Hacker News Reader

> The current fashion is that there are basically NO biological sex-type differences; that any sex-type differences are socially imposed and generally disadvantageous to women.

It's important to know that the existence of non physical systematic differences between male and female is as uncontroversial among scientists in the field as climate change is in that field.

It's easy to be "pro science" when science confirms what you already believe. When it says you're wrong is when you show how pro science you really are!

PS The mental and psychological male/female differences are all statistical with substantial overlap. Much like how men are on average about 5 inches taller than women, but there are many tall women and short men.

> When it says you're wrong is when you show how pro science you really are!

That's key. It's perhaps one of the main barriers to exploring this topic. I think it expresses itself mostly unconsciously. It can be terrifying to scrutinize differences and know whatever sub-type you happen to be (man, woman, black, white, etc.) could "come up short" according to some cultural ideal. It's even more terrifying knowing that the measurements and measurers sometimes rig the outcomes of said scrutinizations. I'd hope we'd just try to control and address these terrors rather than stop trying to objectively characterize our differences altogether.

Agree fully. I think this is abundantly evident in the fact that there is usually very little social and individual push back when exploring the cognitive/physical/behavioral differences between the sexes of almost any other animal. It's just when these differences are explored in humans that it becomes an issue.

If we look at species other than human, those that have the sexes behave as equal partners tend to be very identical in traits with very few sex-type differences. Having division of complimentary abilities and preferences also means that losing half of that to predators results in a bigger loss than if both acts as backup for the other. Those species that do have many sex-type differences are usually refereed to as tournament species, with very little partnership in the care of young.

In pair bonding species, sex-type differences are few. In the extreme end, some species can even switch gender depending on the local balance. Some fish even "keep track" of who went female/male last time, as eggs cost more energy to produce. Those that cheat are then shunned.

While I agree I think it's safe to say that in mammals the differences are pretty district, at least physically. A male cannot generally carry, birth, or initially feed offspring. This gives females a very distinct reproductive function over relatively long periods of time. It seems natural that evolution would enhance traits in females (physically and cognitively) that would make them best at that task.

I don't think evolution would necessarily favor specialization between the sexes.

However we do have evidence that fewer men have reproduced than women. This means men have been under greater selection pressures than women, which would lead to specialization.

I think this is an outcome of the length of time that women are fertile relative to the time required to gestate and ween a child, plus the length of time that a man is virile. This introduces an asymmetry between the number of women who can mate and the number of men who can mate.

Your claim of sexual specialization may stand for more complex organisms which follow the mating pattern above, but I don't think there's necessarily a biological imperative to specialize the sexes, beyond the specialization in their reproductive systems.

> I don't think evolution would necessarily favor specialization between the sexes.

Why wouldn't it? Other primate species are very sexually dimorphic, both physically and behaviorally. Why should humans be so fine-tuned that there are no sex differences at all in behavior?

I meant across all species. I do acknowledge sexual dimorphism among humans, and provide a mechanism for this happening based upon the effective population sizes of mating humans.

I just think the top level post's claim should be reeled in a little bit to not imply that all species that manifest sex should result in sexual specialization beyond the reproductive system.

The entire human body is a reproductive system. That's what life is. Evolution optimizes for behaviors as much as it optimizes for gonads.

I do agree with your summation of the current state of things. I would say that if we agree that there are behavioral and cognitive differences between men and women (I personally think the evidence is pretty clear that there are) that these differences are not inherently better or worse but Historically men have been the ones that have largely developed, defined and been in control of our social, political and economical institutions so have self selected for traits that benefit those systems. I think this is the bigger issue.

"The current fashion is that there are basically NO biological sex-type differences" - seriously who argues this? I asked below and only got two examples of rebuttals, not examples of people actually arguing this.

It said so right in the article: "Social psychologists and sociologists pooh-poohed the notion of any fundamental cognitive differences between male and female humans, notes Halpern"

Well by definition there have to be biological differences in the sexes so I'm not sure how anyone could argue that.

> an intelligent evolutionary process

Why would anyone believe in this?

Fair point. I should say, it wouldn't surprise me if evolution favored a division of complimentary abilities. It also wouldn't surprise me to instead see a homogenous distribution across sexes as another commenter pointed out. My experience leads me to the first hypothesis. Either way, it's not clear which way evolution did decide on for us. So we should get to the bottom of it. We should be allowed to have hypotheses born out of our experience assuming we can handle being proved wrong, control for confirmation bias, etc. It's quite far from being a solved problem.