Sam Killermann's TEDx Talk on Gender

[Relish in Chaos]

I didn?t bother to watch the video, because I know about all this already. I?ve read a lot of It?s Pronounced Metrosexual and I agree with the majority of it. I?d figured for a while that gender was in the mind, gender identity was in the mind and personal expression, gender roles and behaviour are a societal construct, sex was in chromosomes and/or hormones (basically, body and genitalia), sexuality was in hormones (and partially environment, since you can have one straight twin and one gay twin), and sex roles and behaviour are a social construct and personal expression.

So, with gender identities, there?d be woman, genderqueer, and man. With gender expression, there?d be feminine, androgynous, and masculine. With biological sex, there?d be female, intersex, and male. And with sexual orientation, there?d be gynosexual, bisexual, and androsexual. Of course, these all exist on a spectrum. It?s just that most people happen to fall on a fairly binary scale, and in the early days of cultures, gender roles seemed to be strongly influenced by biology (e.g. women stay at home and raise the kids, while men go out to work and bring home the bacon, because of high infant mortality and blah blah blah, you get the point).

In about?what, fifty years? time?perhaps gender and sex as concepts in society will be entirely, if not almost, deconstructed, to the point that transgendered people will be more accepted as normal and sex will be much more diverse. Heck, we might even eliminate the need for traditional reproduction altogether! But that?s just a pipe dream for some people. I mean, the 1980s predicted hoverboards for us in two years? time, but we don?t seem to be any closer to that kind of technology yet!

But whatever, I?m not a scientist or a psychologist.

 

[Nickolai77]

because there are certain tasks which men and women are biologically more suited to perform.

And I do not agree. At least, not in a biologically deterministic way. Sure, if you neglect to physically train women, it's obvious that they will not be suited for combat, but that's not an inherent quality of their biological sex, that's a deliberate limitation of their physical potential.

Given what else you've told me, would you agree if i said that men and women are, in a biologically descriptive way (note, not inherent), better suited for certain tasks than others? Because you seem to say that sex specific behavioural and biological traits are past down genetically and reinforced culturally which has led to the differences between male and female biology and behaviour.

Such irrefutable proof is meaningless on a social scale. It's highly possible that we unwittingly used the same techniques that we use for breeding domestic animals on our own species. Let's say that I have a society that decides that women ought to be empathetic and men ought to be good at system tasks. Women who display empathy will be seen as feminine and therefore will gain social approval, and will become primary candidates for marriage (and therefore passing on their genes). So if a woman is born with a random genetic mutation that slightly increases the size of the area of the brain in charge of empathy, she will be socially seen as more feminine, and therefore will increase her odds of being married, producing offspring, and passing down her genes (which will include the random mutation). Do this for several millennia and at some point, it's likely that the trait become gender-dependant through sheer force of selective breeding. Or perhaps the genetic trait becomes highly dependant on use-based epigenetics, so if a woman is encouraged to use that part of her brain more often, she ends up activating that specific genetic trait through epigenetics (and therefore enlarging the appropriate area of the brain), but it can also happen in a man if the right conditions are met.

I hope you don't mind if i respond to your last two paragraphs because i feel these get to the crux of your argument. Sex traits such as female empathy or male competitiveness may have been evolutionary advantageous in early human history (or indeed, primate history) which underpins the the broadly similar gender roles we often witness in unrelated human societies. Indeed, it may be possible to change this (although to me what you say sounds like Lamarkism, but i'll give you the professional benefit of the doubt) but the if's and how's behind your ideas present some formidable obstacles.

I don't disagree that this may be possible, i just think that biological factors are an explanatory factor behind gender roles. Wherever its early humans socially encouraging and then genetically passing down sex-specific traits or if we've inherited such traits from other primates - either explanations point to biology as an explanatory factor behind sex differences that go beyond reproductive organs.

There are multiple explanations for why a certain piece of biological evidence exists, and no real scientist will make categorical assertions on its nature. They will speak that "maybe" this or "possibly" that. While I agree that we should attempt to encourage both genders to pursue all professions equally, I don't think that we should have expectations one way or the other. Expectations shape our own abilities. If I don't expect to be good at something, it's very likely I won't even try (out of fear of failure, humiliation, wasting time/money, disappointing others, etc.). And if others don't expect me to be good at that, they aren't likely to encourage me to try either. Expectations matter a lot more than we think, and it might do a great deal of good to have no gender expectations on professions one way or the other.

I agree that such scientific expectations will have a social impact on such schemes aiming to equalise gender representation in certain fields- but at the same time there's a moral obligation to honestly propagate a scientific consensus should one ever emerge in this area. One's political ideals should never colour how science is portrayed, although invariably it often happens.

 

[Darken12]

Given what else you've told me, would you agree if i said that men and women are, in a biologically descriptive way (note, not inherent), better suited for certain tasks than others? Because you seem to say that sex specific behavioural and biological traits are past down genetically and reinforced culturally which has led to the differences between male and female biology and behaviour.

I don't feel comfortable making that assertion with the available evidence. I think that there are some indications that it might be the case, but since I consider this to be an extremely serious assertion, and not something to be taken lightly, I would consider my position as "maybe".

Also, behavioural traits aren't inherited genetically. Inheriting a gene that increases the size or neuronal activity of a specific part of the brain doesn't necessarily equate to an increase in the behaviour regulated or mediated by that brain area. It just means an increased potential, intensity or efficacy in that behaviour (if the person engages in that behaviour, which is not guaranteed).

Indeed, it may be possible to change this (although to me what you say sounds like Lamarkism, but i'll give you the professional benefit of the doubt) but the if's and how's behind your ideas present some formidable obstacles.

Perhaps my example was unclear, but it was certainly not Lamarckism. Lamarckism states that if I, say, exercise my muscles, my children will inherit a greater muscular development. My example posited that if a woman is already born with a random genetic mutation that increases any aspect that society perceives as feminine, she is likelier to marry and pass of that genetic mutation to her offspring. That's Darwinism, not Lamarckism.

I agree that such scientific expectations will have a social impact on such schemes aiming to equalise gender representation in certain fields- but at the same time there's a moral obligation to honestly propagate a scientific consensus should one ever emerge in this area. One's political ideals should never colour how science is portrayed, although invariably it often happens.

And the scientific consensus is, for now, "perhaps" or "there is still not enough evidence to say with any certainty". And either way, I, as a scientist, prefer to keep the science out of the politics. I prefer that our societal prescriptive decisions (what should be done) to be decided based on philosophical and ethical argumentation, not on mutilated or wilfully misinterpreted science.

 

[Nickolai77]

I agree that such scientific expectations will have a social impact on such schemes aiming to equalise gender representation in certain fields- but at the same time there's a moral obligation to honestly propagate a scientific consensus should one ever emerge in this area. One's political ideals should never colour how science is portrayed, although invariably it often happens.

And the scientific consensus is, for now, "perhaps" or "there is still not enough evidence to say with any certainty". And either way, I, as a scientist, prefer to keep the science out of the politics. I prefer that our societal prescriptive decisions (what should be done) to be decided based on philosophical and ethical argumentation, not on mutilated or wilfully misinterpreted science.

Human behaviour, or psychology, is one of those areas which straddles the social sciences and the natural sciences, where evidence and argument from both sides tend to mutually influence each other so it becomes very hard to find a right answer between the nature versus nurture arguments. I do think that those who are most likely to be wrong however are those who sit at extreme ends of the debate- those who believe that humans are purely driven by evolved biology, and those who deny that outright and maintain we're all blank slates. Your position is an interesting one because you appear take evidence commonly used by evolutionary biologists to say human behaviour's determined and twist it to argue that we can never the less bring about genuine gender equality.

Personally, i think sex does influence human behaviour on the macro level, which in part explains the general similarities of gender roles across cultures-but we can still suppress or exaggerate these behaviours based on the whims of society, which explains why gender norms aren't identical across society. The extent to which we can do this however is up for debate, but whatever evidence scientists come up with to support either argument will be injected into socially prescriptive decisions. I'm not saying this is right or wrong here, i'm just saying it is so.

 

[Darken12]

Your position is an interesting one because you appear take evidence commonly used by evolutionary biologists to say human behaviour's determined and twist it to argue that we can never the less bring about genuine gender equality.

I do not, under any circumstance, appreciate being told I am "twisting" evidence. That is a very serious accusation to make against a scientist. I have been debating you in good faith, but I must absolutely draw the line at this inexcusable affront.

This conversation is over.

 

[Darken12]

*snip*

Congratulations, you have viewpoints. I do not agree with them. You do not agree with mine. We will never see eye to eye. There's nothing else to discuss.

Sounds like you have sufficient material to start your own thread. I recommend you do that.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I can't stand this guy's presentation. I got to the rhyming nonsense and had to stop.

Also I thought TED talks were in big concert-type environment? This looks like a classroom.

It's TEDx. Pretty much anyone can host a TEDx conference.

 

[ThreeName]

It's TEDx. Pretty much anyone can host a TEDx conference.

You'll find a it was a few posts below mine until the title was updated to say so

 

[Lieju]

Part 7 ? Nature Vs. Nurture: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp14wz_hjernevask-brainwashing-english-part-7-nature-vs-nurture_news
In Part 7 around ~17 Minutes in there is even the case of a hermaphrodite that was born with both genitals but had one cut off and a rather detailed tale of events is being brought up from his childhood that would indicate you can?t just ?choose? your gender or be ?taught? and this person suffered a lot because of the choices that the doctors made at his birth. There?s a line going through all of this that there is a strong biological component and disposition in all of it, which is not only based on genitals but brain chemistry and trying to ?change? that like a pair of socks is hardly possible on a larger scale while certain social components might bend parts of it to an extent.

And yet I have had people choose for me what I should want based on the fact that I was born female.

I have had people tell me all my life I'm not being feminine enough, that I should use make-up and make myself sexually desirable for men (but not be a 'slut'), that I must be empathetic, that because I'm good at learning languages it's because I'm a girl and because I'm good at math it's because I'm cheating.
That I should like pink, and that it's not acceptable for me to like bugs or play video-games or play with boys.
Despite the society trying to mold me into something else I still grew up like I did, so I'd say there's s trong biological component there.

A gender-neutral society would be nice, is what I'm saying.
Maybe men and women tend to be inclined for different things, but wouldn't it be nicer if your qualities, not just your genitals, determined how the society treats you?

 

[Nickolai77]

Your position is an interesting one because you appear take evidence commonly used by evolutionary biologists to say human behaviour's determined and twist it to argue that we can never the less bring about genuine gender equality.

I do not, under any circumstance, appreciate being told I am "twisting" evidence. That is a very serious accusation to make against a scientist. I have been debating you in good faith, but I must absolutely draw the line at this inexcusable affront.

This conversation is over.

There's no need to be so indignant- I didn't mean to use the word "twist" in a deceptive sense but rather a more innovative sense- To twist an argument or an idea or a piece of evidence around so it's seen to support the opposing viewpoint. That's not a bad thing, it shows that your an original thinker and don't take conventional interpretations of evidence at face value. Generally speaking though the word twist does have negative connotations so i'm sorry for causing you offense.

 

[Beautiful Tragedy]

I liked his presentation, and I hope it's easy enough for people to digest, and understand.

Now, after 5 days of drunken debauchery in west hollywood, i am back home and exhausted...time for a nap ;P

Sounds like good fun I too, must learn all of the details! I take it that your time with your girlfriend is going well?

haha starting at about 7 pm on thursday til monday night i was never 100% sobre. we had a party on saturday for me... and yes it went well with her, we got caught fooling around *blush* but yeah, over all it was a blast and i drank sooo much!

*accusatory stare*

I require all the details.

OT: Right after watching this I went into my mom's room, yelled "Penises and vagina", and just left.

But in all seriousness, consider me educated.

haha glad to see you've been enlightened a little.