I think at one point in our history the difference could pretty clearly have been explained in terms of physical abilities and reproductive differences, because our societies so strongly depended on having a ready supply of people who were able to fill the roles implied by those differences, ie, people who were strong enough to fight and perform hard labor on a regular basis, and people who were able to focus on having and raising children.
But I think that as our society gets further and further away from the state of nature, it becomes increasingly anachronistic. We don't need to set aside half the population to be dedicated to child-raising when children that are born have a near perfect chance of surviving at least into adulthood, and we don't need to set aside another half of the population for hard labor when most of that can be automated, and in a world with baby formula and IVF - and in particular where having children has become a liability at both the individual and social levels- we're on a pretty clear trajectory to a point where we won't really need the biology at all.
But that's enough waxing philosophical, let's get into debunking some evopsych!
demoman_chaos said:
Quite a lot. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. That means men/women are quite different, and this stems from them have different roles in the family which compliment each other to make a greater whole that the separate parts.
The modern construction of the family is only a few thousand years old, being a product of the agricultural era. For most of our biological history, humans were promiscuous. The idea of a family unit simply wasn't present in our evolutionary background.
Physically men are generally taller, shoulders are broader, they have about 50% more upper body strength, 30% more lower body strength, and are all around simply more physically capable.
I know what statistics you're referring to, and keep in mind that those tests were done with athletes, so the results are a bit skewed. In non-athletes, the difference is smaller.
As for extending a difference in ability to provide force into "physically more capable", that's something that's much less certain among sports scientists and basically falls down to how you want to define "physically capable": https://www.livestrong.com/article/286883-muscular-endurance-men-vs-women/
Still, while it's an interesting biological curiosity, it doesn't have a lot of relevance in a world where the vast majority of the population is sedentary and doesn't appreciably rely on physical ability.
Men mentally are more object focused (studies with babies show the male babies spent more time looking at objects while the females looked more at faces)
Nope. While some older research did reach these conclusions, more recent research has contradicted them. These differences exist from toddler years onward, but do not exist in babies less than a year old https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3766397/
The infant results showed no sex-related preferences; infants preferred faces of men and women, regardless of whether they were real or doll?s faces. Similarly, adults did not show sex-related preferences for social versus non-social stimuli, but, unlike infants, they preferred faces of the opposite sex over objects. These results challenge claims of an innate basis for sex-related preferences for toy and real stimuli preferences (Connellan et al., 2000) and suggest that sex-related preferences result from maturational and social development, which continues into adulthood.
and are better at physical work
Again, "physical work" needs to be defined. There are pretty clear differences in very specific tasks, generally favoring strength in men and dexterity in women. But this doesn't translate well to real-world performance on a realistic task.
Mathematical skill is one such task that gets brought up often by people who want to make this point (curiously, I've yet to see it brought up by a person who actually does possess any mathematical skill of their own), with the justification being that men can outperform women at tasks involving recalling strings of data (numbers and syllables) and spatial reasoning. However, no significant difference appears when it comes to performance on actual math tests, because math is an activity that involves all of a person's faculties and deficits in one area may be made up by strengths in others.
And just to drive the point home while I'm on the subject, I teach basic physics and calculus at the college level. I've yet to have a class where the average female score was lower than the average male score.
And none of that is to say "Women and men are exactly the same in every single way", my point is that if you want to gain any meaningful understanding of male/female sex differences you need to approach the issue with a lot more nuance and context.
and tasks "outside the camp" while women are far better in terms of the social hierarchy and tending to issues "In the camp."
What does that even mean?
This is the major problem with evolutionary psychology: since its predictions are often vague, people can read into it whatever they want, and that's how you get people making evolutionary arguments about modern gender politics while ignoring much more proximate influences.
The "Social constructs" are embedded in our DNA and exist for a very good reason.
Except when they aren't. The problem with this biological argument is that it can't account for counter-examples. For instance, if women evolved to nurture children, then why do fewer women than men want children: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/actually-men-have-always-wanted-children-more-than-women/article23681771/?arc404=true and furthermore, why do so many women lack interest in having children at all, and why is interest in having children so dependent on social factors like education and wealth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness#Statistics_and_research
No matter how much surgery you have you will never have a womb,
Unless that surgery includes implanting a womb? There's no biological reason that it shouldn't be possible. The scientific community doesn't just spend all their time banging rocks together, you know.
never have eggs, never have a period, never get pregnant,
See above. This will be true up and until the moment someone successfully implants a working uterus into a transwoman. Then what will the goalpost-movers say, I wonder...
Also, there are plenty of women who don't menstruate (either voluntarily or otherwise) or will never be pregnant (again, voluntarily or otherwise).
your physical body will still be male,
How so? If it does everything a female body does up to whatever point OP desires it to, then the difference is just semantic.
and even if you spend millions on cosmetic surgery to get all of the above your DNA will still read Male. Gender is genetic,
Geneticists would disagree with you. The current understanding is that gender identity is genetic, but gender itself (ie the way that gender identity manifests in terms of behavior) is socially dependent.
Basically, gender identity is not controlled by a single gene like an on/off switch, it's determined by an entire hierarchy of genes, starting with the basic sex determination gene (the one that determines if you develop testicles instead of ovaries during prenatal development) and then going down from there. Usually, the lower genes in the hierarchy will all match the sex-determination gene, but each gene in the hierarchy can nudge the entire gender system in the other direction, with the result being that the gender identity falls on a spectrum.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/01/02/sex-gender-spectrum-genetics-help-determine-gender-identity/
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
The World Health Organization explicitly states:
Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time.
http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
it is physical, and it is mental. Don't delude yourself into thinking you will ever be a true woman, because you genuinely can't.
If you circularly define "woman" as "person who was born biologically female" then sure, that's true, but I kind of thought we were talking about science here.
(assuming you are a Yank and accepting the "1 million trans" stat I saw somewhere at face value)
Okay, this is just a little pet peeve of mine, but don't go around insisting that your arguments are based on science while at the same time insisting without evidence of your own that the scientific consensus is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#United_States_2