Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

White civil rights leader has pretended to be black for years

bimble said:
But if you're going to say women like pretty things and men are good at science, frankly no thanks.
Click to expand...

None of the studies nor articles I've linked to, say that.

Brain sexual dimorphism isn't really a contentious issue in the scientific community nowadays; the possible effects [if any] of that dimorphism on behavior etc., is still very much in contention.
 
bimble said:
If our grey matter is in most (not all) cases larger in relation to white matter than yours, that's interesting. But if you're going to say women like pretty things and men are good at science, frankly no thanks. That's gender roles not brains.
Click to expand...
Don't know why you oppose "pretty things" and "science"; many scientifick things are pretty.
 
I think the brain sex stuff is entirely bullshit unless someone scans newborns and finds the effects of hormonal exposure in utero are present at birth, because most shit that happens in utero is.

I also dont buy it because there are a LOT of people clinging onto whatever shonky science they feel validates them as a person. I dont need science to tell me I'm valid. so I dont give a toss. that 'discovery' wont change my life.
 
Athos said:
I though you were pleading race-based health differentials to distinguish transracialism from transsexualism.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is that however someone like Dolezal likes to self-identify, it might be important, if not critical in certain medical situations, for her doctor to be aware of whether or not her genetic ancestry was predominantly European, or African.
 
Johnny Canuck3 said:
The point I was trying to make is that however someone like Dolezal likes to self-identify, it might be important, if not critical in certain medical situations, for her doctor to be aware of whether or not her genetic ancestry was predominantly European, or African.
Click to expand...

Yes. Similar to transwomen needing prostate checks.
 
Athos said:
Sorry, I don't follow you?
Click to expand...
Just think it's interesting that for a long time 'passing' was mostly used in relation to race, moving between racial categories by identifying as / being accepted as part of a group you might not have been born into, and the same term has become often used by trans people.
Passing is all about other people's acceptance of you as a member of whatever social category though not about an internal feeling of belonging. I don't know.
 
JimW said:
Kenan Malik linked to this book review on his Twitter today, looks relevant, Aus scientist called Cordelia Fine who thinks most of the male brain/female brain stuff is nonsense by looks of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/...&nl_art=&nlid=10331266&ref=headline&te=1&_r=0
Click to expand...

From that it seems she successfully argues just how many studies and research to the contrary are biased, not least because the measures used are often loaded with gender based assumptions, dodgy male bravado/fantasy and don't take into account the nuture/culture element.
 
bimble said:
i can google too!
Scans prove there’s no such thing as a ‘male’ or ‘female’ brain

But Sirena was suggesting that trans people have a blue brain in a pink body etc. It is not so.
Click to expand...
When the 1990 study came out, it was seen as deeply important. It has not been rubbished. It still remains an open issue.

There is a tendency to think that because we are all supposed to be equal, therefore we should all be the same. But this does not necessarily follow.

I am not The Same.
 
Sirena said:
When the 1990 study came out, it was seen as deeply important. It has not been rubbished. It still remains an open issue.

There is a tendency to think that because we are all supposed to be equal, therefore we should all be the same. But this does not necessarily follow.

I am not The Same.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is suggesting we're all The Same but that we're all different.
 
This "female brain" bullshit is a distressingly stubborn piece of simplistic narrative.

Brains are formed by experience, not the other way round. They literally change physical form as a result of the experiences they are exposed to. It is no wonder, then, that if you treat one half of the population one way and the other half a different way, each half will subsequently show brain differences. That's exactly what "brains change form as a result of experience" means. To think that says something about genetic determinism, though, is to have your cause and effect exactly the wrong way round.

I read that Cordelia Fine book when it first came out and have banged on about it on this forum for years. Everybody should read it. Find out what an actual neuroscientist has to say about the populist nonsense that gets written about this subject.
 
But both of these ideas lack any sense of agency on the part of children. I'm not very convinced by the idea that girls and boys become socialised into their roles only as a result of how they're treated, boys and girls are in relationship with and identify with both male and female parents and other adults at different times and are both consciously active in that e.g. 'I want to be like my mum' aswell as being shaped by more unconscious processes of identification and internalisation. Children, even very young babies, aren't just done to.
 
Red Cat said:
But both of these ideas lack any sense of agency on the part of children. I'm not very convinced by the idea that girls and boys become socialised into their roles only as a result of how they're treated, boys and girls are in relationship with and identify with both male and female parents and other adults at different times and are both consciously active in that e.g. 'I want to be like my mum' aswell as being shaped by more unconscious processes of identification and internalisation. Children, even very young babies, aren't just done to.
Click to expand...
Does that make a difference in this particular discussion tho? The key point is that brain development is existential not essential, no?
 
Red Cat said:
But both of these ideas lack any sense of agency on the part of children. I'm not very convinced by the idea that girls and boys become socialised into their roles only as a result of how they're treated, boys and girls are in relationship with and identify with both male and female parents and other adults at different times and are both consciously active in that e.g. 'I want to be like my mum' aswell as being shaped by more unconscious processes of identification and internalisation. Children, even very young babies, aren't just done to.
Click to expand...
Is this addressed to me? If so, I don't see how it applies to what I said. Experiences you are exposed to can be active or passive -- if anything, active exposure is even more insidious in its effect than the passive type.
 
kabbes said:
Is this addressed to me? If so, I don't see how it applies to what I said. Experiences you are exposed to can be active or passive -- if anything, active exposure is even more insidious in its effect than the passive type.
Click to expand...

Exposed to sounds passive to me but you may well have a more accurate definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elbows
Bangladesh leader flees country after protests and many deaths
Replies
1
Views
352
JimW
JimW
krtek a houby
  • Poll
Do you support the rights for smaller countries to defend themselves against larger aggressors?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
newme
newme
krtek a houby
Dublin, Monaghan bombings 50 years on
Replies
2
Views
565
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
mojo pixy
Give me a reason not to embrace the far-right
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
3K
Lotte
L
P
"An amazing year for rich people"
Replies
18
Views
1K
stavros
S
Back
Top Bottom