Sex personality differences

[Darat]

Which is all that I am saying.

Suppose we could supply 100 neuroimaging results to someone without sex identifying details and ask someone to divide them into male and female and they were right about, say, 75% of the time then that would seem to me to be supporting the idea that there are sex differences in the brain.

The thing is that most of us, even if we don't identify as trans or agender or anything like that still do not match closely to any gender model (except maybe our clothes). So I would not expect there to be anything like an exactly male brain or an exactly female brain.

It doesn't - it supports what arthwollipot said - which I was providing the evidence for i.e. "and the same spectrum is covered, that any functional differences in brain anatomy can be considered a normal part of the spectrum for all people,"

In other words there are not unique structural differences between female and male brains. Any given female could have the exact same brain structure as any given male. It is akin to no unique differences between say male and female kidneys even if on the whole males have larger kidneys (because they are overall larger).

 

[Warp12]

Mine is the more up to date article... That addresses some of the very findings your article used to support its claims and demonstrates how the conclusions were wrong.

You do know that is supporting what my article stated and what I posted?

My latter article is newer than yours, so obviously even more correct.

Glad we agree.

 

[Darat]

My latter article is newer than yours, so obviously even more correct.

Glad we agree.

I've just realised, you have no idea what I was posting about.

 

[Robin]

It doesn't - it supports what arthwollipot said - which I was providing the evidence for i.e. "and the same spectrum is covered, that any functional differences in brain anatomy can be considered a normal part of the spectrum for all people,"

In other words there are not unique structural differences between female and male brains. Any given female could have the exact same brain structure as any given male. It is akin to no unique differences between say male and female kidneys even if on the whole males have larger kidneys (because they are overall larger).

I am not sure how that differs from what I said.

 

[Warp12]

Which is what the evidence seems to point to. It is not possible from a "brain scan" to determine if someone is male or female, it's akin to height, whilst on the whole men are taller than women you can't determine if someone is male or female by only their height nor by only a scan of their brain. (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x)

On average, males and females showed greater volume in different areas of the cortex, the outer brain layer that controls thinking and voluntary movements. Females had greater volume in the prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, superior temporal cortex, lateral parietal cortex, and insula. Males, on average, had greater volume in the ventral temporal and occipital regions. Each of these regions is responsible for processing different types of information.

Not sure what you are saying, especially after reading the brief article that you linked. Can you elaborate?

Are you saying that there is no difference in brain development between males and females? Or simply that they start out equal, and environmental factors lead to the differences?

 

[Delvo]

Suppose we could supply 100 neuroimaging results to someone without sex identifying details and ask someone to divide them into male and female and they were right about, say, 75% of the time then that would seem to me to be supporting the idea that there are sex differences in the brain.

It doesn't - it supports what arthwollipot said - which I was providing the evidence for i.e. "and the same spectrum is covered, that any functional differences in brain anatomy can be considered a normal part of the spectrum for all people,"

The fact that the latter description is accurate does not mean that the former isn't. They both are. The only way to come up with a dispute between the two is to have a premise that the differences that are referred to in the former must be absolute and universal in order to really exist, but there is no need for them to be so.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Quillette busting out the skull calipers again.

 

[theprestige]

Not just with one characteristic and not a perfect determination.

But if it is the case that there are some brain characteristics that are more common in females and some that are more common in males (i am not saying that it is the case) then it would have to be possible to make a better than chance determination of whether the brain was male or female based on being able to recognise those characteristics.

Let's see... Sex is binary, determined at the chromosomal level. The brain emerges from the same chromosomes as every other structure in the human body. Therefore, it's trivial to make a better than chance determination of whether the brain is male or female: Just look at the genitalia.

Men are taller than women on average. Will someone now propose that we can make a better than chance determination of whether the legs are male or female based on how long they are?

Show me an XX brain in an XY body, and I'll show you someone who's actually transsexual.

 

[lomiller]

NIH article, from July of 2020:



https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/sex-differences-brain-anatomy

Note the "on average" part. Categorizing people into groups based on averages is difficult and usually pointless. This is especially true when the distributions overlap.

 

[lomiller]

But if it is the case that there are some brain characteristics that are more common in females and some that are more common in males (i am not saying that it is the case) then it would have to be possible to make a better than chance determination of whether the brain was male or female based on being able to recognise those characteristics.

To what end? Just because you can sort people into arbitrarily defined categories doesn't mean there is any value in doing so.

The number of different ways you can categorize people is near infinite. This allows you to draw a line around any random selection of people and define them as being a group, but if the grouping itself has limited meaning what's the point?

 

[Darat]

Not sure what you are saying, especially after reading the brief article that you linked. Can you elaborate?

...snip...

"on average" - which supports what I said it did i.e. "and the same spectrum is covered, that any functional differences in brain anatomy can be considered a normal part of the spectrum for all people". Structurally you can't tell a male from a female brain as all the differences are "on average".

As theprestige put it the only way we have - at the moment at least - of determining if a brain is "male" or "female" is from either a chromosomal difference or genital differences.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In today's article on Quillete, why the biases you hold against other groups of people aren't examples of bigotry, but are actually rooted in "science".

Modern day phenologists desperately in search of biological differences to justify social disparity.

 

[Belz...]

I predict: Nothing good can come of this thread.

I'll second that.

 

[Robin]

Let's see... Sex is binary, determined at the chromosomal level. The brain emerges from the same chromosomes as every other structure in the human body. Therefore, it's trivial to make a better than chance determination of whether the brain is male or female: Just look at the genitalia.

Men are taller than women on average. Will someone now propose that we can make a better than chance determination of whether the legs are male or female based on how long they are?

Show me an XX brain in an XY body, and I'll show you someone who's actually transsexual.

That is not what transsexual or transgender has ever meant. So you are just changing the definition.

 

[Robin]

"on average" - which supports what I said it did i.e. "and the same spectrum is covered, that any functional differences in brain anatomy can be considered a normal part of the spectrum for all people". Structurally you can't tell a male from a female brain as all the differences are "on average".

As theprestige put it the only way we have - at the moment at least - of determining if a brain is "male" or "female" is from either a chromosomal difference or genital differences.

Although our politics seems to indicate otherwise, genitalia are not brain.

 

[theprestige]

That is not what transsexual or transgender has ever meant. So you are just changing the definition.

My thesis is that practically it's the only thing they can mean. Every other attempt at meaning is either muddled thinking, equivocation, or something even less honest. I am absolutely open to - and hoping for! - some other clear definition that can be used as the basis for meaningful discussion about public policy. If you have one, I'd love to learn what it is. But you'll probably have to take it to The Other Thread.

 

[Robin]

My thesis is that practically it's the only thing they can mean. Every other attempt at meaning is either muddled thinking, equivocation, or something even less honest. I am absolutely open to - and hoping for! - some other clear definition that can be used as the basis for meaningful discussion about public policy. If you have one, I'd love to learn what it is. But you'll probably have to take it to The Other Thread.

There seems to be a general agreement that there are men who are more masculine than other men and women who are more feminine than other women?

Do you think that these differences are entirely socially constructed?

Or do you think the characteristics that make a man masculine or a woman feminine are binary and conditioned at the chromosomal level?

If you hold neither of those things then your definition does not even make sense as a candidate for what transgender means at the physiological level.

 

[Robin]

To what end? Just because you can sort people into arbitrarily defined categories doesn't mean there is any value in doing so.

The number of different ways you can categorize people is near infinite. This allows you to draw a line around any random selection of people and define them as being a group, but if the grouping itself has limited meaning what's the point?

There are a group of people who are referred to as trans gender and there is a lot of debate currently about them, so I have not just arbitrarily selected that category.

The point is to get clarity about what could be meant by saying something like "born in the wrong body" beyond saying "oh don't be silly, you are just imagining things" which is not really helpful.

So to get there we need to look at whether there is any meaning to the term "male brain" and "female brain" and I have said that, if these mean anything, they must refer to characteristics which are *usually* found in people who are of a particular sex as defined chromosomally.

So the first question is, - are there brain characteristics which are *usually* linked to a particular sex?

The second question is - if so are these brain characteristics always linked to a particular sex?

The answers appear to be, respectively, yes and no.

So it would be perfectly possible for a person to have the brain have the brain characteristics usually associated with the opposite sex and this might be what it means to "be born in the wrong body".

Which makes it an empirical question that could, potentially, be resolved by observation.

 

[Robin]

Also, the point is to clear up a misunderstanding in the article quoted in the OP.

This article seems to be quite widely and approvingly quoted and so the misunderstanding must be quite widespread including among those who would like to think of themselves as public intellectuals.

The author says that "social activists" on the "Left" believe " all behavior, sex-linked or otherwise, is entirely the result of differences in socialization".

And I have pointed out that this is absolutely the opposite to what trans gender people claim about themselves.

Indeed it is the gender critical folk (including the author of this article) who usually claim that being transgender is due to socialisation. They call it "social contagion".

So the widespread claim that trans gender people and their supporters are "anti-science" seems to be based on this fundamental misunderstanding.

 

[arthwollipot]

Let's see... Sex is binary, determined at the chromosomal level.

It isn't, but go on.

The brain emerges from the same chromosomes as every other structure in the human body. Therefore, it's trivial to make a better than chance determination of whether the brain is male or female: Just look at the genitalia.

The point is that you can't make a better than chance determination by looking at the brain alone.

Men are taller than women on average. Will someone now propose that we can make a better than chance determination of whether the legs are male or female based on how long they are?

Show me an XX brain in an XY body, and I'll show you someone who's actually transsexual.

As Darat pointed out, the brain is plastic. It will change. When someone has completed their transition, and is functioning completely in society as their gender (which, science is discovering, is disconnected from chromosomes and genitalia), their brain will become more like those of people who function as the gender they were assigned at birth.