
Endocannabinoids Sculpt Sex Differences in Juvenile Rat Social Play - DiseasedBadger
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(19)30115-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627319301151%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
======
mzs
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190301160901.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190301160901.htm)

------
tachyonbeam
TL;DR: The article points to explanatory mechanisms that explain how androgens
(testosterone) cause differences in the amygdala (fear and anger regulation
center of the brain) before birth. These differences go on to cause difference
in play behavior later in life.

It seems to me this kind of science is currently politically inconvenient. It
points to gendered behavioral differences that have an innate cause.

~~~
danharaj
You're the one who brought the politics with you into this thread :^)

Ok, let's say the amygdala is different between men and women. Now, give me a
quantitative model that explains observed social differences derived from
that.

The issue people take with biological essentialism is that it uses the
_plausibility_ of genetic/developmental differences driving sex differences to
dismiss or outright deny the very obvious reality of coercive social forces
that also definitely drive sex differences. It is a "gender of the gaps"
argument that draws ire: "this difference might be physiologically inherent to
sex, so I don't think it's an issue worth investigating".

But you're not making that argument, of course.

~~~
FakeComments
> The issue people take with biological essentialism is that it uses the
> plausibility of genetic/developmental differences driving sex differences to
> dismiss or outright deny the very obvious reality of coercive social forces
> that also definitely drive sex differences.

This is a _huge_ strawman, and fallacies seem to be part of a lack of
intellectual rigor from people who object to discussing biological
differences.

Why not flip your point on its head: can you show me a model of discrimination
that focuses purely on the social component, and shows that the results we see
with, eg, the wage gap result purely from social components — or have a social
component at all?

Because what I see is frequent dishonesty — discussing the “wage gap” but not
“hours gap” or “risk gap”, for instance — and the denial of inherent
biological differences has become dogma to people pushing false social
statistics, because an analysis of those differences would show them to be
liars.

It’s just gaslighting to demand a rigor from people advocating biological
differences that’s never been shown by the cultural differences crowd — we
have _massive_ evidence of biological differences in evevery system of the
body, including the brain; we have no quantitative models for how culture
impacts outcomes. (Actually, we have a bit: it seems to be that more liberal
countries express greater gender variation between jobs, because there’s less
social pressure to accrue power, eg, fewer women go into programming in better
off countries. This is what you’d expect, if there’s an underlying difference
in biological preference.)

The objection to your position is that it’s an anti-scientific, anti-
intellectual one that drives you to public dishonesty, such as the fallacies
and double-standards made here.

It’s entirely political people don’t want to talk about this — sex based
differences might imply the ratio of, eg, CEOs is skewed for the same reasons
the ratios of top athletes are.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
" _Why not flip your point on its head: can you show me a model of
discrimination that focuses purely on the social component, and shows that the
results we see with, eg, the wage gap result purely from social components —
or have a social component at all? "_

This can be argued to be possible, and have at least one social component.
[1][2]

1\. [https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873](https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873)
(The widely known paper describing racial callback differences in resume
submission)

2\. [http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-
impact...](http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-
impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians) (The widely known
phenomenon describing blind auditions in applying for orchestra employment)

~~~
trhway
>In short, “blind” auditions significantly reduced gender-biased hiring and
the gender gap in symphony orchestra compositions.

so, even blind audition couldn't eliminate the gap?

