophy is more important moving forward. It would appear that this argument was positioned to be placed in that particular philosophical arena.
 
2012-11-09 02:21:39 PM

RoyBatty: It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Here is an amusing, interesting Norwegian documentary that documents these assertions in Norwegian society today. It's 38 minutes and seeks to explain how in Norway, one of the most feminist oriented, egalitarian societies, old stereotypes regarding preferences and professions seem stronger than ever.

Brainwash: The Gender Equality Paradox - Documentary NRK - 2011



You can find a few people asserting nonsense anywhere. Calling those people Feminists is like calling bigfoot hunters zoologists.
 
2012-11-09 02:24:21 PM

Chiad: You can find a few people asserting nonsense anywhere. Calling those people Feminists is like calling bigfoot hunters zoologists.


Yeah, I can see how calling the Norwegian orthothodoxy, among others, a few people, can work for your argument that no true feminists are like that.
 
2012-11-09 02:29:49 PM
That was one hell of a strawperson.
 
2012-11-09 02:33:06 PM

RoyBatty:
Yeah, I can see how calling the Norwegian orthothodoxy, among others, a few people, can work for your argument that no true feminists are like that.



That documentary is interesting, but it is comparing nature vs nurture camps, and those people you are calling the feminist orthodoxy are 'blank-slatists' who think everything is nurture, and nothing is nature. They were picked out by the comedian host of the show for their entertaining and extreme views. I don't know what point you think you are making, but this isn't making it for you.
 
2012-11-09 02:33:45 PM

RoyBatty: t3knomanser: RoyBatty: I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that,

Really, your link contains people making the claim that men can carry children to term? I can't watch it at work, but I very much don't believe you. In fact, I am going to Farky you as a liar, because you are.

Farky me however you would like.

I respond to Chiad's claim that feminists would never claim there are no differences between men and women by providing a documentary where Norwegian scientists do exactly that over and over.

You come in to say that unless I can find someone that says men can give birth that I have failed to make my claim, which of course has very little to do with my claim, Chiad's claim, or the documentary.

I point that out and you respond you need to farky me as a liar.

Hey, go for it. Whatever.

Of course, there have now been at least two men who have given birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy) and Robert Winston, MD, scientist, says that men could give birth.

a pioneer of in-vitro fertilization, told London's Sunday Times that "male pregnancy would certainly be possible" by having an embryo implanted in a man's abdomen - with the placenta attached to an internal organ such as the bowel - and later delivered by Caesarean section.[7][8][9] Ectopic implantation of the embryo along the abdominal wall, and resulting placenta growth would, however, be very dangerous and potentially fatal for the host, and is therefore unlikely to be studied in humans.[7][10] Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services, a British fertility clinic, noted that the abdomen is not designed to separate from the placenta during delivery, hence the danger of an ectopic pregnancy. "The question is not 'Can a man do it?'" stated bioethicist Glenn McGee. "It's 'If a man does have a successful pregnancy, can he survive it?

But if farkying me as a liar gets you through your day at work, I'm all for it.



About half way through the documentary, skimming the rest, and I think you're misrepresenting it so far. Is there a specific bit of the documentary that gave you the impression you hold? It's not apparent so far. 

Maybe you're conflating the idea put forward by some in the documentary that there is no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior with the idea that there are no differences whatsoever between the sexes? Even the guy who talks about no differences between male and female brains acknowledges physical differences.
 
2012-11-09 02:37:28 PM

Chiad: You can find a few people asserting nonsense anywhere.


This! While an important element of the pursuit for truth is identifying which ideas are wrong, simply talking about it lends the idea some credence as being worthy of thoughtful evaluation. The idea that men and women are neurologically the same is not even worth talking about because there simply is no evidence, past or present, that supports that notion.

Sometimes the best response to a silly argument is just to ignore it.
 
2012-11-09 02:40:38 PM

Chiad: You can find a few people asserting nonsense anywhere. Calling those people Feminists is like calling bigfoot hunters zoologists.


The problem truly comes in when you realize that most feminists are the ones that are spewing nonsense. Not the minority.
 
2012-11-09 02:42:35 PM

IrishFarmer:
The problem truly comes in when you realize that most feminists are the ones that are spewing nonsense. Not the minority.



Do you have anything at all that backs up that ridiculous assertion, or are you just spewing nonsense?

/data showing 50.1% or more please
 
2012-11-09 02:45:22 PM
So, this guy has a book, and it's about some woman's book, and he's referencing a Slate "article."

So, uh... hm.
 
2012-11-09 02:48:16 PM

Chiad: RoyBatty:
Yeah, I can see how calling the Norwegian orthothodoxy, among others, a few people, can work for your argument that no true feminists are like that.


That documentary is interesting, but it is comparing nature vs nurture camps, and those people you are calling the feminist orthodoxy are 'blank-slatists' who think everything is nurture, and nothing is nature. They were picked out by the comedian host of the show for their entertaining and extreme views. I don't know what point you think you are making, but this isn't making it for you.


I think you need to show that. This documentary was part of a 7 part documentary shown in Norway in 2010. I am not sure of how or why he interviewed those people he did, but the claim on his show is certainly that they represent mainstream thought in Norway, which is one reason he has to go to the US and England to find dissenting views.

Regardless, I note your no true scotsman fallacy.
 
2012-11-09 02:53:32 PM

JerkyMeat: ...meant to be stuffed full of dick.



But almost certainly not your dick,, with a personality like that.
 
2012-11-09 02:59:29 PM

Damnhippyfreak: About half way through the documentary, skimming the rest, and I think you're misrepresenting it so far. Is there a specific bit of the documentary that gave you the impression you hold? It's not apparent so far. 

Maybe you're conflating the idea put forward by some in the documentary that there is no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior with the idea that there are no differences whatsoever between the sexes? Even the guy who talks about no differences between male and female brains acknowledges physical differences.


Maybe it depends on what you think I am claiming.

I was only trying to refute Chiad's point that No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences

Yes, it is certainly true that everyone agrees there are X and Y chromosomes and they have a great deal of importance. It is not true that historically (or now) many feminist ideologues have not set forth a theory that apart from the most basic biological differences, there are no other differences between men and women. And it's clear that in the case of nature vs. nurture, that documentary shows many examples of that.

Instead of arguing No True Scotsman, perhaps a better argument would acknowledge as I did that it depends on who and when you ask. it depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.
 
2012-11-09 03:02:13 PM

RoyBatty:
I think you need to show that. This documentary was part of a 7 part documentary shown in Norway in 2010. I am not sure of how or why he interviewed those people he did, but the claim on his show is certainly that they represent mainstream thought in Norway, which is one reason he has to go to the US and England to find dissenting views.

Regardless, I note your no true scotsman fallacy.




Dissenting views about nature vs. nurture groups. The documentary has nothing to do with feminism in Norway. Did you even watch it? Note that none of the people on the nurture side interviewed have any ties with any international groups. You've found a weird fringe of the Nature vs. Nurture argument being played out regarding gender differences. It's not that they aren't True Feminists, as you try to paint me fallaciously saying, it's that your so-called evidence is a 7 part series run in Norway hosted by a Norwegian comedian, isn't exactly evidence of anything. And you laughable claim that because the series itself claims it is the mainstream thought in Norway, means it is, is either childishly naive, or breathtakingly disingenuous.
 
2012-11-09 03:03:38 PM

Myria: I wonder what this means for us transgender people. Does my body have female immune responses? If so, was that because of having a female brain structure, or because of the hormones I'm taking?


Myria, this is a fascinating question (well for me anyway, I'm an immunologist). It's a known fact that hormones affect the immune system so maybe taking female hormones could result in more reactive "feminine" immune response..but I don't actually know (I'm going to have to do a lit search on this now...damn you! ;)

As for brain structure, years ago when I took I neurobiology class, there was research that in gay men certain (very small) parts of the brain had a structure that was more similar to what was usually seen in women than in heterosexual men. Now this was a long time ago and I don't know if this has been debunked or if there has been any similar research into lesbians or transgender people. This kind of research is often stopped because of protests (gay people are concerned that is gives a medical reason for what's "wrong" with them, homophobes don't like a medical reason for what should be an "immoral lifestyle choice").

Unfortunately sex and gender issues are hot topics and can lead to big drama and bad science, neither of which are of any help to anyone.

/yes I meant to say sex AND gender
//sex = biological form (penis vs vagina)
///gender = sex you identify with (male vs female)
 
2012-11-09 03:06:27 PM

RoyBatty:

Maybe it depends on what you think I am claiming.

I was only trying to refute Chiad's point that No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences

Yes, it is certainly true that everyone agrees there are X and Y chromosomes and they have a great deal of importance. It is not true that historically (or now) many feminist ideologues have not set forth a theory that apart from the most basic biological differences, there are no other differences between men and women. And it's clear that in the case of nature vs. nurture, that documentary shows many examples of that.

Instead of arguing No True Scotsman, perhaps a better argument would acknowledge as I did that it depends on who and when you ask. it depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.




Goalposts have moved quite a bit, haven't they? You tried saying earlier that this documentary had people who claimed men and women had no biological differences at all, even when it came to having children. When t3knomancer said:

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

and you replied:

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.


We can read it right in the thread. I guess I've been trolled.
 
2012-11-09 03:15:16 PM

Chiad: Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.



Goalposts have moved quite a bit, haven't they? You tried saying earlier that this documentary had people who claimed men and women had no biological differences at all, even when it came to having children. When t3knomancer said:

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

and you replied:

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.


We can read it right in the thread. I guess I've been trolled.



Get off it. I never said anything about pregnancy. That was Teknomanser's nonsense that I was replying to.

Of course we see from Teknomanser's Boobies, his argument was entirely ad hominem, and then we see you lurching from one fallacy to another, from no true scotsman to now, anyone that disagrees with you must be a troll.
 
2012-11-09 03:16:15 PM

Chiad: IrishFarmer:
The problem truly comes in when you realize that most feminists are the ones that are spewing nonsense. Not the minority.


Do you have anything at all that backs up that ridiculous assertion, or are you just spewing nonsense?

/data showing 50.1% or more please


i can get you 50.01 and not a percentage point more.
 
2012-11-09 03:17:02 PM
Here's a novel concept for many people:

"Man" != "male"

"Woman" != "female"

This is the central problem with this debate. The words are not interchangeable. A biological male is not necessarily a man. A biological female is not necessarily a woman.

It is willful myopia to say that differing genetics do not account for biological differences. I'm not sure anyone can argue that. What the argument typically entails is that we easily ascribe to unfounded biological differences what can often be ascribed to social or environmental factors... or at the very least, we don't know certain causes but like to posit that "it's just the difference between men and women!" and not "it's the difference we force between men and women".

When a feminist commenter uses the word "woman", it generally does refer to a female person, just statistically, but the concept she invokes is that of gender, not sex. When an opponent of that position is speaking, they use "woman" and "female" interchangeably, and confound the ideas of gender and sex. Obviously if you're not speaking the same language, you're going to argue nonsensically. The article makes no distinction between gender and sex, so it's arguing with a straw feminist that also makes no such distinction, despite the fact that the distinction is central to the debate.

Please, please, PLEASE create medical solutions based on my Y chromosome. I'm all for it. Male and female brains may have the tendency to have particular innate differences... but just like it may once have been stated, with no twing of humor, that housekeeping is "in a woman's blood", more subtly sexist commentary may be made today about neurological differences between sexes that don't actually exist. The contention is not that you can't tell the difference between males and females; it's that you should hold your horses before generalizing behaviors based on those differences.

We used to talk about behavioral differences between races, even going so far as to call some "inferior". We all, by and large, accept that this is wrong even though we are able to find real genetic differences between them. The fact that one is Jewish makes Tay-Sachs Disease a problem; the fact that one is of African descent makes them more likely to have sickle cell anemia. Why, then, do we continue to insist on doing it when it comes to sex?
 
2012-11-09 03:24:54 PM

Chiad: RoyBatty:
I think you need to show that. This documentary was part of a 7 part documentary shown in Norway in 2010. I am not sure of how or why he interviewed those people he did, but the claim on his show is certainly that they represent mainstream thought in Norway, which is one reason he has to go to the US and England to find dissenting views.

Regardless, I note your no true scotsman fallacy.



Dissenting views about nature vs. nurture groups. The documentary has nothing to do with feminism in Norway. Did you even watch it? Note that none of the people on the nurture side interviewed have any ties with any international groups. You've found a weird fringe of the Nature vs. Nurture argument being played out regarding gender differences. It's not that they aren't True Feminists, as you try to paint me fallaciously saying, it's that your so-called evidence is a 7 part series run in Norway hosted by a Norwegian comedian, isn't exactly evidence of anything. And you laughable claim that because the series itself claims it is the mainstream thought in Norway, means it is, is either childishly naive, or breathtakingly disingenuous.


That's right. Gender theory in Norway has nothing to do with feminism Link


Re: the documentary, here is an account of it by a Norwegian member of the EU Science Journalist Association. Note he comes nowhere close to claiming as you do that what is discussed in the documentary is not mainstream thought in Norway or the EU, in fact, just the opposite, he confirms it is mainstream thought.

Norway: Brainwashed Science on TV Creates Storm By EUSJA member Bjørn Vassnes, Science Journalist, Norway:
 
2012-11-09 03:26:39 PM

Almea Tarrant: Myria: I wonder what this means for us transgender people. Does my body have female immune responses? If so, was that because of having a female brain structure, or because of the hormones I'm taking?

Myria, this is a fascinating question (well for me anyway, I'm an immunologist). It's a known fact that hormones affect the immune system so maybe taking female hormones could result in more reactive "feminine" immune response..but I don't actually know (I'm going to have to do a lit search on this now...damn you! ;)

As for brain structure, years ago when I took I neurobiology class, there was research that in gay men certain (very small) parts of the brain had a structure that was more similar to what was usually seen in women than in heterosexual men. Now this was a long time ago and I don't know if this has been debunked or if there has been any similar research into lesbians or transgender people. This kind of research is often stopped because of protests (gay people are concerned that is gives a medical reason for what's "wrong" with them, homophobes don't like a medical reason for what should be an "immoral lifestyle choice").

Unfortunately sex and gender issues are hot topics and can lead to big drama and bad science, neither of which are of any help to anyone.

/yes I meant to say sex AND gender
//sex = biological form (penis vs vagina)
///gender = sex you identify with (male vs female)


My thoughts on this are similar, though from a genetics standpoint, at least on the homosexual standpoint, and the politics of science getting in the way. Especially where sex and gender are concerned

One of the common theories is that "gay genes" (forgive the un-PCness, but I have no other way to describe them.) confer fertility advantages in females, and cause attraction in males (hence, why the genes have continued to exist). However, good farking luck trying to get anyone to ever sign off on this research. Consider the results:

Scientist finds biological basis for homosexuality, People start 'Fixing' it (Look at the hubbub over high-functioning autistics, Deafness, etc.).

Scientist does not find biological basis for homosexuality: The 'It's a choice' crowd starts in.

Transgender studies, it gets even worse. Results have implications that nobody is going to be happy with.
 
2012-11-09 03:27:05 PM
A lot of pointless huffing and puffing in the fark comments, all completely ignoring this vital piece of scientific research

The intensity and prevalence of viral infections are typically higher in males, whereas disease outcome can be worse for females. Females mount higher innate and adaptive immune responses than males, which can result in faster clearance of viruses, but also contributes to increased development of immunopathology. In response to viral vaccines, females mount higher antibody responses and experience more adverse reactions than males. The efficacy of antiviral drugs at reducing viral load differs between the sexes, and the adverse reactions to antiviral drugs are typically greater in females than males. Several variables should be considered when evaluating male/female differences in responses to viral infection and treatment: these include hormones, genes, and gender-specific factors related to access to, and compliance with, treatment. Knowledge that the sexes differ in their responses to viruses and to treatments for viral diseases should influence the recommended course of action differently for males and females.

which I intend to print out and laminate for next time l suffer the dread affliction of man flu and have to take to the couch with a generous application of medicinal fluids.
 
2012-11-09 03:28:03 PM

RoyBatty: Damnhippyfreak: About half way through the documentary, skimming the rest, and I think you're misrepresenting it so far. Is there a specific bit of the documentary that gave you the impression you hold? It's not apparent so far. 

Maybe you're conflating the idea put forward by some in the documentary that there is no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior with the idea that there are no differences whatsoever between the sexes? Even the guy who talks about no differences between male and female brains acknowledges physical differences.

Maybe it depends on what you think I am claiming.


I'm going by this:

RoyBatty: t3knomanser: RoyBatty: It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.


You seem to be claiming in this prior quote that the link you provided showed Norwegian scientists claiming that there are no differences between the sexes, even so far as t3knomanser's statement about men getting pregnant. Is this not accurate?


RoyBatty: I was only trying to refute Chiad's point that No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences


Unfortunately, the documentary you posted (while interesting and thank you for sharing it) really doesn't refute that. They're talking about a specific subset of potential differences in relation to gender roles and neurobiology, and again, this does not mean no differences whatsoever.


RoyBatty: Yes, it is certainly true that everyone agrees there are X and Y chromosomes and they have a great deal of importance. It is not true that historically (or now) many feminist ideologues have not set forth a theory that apart from the most basic biological differences, there are no other differences between men and women. And it's clear that in the case of nature vs. nurture, that documentary shows many examples of that.


Again, is it possible that you accidentally conflated the idea put forward by some in the documentary that there is no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior with the idea that there are no differences whatsoever between the sexes? What you're saying here would seem to agree with what t3knomanser said as noting that there are basic biological differences (such as the immune response in TFA) and said differences are not somehow denied by "feminist ideologues". In short, what you're saying here would argue against TFA.


RoyBatty: Instead of arguing No True Scotsman, perhaps a better argument would acknowledge as I did that it depends on who and when you ask. it depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.


In order to put forward a No True Scotsman fallacy, you would need to first find examples of someone saying "that there are no differences". This doesn't seem to be the case in the documentary you posted, and you yourself seem to contradict yourself in that you acknowledge that "feminist ideologues" recognize "basic biological differences". You haven't found a Scotsman in the first place, true or not.


All this aside, what you're saying here is internally inconsistent. Might I politely suggest that you accidentally made the same mistake as TFA: Since some "feminist ideologues" posit no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior, you accidentally overextended a dislike of this viewpoint towards a false impression of them also saying that there is no differences whatsoever between the sexes. TFA made this mistake of overextending this view to go so far as to cover immune response. It's understandable as a knee-jerk response, and we all do it sometimes, but I highly suggest you abandon this line of reasoning.
 
2012-11-09 03:32:36 PM

draypresct: The author is debating a strawman feminist, not a real person. Less interesting than watching Clint Eastwood debate a chair.


My overall impression of this writer is that his entire viewpoint on "feminism" is based on Rush Limbaugh listening. He may as well have opened with "Angry shrews may disagree with this thinking man's astute conclusion, but who can hear them all the way up in their ivory towers?"

Jeez Louise, what a waste of a column!
 
2012-11-09 03:43:35 PM

RoyBatty: Chiad: Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.



Goalposts have moved quite a bit, haven't they? You tried saying earlier that this documentary had people who claimed men and women had no biological differences at all, even when it came to having children. When t3knomancer said:

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

and you replied:

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.


We can read it right in the thread. I guess I've been trolled.


Get off it. I never said anything about pregnancy. That was Teknomanser's nonsense that I was replying to.

Of course we see from Teknomanser's Boobies, his argument was entirely ad hominem, and then we see you lurching from one fallacy to another, from no true scotsman to now, anyone that disagrees with you must be a troll.



Whoh now. From your prior comment:

RoyBatty: t3knomanser: RoyBatty: It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.


t3knomanser appears to be invoking the obviousness of basic biological differences, such as primary sexual characteristics ("no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant") as refuting your contention that "many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences". In short, that basic biological differences are so obvious that your contention that "many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences" cannot be true. You respond to this by reiterating your "link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that", implying that said link contains assertions of no differences between the sexes, even the basic biological differences that t3knomanser was referring to.

Maybe there's some sort of confusion here if this is not what you meant to convey.

On a side note, it's more of a argument from incredulity than an ad hominem ;)
 
2012-11-09 03:47:19 PM
And the winner is... the pharmaceutical industry, which now gets to produce sex-specific (and possibly gender-specific) overpriced drugs for every disease.
 
2012-11-09 03:53:13 PM

JericoPaladin: Here's a novel concept for many people:

"Man" != "male"

"Woman" != "female"


From Wiktionary:

Noun

man (plural men)

An adult male human.

Noun

woman (plural women)

An adult female human.

See, words have meanings. The word "man," when used as a noun, refers to a human male. Similarly, "woman" refers to a human female. Glad we cleared that up.
 
2012-11-09 03:54:09 PM

Damnhippyfreak: On a side note, it's more of a argument from incredulity than an ad hominem ;)


I see this thread has been in good hands while I've been at work. I can't stay, but let me reiterate my core argument:

No one claims that there are no differences between the sexes, since it's patently obvious that there are. However, many people claim that the plasticity of the human brain means that the underlying biological differences do not justify making behavioral assumptions or predictions of future performance based on those biological differences.

To put it statistically: if you were to graph the standard deviation of some attribute of humanity, say height, you would see that the curves for both men and women would not fall along the same mean. However the intersection of those two curves would cover such a large majority of your population that it would be unwise to take the outliers as examples.

//Sorry, I've been doing a lot of statistics lately. I'm a programmer. WHY AM I DOING STATISTICS? Computers should do stats.
 
2012-11-09 04:01:57 PM

phaseolus: JerkyMeat: ...meant to be stuffed full of dick.


But almost certainly not your dick, with a personality like that.


I suddenly envision a Thanksgiving dinner gone horribly, horribly wrong.
 
2012-11-09 04:15:51 PM

Honest Bender: JericoPaladin: Here's a novel concept for many people:

"Man" != "male"

"Woman" != "female"

From Wiktionary:

Noun

man (plural men)

An adult male human.

Noun

woman (plural women)

An adult female human.

See, words have meanings. The word "man," when used as a noun, refers to a human male. Similarly, "woman" refers to a human female. Glad we cleared that up.


Yes, they do. The rigor of language is that they mean different things to different people. The dictionary is not the final authority on the way we use language, and especially not its context.

A biological male who lives life as a woman is a woman. She's not a man dressing up as a woman. She's a woman. The dictionary definition does not change this fact for her. The dictionary is no more a divine authority than the DSM manual is, which only removed homosexuality as a disorder in 1973 (and maintained a more vague form until 1986).

Now, granted, some people disagree with this contention, even if I believe it is sound. Okay, fine. But the point is, this distinction between gender and sex language exists and is used by certain people. You may disagree with their use of said language, BUT, if you want to argue with them, you need to realize the language they are using is different from yours.

When you say the word "man", you're not saying "a human male" any more than I'm not. The word is loaded with all sorts of underlying assumptions. It's important, during a discussion or even an argument, to find the appropriate context for people's words. If you're going to participate in a gender debate, it would behoove you to realize when the term "man" or "woman" doesn't mean exactly what you think it does. It's not a victory to argue successfully about things that were never said using words that mean something entirely different.
 
2012-11-09 04:17:35 PM
Well, looks like someone has a penis-shaped axe to grind.

// maybe he just has a penis-chip on his shoulder?
 
2012-11-09 04:18:09 PM

t3knomanser: Damnhippyfreak: On a side note, it's more of a argument from incredulity than an ad hominem ;)

I see this thread has been in good hands while I've been at work. I can't stay, but let me reiterate my core argument:

No one claims that there are no differences between the sexes, since it's patently obvious that there are. However, many people claim that the plasticity of the human brain means that the underlying biological differences do not justify making behavioral assumptions or predictions of future performance based on those biological differences.

To put it statistically: if you were to graph the standard deviation of some attribute of humanity, say height, you would see that the curves for both men and women would not fall along the same mean. However the intersection of those two curves would cover such a large majority of your population that it would be unwise to take the outliers as examples.

//Sorry, I've been doing a lot of statistics lately. I'm a programmer. WHY AM I DOING STATISTICS? Computers should do stats.


...It's kind of freaky that I had the exact same thought and actually considered doing some plotting in MATLAB to see exactly how many model women were "better" at some random metric than men given two identically distributed curves that differed only in their mean.
 
2012-11-09 04:18:30 PM

Almea Tarrant: Myria: I wonder what this means for us transgender people. Does my body have female immune responses? If so, was that because of having a female brain structure, or because of the hormones I'm taking?

Myria, this is a fascinating question (well for me anyway, I'm an immunologist). It's a known fact that hormones affect the immune system so maybe taking female hormones could result in more reactive "feminine" immune response..but I don't actually know (I'm going to have to do a lit search on this now...damn you! ;)

As for brain structure, years ago when I took I neurobiology class, there was research that in gay men certain (very small) parts of the brain had a structure that was more similar to what was usually seen in women than in heterosexual men. Now this was a long time ago and I don't know if this has been debunked or if there has been any similar research into lesbians or transgender people. This kind of research is often stopped because of protests (gay people are concerned that is gives a medical reason for what's "wrong" with them, homophobes don't like a medical reason for what should be an "immoral lifestyle choice").

Unfortunately sex and gender issues are hot topics and can lead to big drama and bad science, neither of which are of any help to anyone.

/yes I meant to say sex AND gender
//sex = biological form (penis vs vagina)
///gender = sex you identify with (male vs female)


Some of the difference could be attributed to minor histocompability antigens. You see this play out in graft/transplant rejection and in miscarriage, for example.
 
2012-11-09 04:24:55 PM

t3knomanser: Damnhippyfreak: On a side note, it's more of a argument from incredulity than an ad hominem ;)

I see this thread has been in good hands while I've been at work. I can't stay, but let me reiterate my core argument:

No one claims that there are no differences between the sexes, since it's patently obvious that there are. However, many people claim that the plasticity of the human brain means that the underlying biological differences do not justify making behavioral assumptions or predictions of future performance based on those biological differences.

To put it statistically: if you were to graph the standard deviation of some attribute of humanity, say height, you would see that the curves for both men and women would not fall along the same mean. However the intersection of those two curves would cover such a large majority of your population that it would be unwise to take the outliers as examples.

//Sorry, I've been doing a lot of statistics lately. I'm a programmer. WHY AM I DOING STATISTICS? Computers should do stats.


You've summed up the parts of "Pink Brain, Blue Brain" that I've read so far. They present some nice graphs showing the actual degree of overlap in a number of cognitive areas, along with the differences in the means.

/And yet, despite certain people's fears, the author of the book has yet to be sued or harassed by the vast feminist movement that researchers apparently live in fear of. People can and do discuss these things in scientific forums. 

//Statistics is cool . . . join us . . . don't be afraid. It will only hurt a little bit at first . . .
 
2012-11-09 04:25:42 PM

JericoPaladin: The rigor of language is that they mean different things to different people.


Actually, the entire point of language is that words mean the same thing. That's what enables communication... If blooby purple sunday elbow, four alfalfa cold spring. See how that works?
 
2012-11-09 04:29:36 PM

Damnhippyfreak: In order to put forward a No True Scotsman fallacy, you would need to first find examples of someone saying "that there are no differences". This doesn't seem to be the case in the documentary you posted, and you yourself seem to contradict yourself in that you acknowledge that "feminist ideologues" recognize "basic biological differences". You haven't found a Scotsman in the first place, true or not.


All this aside, what you're saying here is internally inconsistent. Might I politely suggest that you accidentally made the same mistake as TFA: Since some "feminist ideologues" posit no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior, you accidentally overextended a dislike of this viewpoint towards a false impression of them also saying that there is no differences whatsoever between the sexes. TFA made this mistake of overextending this view to go so far as to cover immune response. It's understandable as a knee-jerk response, and we all do it sometimes, but I highly suggest you abandon this line of reasoning.


Well it is certainly true that if we insist that the statement "feminists say there is no difference between the sexes" must mean that feminists say there is no X or Y chromosome or any biological differences whatsoever, that indeed it would be difficult to find anyone on the planet who has said that.

Regardless, we have a rich history of feminists that can recognize biological differences saying those differences don't matter at all. They say that wrt nature vs. nurture. They say that wrt employment (firefighting). They say that wrt the legal system.

But if we force each of those arguments to include the notion that there is literally no difference whatsoever between the sexes, then certainly my claim fails.

But if we do that, then we are being ahistorical wrt feminist theory.
 
2012-11-09 04:29:59 PM

hstein3:
Some of the difference could be attributed to minor histocompability antigens. You see this play out in graft/transplant rejection and in miscarriage, for example.


That's interesting - I hadn't known that there were systematic antigen differences between men & women. I'd attributed the higher rejection rate among women to the fact that they're exposed to the father's DNA if they bear children, sensitizing them to the fathers' antigens.
 
2012-11-09 04:30:02 PM
[billoreillycantexplainthat.gif]
 
2012-11-09 04:31:45 PM

WhippingBoy: Oh feminists! You were once a much-needed avenue for important social justice reforms. Now you're just a pathetic self-parody who stagger around comically for my amusement!


Thanks for lumping us all together, dick.

PROTIP: If you think it's bullshiat that (for example) women make 74 cents to the man's dollar, you're a feminist. We're not all angry lesbians with armpit hair poking out from the torn-off sleeve of a flannel shirt. Not all of us have vaginas, even.
 
2012-11-09 04:32:50 PM

JericoPaladin: A biological male who lives life as a woman is a woman.


He's a transgendered man. See, we already have a discrete term for that type of person.

When you say the word "man", you're not saying "a human male" any more than I'm not.

Yes. I am. When I say man, I mean a human male. I don't mean a person who identifies with the male gender. If it were a man that identified as male, I'd also call that person a man. If it were a woman that identified as a male, I'd call that woman transgendered.

If you're going to participate in a gender debate, it would behoove you to realize when the term "man" or "woman" doesn't mean exactly what you think it does.

If you're going to communicate with other people, it would behoove you to learn the definitions of words. If you feel like you need to bend the meaning of a word to mean something else, go grab your dictionary. Chances are, there's already a word for what you're trying to describe.
 
2012-11-09 04:37:41 PM

Honest Bender: JericoPaladin: A biological male who lives life as a woman is a woman.

He's She's a transgendered woman. See, we already have a discrete term for that type of person.


Do we?
 
2012-11-09 04:39:34 PM

Dr Dreidel: Do we?


Well, we in the non-ignorant group do... I guess you can be willfully ignorant if you want but it really speaks poorly of you.
 
2012-11-09 04:41:21 PM

RoyBatty: Well it is certainly true that if we insist that the statement "feminists say there is no difference between the sexes" must mean that feminists say there is no X or Y chromosome or any biological differences whatsoever, that indeed it would be difficult to find anyone on the planet who has said that.

Regardless, we have a rich history of feminists that can recognize biological differences saying those differences don't matter at all. They say that wrt nature vs. nurture. They say that wrt employment (firefighting). They say that wrt the legal system.

Quick note: I think your post mentioning firefighting and legal theory is a bit off-topic. The article that started this debate claimed to refute the 'feminists' who didn't recognize differences between the sexes with a reference to an article on immunology. Do you have a reference to feminists who claim that biological differences don't make any difference at all . . . in immunology? In nephrology? In cardiology? In (just about any)ology? Not claims of "I didn't get published because the feminist/evolutionist/whateverist conspiracy is shutting me down". Actual feminists who state that the biological differences between men and women don't make any difference in any particular aspect of medicine?

Feminists have said that men & women should be treated equally before the legal system - I'll give you that. One of the early feminists in the UK claimed that women should have an equal chance to raise children as men (at the time, men had the right to unilaterally prevent the mother of their children from having any contact with them). There have been a number of other examples since then. I don't really see a problem with most of these.


But if we force each of those arguments to include the notion that there is literally no difference whatsoever between the sexes, then certainly my claim fails.

But if we do that, then we are being ahistorical wrt feminist theory.


Reference, please?

I suggest reading about actual feminist history. It's kind of interesting finding out what the feminists in various countries were fighting for over different periods of time.
 
2012-11-09 04:56:57 PM

Honest Bender: Dr Dreidel: Do we?

Well, we in the non-ignorant group do... I guess you can be willfully ignorant if you want but it really speaks poorly of you.


trans = across/beyond/on the opposite side
gender = gender

Someone born a man who now "lives life as a woman" has traveled "across genders". What's the difference in calling her a transgendered woman and calling him a transgendered man?

Her preference. Don't be a jerk and hide behind semantics.
 
2012-11-09 04:56:59 PM

Honest Bender: JericoPaladin: The rigor of language is that they mean different things to different people.

Actually, the entire point of language is that words mean the same thing. That's what enables communication... If blooby purple sunday elbow, four alfalfa cold spring. See how that works?


You have a very myopic view of the means by which we communicate. A dictionary is a useful tool in enummerating the words we use in our language, but only through context do we actually acquire the ability to communicate, and dealing with the nuances of the way we use language only comes through time but, more importantly, through awareness. We can't ignore the setting in which we use language. Surely you don't believe that people really communicate primarily on their understanding of what's going on in the dictionary? Just recently, some dictionary (can't remember which, sorry) updated its meaning of the word "literally" to mean "figuratively". Now, I hate that usage to hell and back, but people do it, it's the exaggeration that is key, so what once meant "exactly what happened" now means "not actually what happened". I surrender to the evolution of language. It was added to the dictionary because people were using it in that context; people didn't start using it because a new edition of Websters came out.

You declare that a male living as a woman is a "transgendered man" by fiat, not by any logical means. You continue to use the male pronoun because you don't have any exposure to the concept of genderqueerness, where the accepted form is to use the pronoun for the declared gender of the person, not their sex. What you believe is the absolutely right way to speak is actually just provincial. The people who deal with being genderqueer every single day have their usage; why do you believe that an arbitary person completely removed from that universe would be unequivocally correct about it?

Language is alive. It evolves, it changes, it takes on different forms among different people, in different places, in different times and in different contexts. The dictionary will not save you.

The overall point, lest we forget, is that the author of this article was not able to correctly communicate his views because he didn't have the ability to understand the language used by his opponents. We're all both perpetrators and victims of this on a regular basis; words are, despite Webster, incredibly easy to misunderstand. We do a lot better at it when we realize this is true instead of pandering to absolutist notions.
 
2012-11-09 05:15:21 PM

draypresct: Quick note: I think your post mentioning firefighting and legal theory is a bit off-topic. The article that started this debate claimed to refute the 'feminists' who didn't recognize differences between the sexes with a reference to an article on immunology. Do you have a reference to feminists who claim that biological differences don't make any difference at all . . . in immunology? In nephrology? In cardiology? In (just about any)ology? Not claims of "I didn't get published because the feminist/evolutionist/whateverist conspiracy is shutting me down". Actual feminists who state that the biological differences between men and women don't make any difference in any particular aspect of medicine?


Yeah, there's been a lot of pushback against me for venturing outside of immunology.

And if that's what Chiad was claiming:

No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences. I'm getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things.

Which is what I responded to, then absolutely, I have no idea if anyone ever said men and women have no differences wrt immunology.

But I don't think that is what Chiad was claiming, which is what I responded to.

And the article really wasn't about immunology either. It was about it being politically incorrect in certain circles to suggest men and women are different.

So do feminists say that there is no difference between men and women in a ology?

The author uses an Amazon description of Cordelia Fine's book, "Delusions of Gender" which

Passionately argued and unfailingly astute, Delusions of Gender provides us with a much-needed corrective to the belief that men's and women's brains are intrinsically different-a belief that, as Fine shows with insight and humor, all too often works to the detriment of ourselves and our society.

Would it be accurate to paraphrase Cordelia Fine as saying, "wrt the brainz, there is no difference between men's and women's brainz?"

Here she is again:

i.imgur.com

So yes, there are certainly contemporary, highly respected feminists that say that the biological differences between men and women don't make any difference in a aspect of medicine.
 
2012-11-09 05:20:37 PM
This is satire, right?
 
2012-11-09 05:21:22 PM

RoyBatty: Would it be accurate to paraphrase Cordelia Fine as saying, "wrt the brainz, there is no difference between men's and women's brainz?"


Nope.
 
2012-11-09 05:24:43 PM
The stupid in that article is so strong it hurts.

Nobody has ever claimed that medical treatment should be identical between men and women if their physiological differences merit different treatment. Nobody thinks men need pap smears or that women should check for testicular cancer.

The question rather is "can men and women be equally good in the field of immunology?" and the answer is yes.
 
2012-11-09 05:32:00 PM

cefm: The stupid in that article is so strong it hurts.

Nobody has ever claimed that medical treatment should be identical between men and women if their physiological differences merit different treatment. Nobody thinks men need pap smears or that women should check for testicular cancer.

The question rather is "can men and women be equally good in the field of immunology?" and the answer is yes.


Not even - the argument is literally fighting the strawman of "feminists claim men and women are identical" with a study showing that men and women may respond differently to viruses and treatments. He could likewise have argued "if men and women are identical like feminists say, then how come men have penises and women don't, smarty-pants feminists?"
 
2012-11-09 05:54:15 PM
All(?) animals have behaviors that define roles within their species. Some are confined to a single sex and other are shared by both sexes. In human we blur this with our complex societies and penchant for utilizing learned behavior over instinct. But, that does not mean that the vestiges of our old animal roles do not lie just under the surface of our rational minds.
 
2012-11-09 06:01:22 PM

nmemkha: of our old animal roles


Great... here comes the part where men are supposedly angry warmongering rapemonsters who can only gain control of themselves by becoming feminists...
 
2012-11-09 06:36:59 PM

JohnnyC: nmemkha: of our old animal roles

Great... here comes the part where men are supposedly angry warmongering rapemonsters who can only gain control of themselves by becoming feminists...


Personally, I feel we should be understanding of our animal natures (young men will masturbate - at lot), but at the same time ensure they do not cause harm or infringe on the rights of others (rape, sexual harassment, etc.)

It not a black/white issue, but rather a vigil of ensuring the inalienable rights of both sexes are not infringed by the other.
 
2012-11-09 07:14:18 PM
There are many people out there who have brains that don't conform to what the supposed standard brain for their sex is. There are men out there who are great at picking out gifts and can't navigate their way out of a paper bag and women who terrible at the whole emotionally sensitive thing and prefer to deal with information rather than people.
 
2012-11-09 07:19:53 PM

Chiad: No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences. I'm getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things.


The article is strawman for sure, but don't try to suggest there aren't feminists who are anti-science. There are "equality" feminists-which everyone of sound mind should be-and there are political feminists who have a whole philosophical worldview that borders on the insane and has no real evidence to back it up. If science doesn't agree with their worldview then the science HAS to be wrong, including the entire field of evolutionary psychology and much of evolutionary biology.

The political feminists have much in common with the religion right when it comes to sex. Basically, that men looking at Playboy is evil, causes rape, etc. And as to evolution, while fundamentalists deny it happened, feminists will say they believe it happened but it can't possibly have caused any differences between men and women other than a small subset of physical ones.
 
2012-11-09 08:02:47 PM

JerkyMeat: I submit the quote from TFA Ignoring the entire field of biology in dedication to the farkette who scoffed at my biology argument a few weeks ago in some thread, when I reminded the women of fark, no matter how well you do in business or how much education you have, that little pussy of yours was meant to be stuffed full of dick.

Happy Friday!


Your elegant social brain is meant to stop you from actually saying obnoxious drivel like this by reminding you that expressing such obvious disdain for your fellow humans will only ever be met with rage and hostility. Yet here you are; making an ass of yourself in public -in a completely different thread you submitted for that sole purpose even(!)- because you're too nebbish to let go of having your ass handed to you in an internet argument, and too much of a coward to actually confront your vanquisher with a retort. Seems like there's a lot of things we humans of all genders and identities do with our physical inheritance that doesn't jive with bland biological determinism, doesn't it?

Oh, and Passive-Aggressive Friday to you!
 
2012-11-09 08:40:04 PM
I'm going to remove gender from the following post and only focus on sex (genitalia havingness) of people.

From this thread we've had people (almost universally) state that there are differences between men and women (once again sex, not gender). How come it also is that things should be equal, but not when it doesn't favor females? I'm all for equal rights, etc., but there is one very specific example that really bothers me, because it puts lives at risk.

Any guesses? Firemen (or firepeople I guess). Women want to be able to be firemen (and cops I would guess, and the army probably), but there are different physical fitness tests for each sex (once again, not gender). If I'm passed out in my apartment and there's a fire, I don't give a crap about equality in the workforce. I care about someone being able to carry my 200+ pound ass out of said burning apartment.

Is this sexist?

//If it is, I can still live with that, because not everyone is equal, the world isn't always fair, and it's ridiculous that a rock band has to provide an interpreter for their show because of AWD.
 
2012-11-09 09:01:14 PM

Myria: I wonder what this means for us transgender people. Does my body have female immune responses? If so, was that because of having a female brain structure, or because of the hormones I'm taking?


Biologically speaking:

Penis = male
Vagina = female

Just because youve loaded your system with unnaturral hormones doesnt mean anything. Your a man or woman loaded up on hormones/testosteron. Which fundementally differs from a man or woman in there natural biologic state. The good news, science doesnt care whom you identfy as, so can we all stop pretending just because a boy puts on dresses it means there is no such thing as sex or gender
 
2012-11-09 09:44:22 PM

mjjt: A lot of pointless huffing and puffing in the fark comments, all completely ignoring this vital piece of scientific research

The intensity and prevalence of viral infections are typically higher in males, whereas disease outcome can be worse for females. Females mount higher innate and adaptive immune responses than males, which can result in faster clearance of viruses, but also contributes to increased development of immunopathology. In response to viral vaccines, females mount higher antibody responses and experience more adverse reactions than males. The efficacy of antiviral drugs at reducing viral load differs between the sexes, and the adverse reactions to antiviral drugs are typically greater in females than males. Several variables should be considered when evaluating male/female differences in responses to viral infection and treatment: these include hormones, genes, and gender-specific factors related to access to, and compliance with, treatment. Knowledge that the sexes differ in their responses to viruses and to treatments for viral diseases should influence the recommended course of action differently for males and females.

which I intend to print out and laminate for next time l suffer the dread affliction of man flu and have to take to the couch with a generous application of medicinal fluids.


You realize that this will only benefit you in the short term. A woman flu appears to require longer term care.
 
2012-11-09 09:46:12 PM

JericoPaladin: Here's a novel concept for many people:

"Man" != "male"

"Woman" != "female"


Look, I love having some overly politically correct terminology to make fun of as much as the next guy, but you're not going to make the gender =/= sex thing happen. While technically true in other languages, in English the correlation is 1:1, you can't take things that are de facto synonyms and make them not just by the sheer power of wishful thinking. That's not how languages work.

The distinction between a man and a boy is cultural, yes, but the distinction between a man and a woman isn't, it's physical/biological. Deal with it, stupid man world or no. Maybe grab some cheesecake to calm you down.
 
2012-11-09 10:04:40 PM

Heron: JerkyMeat: I submit the quote from TFA Ignoring the entire field of biology in dedication to the farkette who scoffed at my biology argument a few weeks ago in some thread, when I reminded the women of fark, no matter how well you do in business or how much education you have, that little pussy of yours was meant to be stuffed full of dick.

Happy Friday!

Your elegant social brain is meant to stop you from actually saying obnoxious drivel like this by reminding you that expressing such obvious disdain for your fellow humans will only ever be met with rage and hostility. Yet here you are; making an ass of yourself in public -in a completely different thread you submitted for that sole purpose even(!)- because you're too nebbish to let go of having your ass handed to you in an internet argument, and too much of a coward to actually confront your vanquisher with a retort. Seems like there's a lot of things we humans of all genders and identities do with our physical inheritance that doesn't jive with bland biological determinism, doesn't it?

Oh, and Passive-Aggressive Friday to you!


+1 for you working in the word nebbish!

Hey, I only said what it was meant for, not how it was currently being used.
 
2012-11-09 10:05:48 PM
How does a feminist explain immunology?

I'll go with, knocking boots with everyone except the author of this article boosts a womans' immune system.
 
2012-11-09 10:07:09 PM

t3knomanser: In certain circles, it is politically incorrect to suggest that men and women are different.

Oh, christ, you're really breaking out this strawman? And then bringing up the guy who basically tried to extend the much derided The Bell Curve to gender bias in engineering professions?

Hey, buddy, I know you've never seen a vagina nor touched a breast, but everybody else is quite aware that women are different than men in several important ways.


Well said, go forth and boost immune systems. ;)
 
2012-11-09 10:28:23 PM
Ah, I see the derpers have created a "sciencey" site. I couldn't get past the second paragraph of derp.
 
2012-11-10 12:09:50 AM

draypresct: strawman feminist


Chauvinist!!
 
2012-11-10 01:55:51 AM
Ah yes, it's that one thread where that one guy, who tries to claim that everyone on the other side holds a certain ridiculous view, is arguing with that other guy, who tries to claim that no one on that holds that ridiculous view.
 
2012-11-10 03:00:27 AM

JericoPaladin: A biological male who lives life as a woman is a woman.


No, he's not. He's a man in a dress. Or a man with his dick cut off. He dose not have ovaries, a uterus, or female hormones coursing through those hairy veins (at least not without needles).
He may think like a woman, and act like a woman, but that's the extent of it.
 
2012-11-10 03:04:46 AM

Honest Bender: If blooby purple sunday elbow, four alfalfa cold spring.


How dare you insult my mother!
 
2012-11-10 04:03:50 AM

ReverendJasen: JericoPaladin: A biological male who lives life as a woman is a woman.

No, he's not. He's a man in a dress. Or a man with his dick cut off. He dose not have ovaries, a uterus, or female hormones coursing through those hairy veins (at least not without needles).
He may think like a woman, and act like a woman, but that's the extent of it.


If it walks like a duck, and swins like a duck, and flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, even if it was born a swan, do we call it a duck or a swan?
 
2012-11-10 04:18:56 AM
As outwardly duck-like it may be, it still can't lay duck eggs. We can change the way we look or act, but we still can't change our genes.
 
2012-11-10 04:46:12 AM

JericoPaladin: Here's a novel concept for many people:

"Man" != "male"

"Woman" != "female"

This is the central problem with this debate. The words are not interchangeable. A biological male is not necessarily a man. A biological female is not necessarily a woman.

It is willful myopia to say that differing genetics do not account for biological differences. I'm not sure anyone can argue that. What the argument typically entails is that we easily ascribe to unfounded biological differences what can often be ascribed to social or environmental factors... or at the very least, we don't know certain causes but like to posit that "it's just the difference between men and women!" and not "it's the difference we force between men and women".

When a feminist commenter uses the word "woman", it generally does refer to a female person, just statistically, but the concept she invokes is that of gender, not sex. When an opponent of that position is speaking, they use "woman" and "female" interchangeably, and confound the ideas of gender and sex. Obviously if you're not speaking the same language, you're going to argue nonsensically. The article makes no distinction between gender and sex, so it's arguing with a straw feminist that also makes no such distinction, despite the fact that the distinction is central to the debate.

Please, please, PLEASE create medical solutions based on my Y chromosome. I'm all for it. Male and female brains may have the tendency to have particular innate differences... but just like it may once have been stated, with no twing of humor, that housekeeping is "in a woman's blood", more subtly sexist commentary may be made today about neurological differences between sexes that don't actually exist. The contention is not that you can't tell the difference between males and females; it's that you should hold your horses before generalizing behaviors based on those differences.

We used to talk about behavioral differences between races, even going so far as to cal ...


The problem is that, in reality, they are what they are. Modern technology has made it possible to change it, but that is only a result of technological advancement and not an natural development of transgendered people, who don't really offer the species anything obvious.
 
2012-11-10 06:17:11 AM
What a bunch of bullshiat. Defensive, paranoid man-child sets up a straw-feminist and knocks it down. Whoopee.
What a snotty little asshole.
 
2012-11-10 06:19:12 AM

aerojockey: Ah yes, it's that one thread where that one guy, who tries to claim that everyone on the other side holds a certain ridiculous view, is arguing with that other guy, who tries to claim that no one on that holds that ridiculous view.


Thank you. That sums up the article and thread perfectly.
 
2012-11-10 08:04:31 AM

t3knomanser: Hey, buddy, I know you've never seen a vagina nor touched a breast, but everybody else is quite aware that women are different than men in several important ways


You might want to look up the definition of "everybody."

There are many out there is seem to think than any statement that women are different than men means not equal to men.

It is the same as not voting for Obama or being opposed to his policies is considered racism by some.
 
2012-11-10 08:07:20 AM
An article in Slate describes how this timidity has outraged female scientists, two of whom "called the aversion to studying innate differences anti-scientific and an impediment to understanding mental illness in women."

There is no impediment as we understand women's mental illness easily-if you are woman you are mentally ill.
 
2012-11-10 08:55:30 AM
www.meh.ro
 
2012-11-10 09:12:37 AM

Theaetetus: RoyBatty: Would it be accurate to paraphrase Cordelia Fine as saying, "wrt the brainz, there is no difference between men's and women's brainz?"

Nope.


This.
 
2012-11-10 10:17:08 AM

Browncoat: [www.meh.ro image 600x448]


That's right. Keep up that war on women for the next four years. It worked so well last week.
 
2012-11-10 11:15:52 AM
Oh no, women have different immune responses than men. Certainly this means they aren't as good in science and math.
 
2012-11-10 11:19:40 AM

draypresct: Theaetetus: RoyBatty: Would it be accurate to paraphrase Cordelia Fine as saying, "wrt the brainz, there is no difference between men's and women's brainz?"

Nope.

This.


And yet, neither you nor Theaetetus can offer anything other than "No".

Perhaps you can do us all the favor of explaining how Cordelia Fine is not saying there is no difference in the brains of men and women?
 
2012-11-10 01:21:08 PM

t3knomanser: In certain circles, it is politically incorrect to suggest that men and women are different.

Oh, christ, you're really breaking out this strawman? And then bringing up the guy who basically tried to extend the much derided The Bell Curve to gender bias in engineering professions?

Hey, buddy, I know you've never seen a vagina nor touched a breast, but everybody else is quite aware that women are different than men in several important ways.


Well, women live longer for one. Almost as if there were female carbon atoms that know to age differently.
 
2012-11-10 07:20:42 PM

RoyBatty: draypresct: Theaetetus: RoyBatty: Would it be accurate to paraphrase Cordelia Fine as saying, "wrt the brainz, there is no difference between men's and women's brainz?"

Nope.

This.

And yet, neither you nor Theaetetus can offer anything other than "No".

Perhaps you can do us all the favor of explaining how Cordelia Fine is not saying there is no difference in the brains of men and women?


As of yet, I haven't seen any explanation of how RoyBatty is not saying that he has a special fetish for goats. Clearly, in the absence of any such explanation, we must assume that's what he's saying.

... Or we could be reasonable, rational people, and not make people jump through hoops to distance themselves from things they never said. Instead, as rational, reasonable people, when someone says, "person X is saying this irrational thing," we should respond by asking that person to prove that X ever said that, particularly if X isn't here to defend themselves from such baseless accusations.

... Or we could be like Roy.
 
2012-11-10 07:43:32 PM

Theaetetus: As of yet, I haven't seen any explanation of how RoyBatty is not saying that he has a special fetish for goats. Clearly, in the absence of any such explanation, we must assume that's what he's saying.

... Or we could be reasonable, rational people, and not make people jump through hoops to distance themselves from things they never said. Instead, as rational, reasonable people, when someone says, "person X is saying this irrational thing," we should respond by asking that person to prove that X ever said that, particularly if X isn't here to defend themselves from such baseless accusations.

... Or we could be like Roy.


First Theaetetus, before you go off crying to the admins to have me banned again for hurting your feelings, again, I hope you recognize you're the one that started this conversation.

Second,

Cordelia Fine is a Ph.D neuroscientist and psychologist and writes frequently in magazines and books about gender differences and the lack thereof in the brain, my asking you to demonstrate that she does not implicitly argue again and again that the male and female brains are not different is extremely germane and should be almost immediately obvious from reading any of her works.

However, instead of showing us using Fine's own works that Fine does not think that men and women's brains are mostly alike, which my actual clippings of Fine's work seem to demonstrate, you, immediately accuse me of having a goat fetish and saying I have to prove I do not, and say it is unreasonable of me to ask you to demonstrate something that Fine has never said.

So let's review, in response to a description of Fine in an interview as saying that she can't accept that boys and girls brains are as different as we assume, I ask, would it be accurate to paraphrase Cordelia Fine as saying, "wrt the brainz, there is no difference between men's and women's brainz?"

I would think this is a straight forward question and easy to answer by picking up her latest book and reading it.

But since you seem to find it difficult to argue that point, you end up forced to go back to your common methods of ad hominem.

So once more from Theaetetus, we see that when all else fails Theaetetus, lawyer, pounds his dick.

Maybe you should ban yourself from these threads Theaetetus, it's a lot better than crying to the admins.
 
2012-11-10 09:18:06 PM

RoyBatty: draypresct: Theaetetus: RoyBatty: Would it be accurate to paraphrase Cordelia Fine as saying, "wrt the brainz, there is no difference between men's and women's brainz?"

Nope.

This.

And yet, neither you nor Theaetetus can offer anything other than "No".

Perhaps you can do us all the favor of explaining how Cordelia Fine is not saying there is no difference in the brains of men and women?


The quote from the article you cite was that men's and women's brains aren't as different as we assume. You have interpreted this as "are identical", which is not what she said or meant.

You've spent the entire thread trying to attribute some utterly ridiculous positions to feminists. I'll suggest sitting down and having a beer with an actual, average, everyday feminist and finding out what their positions really are.
 
2012-11-11 07:28:08 AM

draypresct: And yet, despite certain people's fears, the author of the book has yet to be sued or harassed by the vast feminist movement that researchers apparently live in fear of.


Feminists, like Republicans, don't like statisticals.
 
2012-11-11 07:43:04 AM

Dr Dreidel: Thanks for lumping us all together, dick.


It's ok for feminists to do it about men. In my experience, feminists are the nastiest trolls you will ever run into. I posted a diary on DailyKos several years arguing that NOW-style feminism damaged the Democratic party and that business actually loved it. Reading the comments was like being whipped by angry scorpions. If I recall correctly there were a few useful comments that enabled me to refine my argument. The rest was a combination of "you go girl" to each other and raving hysteria so bad I wanted to hand out vibrator discount coupons.

Wait. Here's the link "Why Republicans love feminists."
 
2012-11-11 07:57:02 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Well, women live longer for one. Almost as if there were female carbon atoms that know to age differently.


That's changing. Despite more males than females being born, life expectancy for American woman (especially poor uneducated women in the South) is declining. I haven't examined these issues in many years, so I can't confidently attribute it to more women entering the workforce and taking on risky and/or high stress jobs, but I would not be surprised to learn that it's an important factor.
 
2012-11-11 05:45:39 PM

Need_MindBleach: That was one hell of a strawpersonstrawchild.


FTFY
 
2012-11-11 05:46:15 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Need_MindBleach: That was one hell of a strawpersonstrawchild.

FTFY


damnit damnit damnit.

strawperchild
 
2012-11-11 11:20:34 PM

RoyBatty: Cordelia Fine is a Ph.D neuroscientist and psychologist and writes frequently in magazines and books about gender differences and the lack thereof in the brain


... No, she doesn't... which is why:
my asking you to demonstrate that she does not implicitly argue again and again that the male and female brains are not different is extremely
inane.

RoyBatty: However, instead of showing us using Fine's own works that Fine does not think that men and women's brains are mostly alike


As equally easy a task as showing us using Fine's own works that Fine does not think that RoyBatty loves goats. Since she never says it, reasonable people would assume she never intended to assert it. But then there's Roy - "if she's silent on something, she surely must have meant it!"

RoyBatty: you, immediately accuse me of having a goat fetish and saying I have to prove I do not, and say it is unreasonable of me to ask you to demonstrate something that Fine has never said.


Yes, Sparky. I'm making fun of you.
If that wasn't clear, I'm saying that "the likelihood of you having a goat fetish" and "Fine having said that men and women's brains have no differences whatsoever" are equal.

RoyBatty: So let's review, in response to a description of Fine in an interview as saying that she can't accept that boys and girls brains are as different as we assume


1) A "description"? So you acknowledge that she never said that? Shiat, then why are you trying so hard to put words in her mouth?
2) The words you're trying to put in her mouth are "she can't accept that boys and girls brains are as different as we assume," so why are you arguing that she's saying there are "no differences whatsoever"? Are you even sure what you're saying?
Shiat, Roy, I think it's time to get off the bottle. You're starting to worry me.

I ask, would it be accurate to paraphrase Cordelia Fine as saying, "wrt the brainz, there is no difference between men's and women's brainz?"

Nope. But we answered that already. Between this and the above, I'm really concerned for you.

RoyBatty: I would think this is a straight forward question and easy to answer by picking up her latest book and reading it.


Yes, you should do that. And maybe when you come back with page numbers and quotations rather than "descriptions of interviews", we'll stop saying "whoo, boy, there goes RoyBatty again, putting words in someone's mouth, lying about what they said. I wonder why he has such an agenda? What exactly is he trying to hide? What feelings of shame does he have, deep inside, that give rise to such hostility that he has to lash out at everyone around him? Doesn't he realize that if he could be honest for a change, both with us and with himself, he might finally find the peace that he's so scared doesn't exist? Poor Roy... Poor, poor Roy."
 
2012-11-12 11:30:31 AM

JericoPaladin: Here's a novel concept for many people:

"Man" != "male"

"Woman" != "female"

This is the central problem with this debate. The words are not interchangeable. A biological male is not necessarily a man. A biological female is not necessarily a woman.

It is willful myopia to say that differing genetics do not account for biological differences. I'm not sure anyone can argue that. What the argument typically entails is that we easily ascribe to unfounded biological differences what can often be ascribed to social or environmental factors... or at the very least, we don't know certain causes but like to posit that "it's just the difference between men and women!" and not "it's the difference we force between men and women".

When a feminist commenter uses the word "woman", it generally does refer to a female person, just statistically, but the concept she invokes is that of gender, not sex. When an opponent of that position is speaking, they use "woman" and "female" interchangeably, and confound the ideas of gender and sex. Obviously if you're not speaking the same language, you're going to argue nonsensically. The article makes no distinction between gender and sex, so it's arguing with a straw feminist that also makes no such distinction, despite the fact that the distinction is central to the debate.

Please, please, PLEASE create medical solutions based on my Y chromosome. I'm all for it. Male and female brains may have the tendency to have particular innate differences... but just like it may once have been stated, with no twing of humor, that housekeeping is "in a woman's blood", more subtly sexist commentary may be made today about neurological differences between sexes that don't actually exist. The contention is not that you can't tell the difference between males and females; it's that you should hold your horses before generalizing behaviors based on those differences.

We used to talk about behavioral differences between races, even going so far as to cal ...


How about no? This sounds like an argument for that "gender identity" bullshiat. It does not exist. Gender and sex are equivalent. They're the same damn thing. It's an exploitation of English's oversaturation of words if anything since there's too many out there that mean essentially the same thing. People are constantly trying to overcomplicate something that should be very simple. The ONLY thing that determines what sex/gender you are is biology/DNA/Anatomy. It's a physical trait and NOTHING else. What's in your head is completely and utterly irrelevant when making those determinations. When someone constantly wants to "identify" with another sex/gender that is soley a mental problem, not a problem with the body. Yet, people want to impose socio-political changes to the chemistry & science of our minds & bodies and that is just WRONG.
 
2012-11-12 02:02:20 PM

JericoPaladin: A biological male who lives life as a woman is a woman


Boys have a potato and girls have a potato.

there is no difference
 
2012-11-12 06:47:45 PM
I've never understood the problem between male/female. If you have a penis, you're a man. If you have a vagina, you're a woman. If you have both, you're a hermaphrodite. Why is this such a difficult concept?
 
Displayed 118 of 118 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report