Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 212 posts

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#81

Post by adamnemecek »

phaer wrote: post #63
adamnemecek wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really want me to explain to you why those are different scenarios? Would you think that it's child abuse if the parents made their kid wear a gimp suit with a gag ball? Also would you think it was abuse if they made the kid undergo some hormone therapy?

You don't need me to explain to you why your examples are completely different scenarios than letting your (male) child play with dolls or wear dresses, right? Please find some better examples if you are interested in a constructive discussion and you are not on some kind of crusade about your idea of parenting.

We weren't talking about letting but about forcing.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#82

Post by PhasmaFelis »

AutoCorrect wrote: post #5
jb17 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is denying physical differences between people with XX and XY chromosomes. I also think it's common knowledge by now that sex influences the development of diseases (which is what the paper is about). What the debate is usually about is inequalities in social power relations and whether these can be attributed to what you call 'social conditioning' or biology. This paper doesn't contribute anythi…

I think what the GP means is that there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement that claim there is NO reason for the differences in men and women, other than the historical repression of women by men. Which couldn't be further from the truth: up until recently, women were very much at the mercy of the groups of men around them (physically), and only recently has the value of women in soci…

> there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement

It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen.

> only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men.

I don't think that makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't understand what you're trying to say, and none of your assertions seem to be relevant to each other.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#83

Post by yaddayadda »

s_baby wrote: post #70
yaddayadda wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's…

>My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists. Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of…

I was raised in the 70's and am FTM. I can't speak definitively for the movement at the time, but my mother was absolutely aware of MTFs and was fully supportive. She was aware of MTFs because of women's studies classes, and her definition of feminism came from those same classes. So there was at least a sizable feminist subset that subscribed to that definition. Frustratingly, FTMs still weren't widely acknowledged, and while she was supportive she chalked what I said about myself up to being a tom-boy, while trying to stay open to the possibility that there could be FTMs.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#84

Post by MarkTee »

rayiner wrote: post #49
FD3SA wrote: post #2

It is my sincere hope that this understanding becomes pervasive in society, such that the inane social movements based upon naught but angry emotional mob mentality become part of history. As it stands, young boys are medicated with psychiatric drugs for beings boys, and this is deemed acceptable by society. Boys are failing at every step in public institutions, with higher drop out rates at all levels of schooling.…

I quite favor the idea of gender-segregated schooling, because I do think boys as a whole get the short-end of the stick in K-6 because the school environment isn't structured as well for them. That said, the structure of schooling isn't arbitrary. It's a reflection of the needs of a modern knowledge economy. It's something that doesn't just affect boys versus girls, but certain kinds of boys versus other kinds of bo…

The structure of the modern school system (the one employed in the western world, at least) dates back to the Industrial Revolution. It's hardly "a reflection of the needs of a modern knowledge economy".

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#86

Post by PhasmaFelis »

maratd wrote: post #39
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, as it often does. It's fallacious to assume that there are no inborn differences between men and women. It's equally fallacious to insist (as many do and will, probably citing this study) that there are vast and uncrossable gulfs between men and women, and that anyone who crosses those gulfs anyway must be some sort of deviant. Humans are complex, the product of both nature and…

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what your comment actually means. What gulfs? Men and women are complimentary. The masculine and the feminine interplay between each other and cooperate toward mutual benefit. There is no gulf. I reject the notion that we somehow have to eliminate the feminine and the masculine, to be left with some sort of androgynous average. That's just nonsense. And yes, some men can be feminine and…

No, there aren't, but a lot of people are firmly convinced that there are. Feminism and "political correctness" and your alleged "angry emotional mobs" exist as a necessary backlash to the (historically overwhelmingly popular) idea that Man and Woman are as complimentary and irreconcilable as opposite poles of a magnet. These people don't just assert that "boys, on average, prefer trucks to dolls," but that boys shouldn't be allowed to play with dolls, or wear dresses, or cry, or like other boys. It's that gigantic, history-long engine of oppression that we're fighting against.

Yes, some people may occasionally take it too far in the other direction, as humans tend to do. Forcing a boy to play with dolls against his will is just as bad as forcing him not to. But that's nowhere near as large or widespread a problem as traditional gender-enforcement still is today.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#87

Post by Dewie »

yaddayadda wrote: post #54
stcredzero wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say no one, but it's also true that the Men's Rights movement has a steep uphill PR struggle ahead of them. In part because of active attacks from parts of the feminist movement, and in part because they actively feed into the conflict. Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficu…

I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's…

Yes, most will not say that they are for equal rights of men as well. But some have found that a lot of that is just lip service at best.

> I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!

In my opinion and based on my own readings, I think that feminists want to maintain a monopoly on philosophy of gender equality. Yes, I said philosophy; feminism is an ideology. And while there is nothing wrong about ideologies, there can be many ideologies about the same subject. Thankfully for feminists, though, ideologies about gender can be divided into:

- Different feminist paradigms - Sexists and homophobes

At least as far as most people are concerned. But maybe somebody wants to create a new philosophy of gender, a philosophy that might be in part mutually exclusive w.r.t some feminist "dogmas"? Well, great; now the feminists can readily shoot down these ideologies because they are "sexist", merely because of the fact that some of their views oppose some of the common feminist views. Hey, if it's not feminism, or it contradicts some feminist viewpoints, then it surely must be sexist, since feminism is the perfect incarnation of egalitarianism... right?

It isn't surprising that some women want to have a wider forum for discussing things that pertain to women in particular (that is; people that identify as women). Gender equality or not, most women probably have experiences that are different from men in some regards, and vice versa. So how about men have something like a Men's Right's movement, or whatever you want to call it? Nope, they say; we already have this thing called feminism. You shouldn't need anything else. OK, so say you give up on having a male community, even though women can have their own female communities, and try to assimilate into some feminist community. Now you have to just hope that they accept you as an equal, not just as a male ally.

But yeah, feminism is all you'd ever need. A real swiss knife for tackling anything related to gender...

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#89

Post by s_baby »

phaer wrote: post #51
s_baby wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's wrong to force traditional roles/identities onto those with a "queer" predisposition then the opposite is also true.

That's true, I'd oppose it if they really force the boy against his wishes to wear dresses, etc. But that's not clear from what I read because it's often described as 'forcing' when parents buy non-traditional toys and cloths for their children. So I'd need more context to say something about the described case. Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. Do…

>Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference.

A) Queerness and sexual preference aren't equivalent ideas.

B) Saying something is a predisposition is saying it's a product of nature+environment. There are clear cases of socialization(Greeks, Papua New Guinea). On the other hand the drive to procreate is pervasive, overpowering, and considered nature.

C) I don't downvote. But I imagine it's because this thread is orthogonal to the dialogue.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#90

Post by vacri »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #82
AutoCorrect wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what the GP means is that there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement that claim there is NO reason for the differences in men and women, other than the historical repression of women by men. Which couldn't be further from the truth: up until recently, women were very much at the mercy of the groups of men around them (physically), and only recently has the value of women in soci…

> there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. > only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. I don't think that makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't understand what you're trying to say, and none of your asser…

They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen.

Well said, but I think you've lowballed this figure.

Post reply on HN