You do appreciate the irony inherent in chastising your intellectual opponents for close-mindedness in such a closeminded way, yes?
This is why we have science. For example, without scientific knowledge and only the power of observation, it was quite evident to our forebears that the sun goes around the earth.
I would say you are assuming your conclusion here. If this were a TV legal drama, the lawyer would say ‘Objection! Leading the witness.’
You suggested there was evidence that gender roles were a construct of culture. When pressed, you provided a summary that basically said that there wasn’t evidence, but that there should be more research done to obtain that evidence. Not really ironic. At best an attempt to obfuscate the lack of evidence.
It was your tone that was ironic.
And there is an enormous amount of research suggesting culture contributes to determining gender roles. The extent to which culture contributes is hotly debated. There are a few legit scholars who insist gender roles are 100% biologically determined. Likewise, there are a few legit scholars who insist gender roles are 100% cultural. As I have already alluded, I am of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes.
As for the link, I said at the outset that most of the relevant work was paywalled, and that the link I posted provided only a quick intro to the subject.
There’s this thing called sci-hub…it does wonders with a DOI… (post the paywalled studies regardless please, I’d be interested in reading them)
9. On the Construction of Gender, Sex, and Sexualities. Jeanne Marecek, Mary Crawford, and Danielle Popp
Cross-Cultural Gender Roles. CC Courtney, Harvey Heard
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss307/abstract
thanks!
Well there are books and books and books detailing the differences in the physiological differences between the 2 sexes from variation: in hormone production, metabolic rate, distribution of muscle mass, pain tolerance, white cell count, sensory perception, hypothalamus actions, and brain wiring (which I am too dense to follow haha).
I guess I am surprised that you spent 10 years of study devoted to biology for your Ophthalmic career, but tossed that out when you pursued Psychology.
I think from reading ED’s post in this thread and the race one, he believes humans are completely fungible. We are interchangeable units of production in the economy and There isn’t anything unique about Any of us allowing us to be replaced as needed
Well, if one deals in population averages, all of this is true. (The point being that there is considerable overlap between males and females on many of these physiological differences.) But with respect to the discussion about gender determination, I’m not sure what point you’re making here.
It would take too long of a derail to fully flesh this out, but suffice to say that psychology concerns the study of phenomena that exist (emerge) at a different ‘level’ than does biology. In other words, psychology is no more reducible to biology than biology is reducible to biochemistry, which in turn is not reducible to quantum physics.
Interesting. I wonder if anyone else came to the same conclusions.
Nope, I think this is pretty clear:
As Aragon said, we could be in different areas of where exactly the truth is… but my understanding of your POV is just because you acknowledge the deviations within a subset (race or gender) does not mean you are stating the there are no differences (or as you said to treco, the averages are different)
Only a select few (or one?) around here deal in absolutes so that’s probably hard to grasp.
Hey now! Watch yourself 
Thanks for the feedback. I certainly hadn’t intended to give the impression @therajraj seems to have taken.
Sorry havent figured out quoting easily on tablet
I am saying in addition to overwhelming observation of consistant male & female behavior (on average) throughout history and across virtually all cultures, I deduce this is largely a product of the biological differences. I do agree that gender is further codified, modified, and validated(ified haha) sociologically.
You said my observation equals the sun revolving around earth, so l listed very topically - areas of biology that others say the sexes differ. Some that go well beyond my education are the cns and endocrine systems. There seems to be enough here for me to feel okay with my belief of biology driving gender.
If we differ, l suppose we just do.
If I’m reading you right, you’re saying you think biology accounts for the lion’s share of gender determination, with a relatively small amount being determined by socio-cultural factors. I have no beef with that.
Just to clarify: It wasn’t my intent to insult or belittle your intelligence with the ‘sun’ comment; rather, it was simply meant to point out that extreme limitations (ie, with respect to both cross-cultural exposure and historical era) constrain the casual (as opposed to scientific) observations of any individual, and because of this, casual observations must always be taken with a very large grain of salt.
I’m taking a course in statistical modeling right now so I’m going to mention a clarification the teacher makes EVERY time somebody talks about regressional modeling. There is a difference between noticing a trend in averages, vs knowing a specific thing determines another.
For example, your statement that on average biology shapes gender can be true, but that does not in any way account for variation. That statement is equally as true if it is the sole factor with 100% correlation (and predictability), or if it barely affects it with a 1%. On average, both scenarios still have the original statement as true. Wherever “the truth” (as ED put it) lies between 1% and 100% is debatable.
Written by 3 women? mmm, I don’t know. 
That’s 3 womyn to you, Mr. Patriarchy.
This exchange cracked me up lol. But that damn spelling with a ‘y’ thing is a major pet peeve of mine
Brb. Changing my T-Nation username to Mr. Patriarchy.