Comment by fastball | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fastball | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's a false equivalency.

The biological makeup of men vs. women is a lot more distinct than a one race vs another.

Firstly, there is the most obvious: sex organs and growth. Erections, ejaculation, periods, breast/hip growth, etc. are all sensitive topics, and I have not seen evidence that keeping these topics sensitive is a bad thing. Girls generally hit puberty earlier than boys, so it doesn't really make sense for 12 year old boys and 12 year old girls to be grouped together in certain situations, when girls are having a sexual awakening and boys aren't (as a cohort - obviously everyone hits puberty at different times, but society functions through generalizations).

Secondly, there is the general impact of hormonal differences. Hormonal differences have a striking impact on emotional development, and that needs to be considered when raising children.

Biologically, the only general difference between a black boy and a white boy is their skin color, which at an individual level makes no difference at all to their development. Obviously if society treats these skin colors differently and that impacts development, that is another issue entirely and should be handled separately from any gender issues.

I have not seen evidence that keeping these topics sensitive is a good thing, so I think the burden of proof is on you to justify why they should be "kept sensitive". Notably, the "shame" around periods routinely gets challenged by concerned parties. Additionally, "keep sensitive" is a weird euphemism for the original, much stronger claim that boys can't truly be boys unless there are no girls.

I have a buddy who's been a scout from youth til college, and the net impact of gender-segregated scouting in the USA vs. most other countries in the world is that american kids were clueless and out of place at the global jamboree he went to, since other countries have correctly obsoleted the stupid divide.

If puberty is a salient point for you, maybe you need to group slightly older boys with slightly younger girls. However, before that, you'd need to justify why these developmental differences matter at all for the vast majority of socializing kids do.

And ultimately that's my problem with your post. You are very scared about the idea that some of these cultural gender barriers may be torn down, and you have some biological facts in hand, but you haven't actually made a case for why these biological facts necessitate the erection of cultural barriers. The burden of proof is on you, despite the american status quo lagging behind.

I think in this case the burden of proof is on both of us. We both have stances, and both stances have precedent. In fact, you are the one challenging the current status quo, so if anyone the burden is on you.

I'm not really sure why American Scouts would be clueless about girls, considering that almost all of them go to schools with girls, participate in other clubs with girls, etc. etc. If they are not interacting with girls, I think that is more a failing of their other social activities, not a failing of the scouts.

Fundamentally, I think the idea is to have some aspects of life / growing up where sexuality can be largely ignored in pursuit of an arguably more constructive environment. i.e. teenagers have a whole lot of hormones, and focus is easier to maintain when you're not thinking about a tumble between the sheets with the person sitting next to you. That's just how our brains are wired.

Similar arguments could be levied for racial stuff, and I'm pretty sure were used to justify segregation eg: in combat units.

"Different races are strange for kids, it may cause them stresses firing off their innate biological danger senses, maybe best to keep 'em separate if the other task at hand is too important"

The only thing required to challenge the status quo about a discriminatory practice is the absence of proof. I don't agree that I need to do extra legwork just because I want to change things up.

However, I'm Canadian. And in Canada, scouts don't discriminate. So I don't really have to do anything, other than explain that the American attitude towards this seems very backwards to me.

The distinction here is that their are no discernible developmental differences between races. An asian girl is going to start menstruating and noticing guys sexually, just as a black or white or [insert race here] girl will. Same goes for guys and their development. We are talking about developing individuals here, and there is no indication that race (without social factors) impacts development.

Gender/sex is different. Sex is quite possibly the most important indicator and impactor of adolescent development. For example, mixing genders absolutely makes sexual behavior more accessible (mixing races does not).

From there, studies have linked increased sexual behavior in adolescents to increased delinquency[1] and strong negative impact on grades for white males (and less inclination to go to college for white females)[2]. The body of work surrounding this topic is still somewhat small, but I would be happy if you could provide a source that indicates increased sexuality has a positive net impact on the productivity of adolescents, or anything to that effect.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-006-9128-4 [2] http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786919?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com