Hacker News Reader

Comment by yjyofiz | Hacker News Reader

> Something that inexplicably has become taboo to many on the left

I think the more important split than left vs right is neuroscientist vs non-neuroscientist [0]. It's absurd to think that there would be no gender-related neurological differences, but also unlikely that there are large differences. The answer lies somewhere in between, and the more you learn about the brain, the more you realize how limited our scientific understanding of it is.

Also, seeing as how this article is pay-walled and not available on any mirror sights, I suspect that almost no one commenting here has read the article in full. Which brings us yet again to [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

View on HN

> It's absurd to think that there would be no gender-related neurological differences

Surprisingly enough, that's a widely accepted hypothesis in sociology.

Well, they wouldn’t be gender related because gender and biological sex are different ideas. To many people, anyway.

Since gender and biological sex are extremely strongly correlated, stating that there are no gender-related neurological differences it's substantially equivalent to saying that there are no biological sex-related neurological differences.

... no it isn’t. It’s saying the differences that do exist are related to sex, not gender - any statistical relationship to gender is mediated through the relationship to sex because gender is often correlated to sex ... but there are many people for whom this is not the case. So gender can’t be responsible for physical differences. Only sex, which is physical, could be correlated with physical/neurological differences.

You used the word 'related', implying statistical correlation.

My point is: a feature which is statistically correlated with gender is also statistically correlated with sex, since for the vast majority of people sex and gender coincide.

Honestly I think much of the problem lies here, the definitions people are using for Gender and Sex have shifted and for many, on the right certainly, they mean the same thing while they are distinct to the left.

However that doesn't excuse arguments like men being physically stronger and faster solely due to upbringing and not biology.

> arguments like men being physically stronger and faster solely due to upbringing and not biology.

Is that a real example? It seems obviously untrue and I’d be surprised if people really think this. Especially the word solely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com