
Sex is a biological variable – in the brain too - apsec112
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01141-6
======
MyHypatia
I agree that denying all sex differences in the human brain is just bad
science. There is a long history of "men and women are biologically different
therefore women can't ____." "Men and women are biologically different
therefore women shouldn't ___." "Men and women biologically different,
therefore women don't want ____." "Men and women are biologically different,
therefore women prefer."

When biological differences are exaggerated to justify limiting a population
of people, it doesn't surprise me that one response is to just flat out deny
biology, when it is exaggerated and weaponized to justify limiting others (see
historical arguments on why women shouldn't participate in running marathons,
why women wouldn't make good medical doctors, how women have
inferior/emotional reasoning, why women shouldn't be allowed into combat
roles, why women don't like physics).

I think the question is, how do we as a society acknowledge these differences
without being mentally lazy and applying "averages" to individual people?
Until very recently women were denied combat roles because of biological
arguments about the "average woman". Society used a "biology" argument to deny
ALL women the opportunity, even to the ones who excel in these roles.
Individual women demonstrated their biological abilities to excel in combat
roles and were STILL denied the opportunity because of the "women on
average...." and "men and women are biologically different...." arguments.
Their very real abilities were "averaged out" and their opportunities to make
the most of themselves were denied.

Of course men and women are different. The question is, when will we as a
society be able to acknowledge those differences without unnecessarily
screwing people over? People will stop denying biological truths when it isn't
weaponized against them.

~~~
danharaj
These sex differences always conspire to keep women out of important social
and economic roles. Such a coincidence!

~~~
malvosenior
That's not true. Teaching is a very important social role and it's very much
dominated by women.

Of course there's the most important social role of all: parenting. Stay at
home dads do not receive the support and admiration mothers do.

~~~
MyHypatia
There is more to life than money, but the United States is a capitalist
country, where nebulous concepts like "value" are measured in dollars.
Teaching is an important role, but it is not valued. If it were valued in our
economy, it would be backed by more dollars. So where does that leave women
who work in these roles that are simultaneously "important" but not "valued"?

It's like when politicians say, "being a mother is the most important and
difficult job", but then no one actually backs and elects women whose primary
identity is being a mother. Isn't it strange that we don't want people with
supposedly "the most difficult and important job" to represent us? It's
because we as a society don't actually value it, we just pretend to. That
leaves women economically poor and underrepresented in political decision-
making.

Being economically and politically poor doesn't translate into happiness for
women.

~~~
malvosenior
Every politician, ceo, leader... had a mother. Most of them were raised and
shaped by that mother who helped them grow into the person they are today
(good or bad). Being a mother _is_ powerful because you shape the trajectory
and tactics of all of your offspring, some of whom will go on to influence
society at large.

~~~
MyHypatia
The whole point is for the mother herself to directly influence society at
large. Not wait around for 30-40 years to see if maybe her offspring agrees
with some of the things that she cares about and maybe or maybe not implements
it.

Fathers also influence and shape the trajectory of their offspring, and we
don't have the notion that fathers should be preoccupied with "fathering" and
wait around and see if their offspring influence society at large.

~~~
malvosenior
I think that's really short term thinking. The world doesn't need more workers
(especially with automation coming), it needs better parents. Very few people
will have an impact beyond their generation through work. All parents will
though.

Just today there was an article on HN about the lack of jobs for STEM
graduates:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19657087](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19657087)

------
nisuni
The fact that there’s a need to restate this obvious point is a signal of the
absurd times we live in.

~~~
GuiA
There’s no room for “obvious points to restate” in science. Only hypotheses
that can be tested through experimentation.

~~~
nisuni
Obvious, as in: obvious hypothesis confirmed by overwhelming experiment
evidence.

