Study debunks notion that men and women are psychologically distinct

[insideontheoutside]

I randomly came across this article and found it pretty interesting. Personally I was always kind of against that group thinking such as "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus", and thought there was a whole bunch more variation than that. I personally knew men who didn't fit the general man mold and women who didn't fit the general woman mold. Not just in actions, but also in thinking. I knew very sensitive men, and very abrasive women. So every time I'd see some paper or article or news item about the fundamental psychological differences I would internally question it. I think to some extent some of it is even detrimental. For instance, segregating boys and girls because they "learn different" has pretty much been scientifically debunked as well (although there's some random individuals still trying to rally for that). Of course hormones certainly play a role when discussing brains, and I'm not saying there's no difference between the genders, just that the hardline thinking that they're totally different is off.

"... there are not two distinct genders, but instead there are linear gradations of variables associated with sex, such as masculinity or intimacy, all of which are continuous."

Read on and feel free to post your thoughts ...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/04/study-debunks-notion-that-men-and-women-are-psychologically-distinct/

[Emily Aster]

I can see no good coming from separating people by sex for learning, even if it did help them learn faster. Workplaces are filled with diversity and they wouldn't have any experience with that. The ability to interact with different types of people is just as important as the knowledge you hold. In my opinion, a happy medium would be better than an all or nothing focus.

I'm pretty sure the idea that one gender is better at one thing than another is not so much a fact as something we're taught is true as children. I know that's been slowly changing over the years though. I remember my father freaking out about me taking home economics, wondering why I would choose such a thing. The thing is, I didn't choose it, nor would I so as to avoid incurring his wrath. When he went to the exact same school as me, boys took woodshop and girls took home economics. By the time I got there, everybody took woodshop for half the year and home economics for the other half. 

[insideontheoutside]

I agree with you, Emily. The world is a diverse place and I too have seen changes as far as what's "appropriate" for women to do vs. men to do.

[StellaB]

This kind of backs up two of my opinions.

Firstly that gender roles are far more fragile than we think.

That trans folk generally are closer to the norm when it comes to gender perception and it's the cisgendered who are closer to being the freaks.

Looking at the comments I feel that there's a lot of people who prefer the conflicts because they find them easier to deal with than working to achieve harmony.

[Silvermist]

This has always seemed pretty obvious to me.

[suzifrommd]

Interesting study, but doesn't support the claim made in the headline. The study documents overlap on a number of variables between men and woman. From that you certainly can NOT conclude that the notion of men being different from women is debunked.

I mean, if a study concluded, for example, that there are some women that are taller than some men, some men who have longer hair than some women, some women have a jaw is wider than some men, some women have more facial hair than some men, etc. (all true), could you conclude that it is generally impossible to look at someone and be able to tell if they are likely to be a man or a woman?

Sorry for the rant, but I see the press do this a lot - put a sober study under a sensational headline that distorts the study's finding.

[Randi]

If men and women were fundamentally the same, why would so many of us be eager to change our sex?

Randi

[insideontheoutside]

If men and women were fundamentally the same, why would so many of us be eager to change our sex?

Randi

Because society treats the sexes differently. Not to mention if you're transsexual, then that would be your driving force to want to "change sexes".

[wheat thins are delicious]

Because society treats the sexes differently. Not to mention if you're transsexual, then that would be your driving force to want to "change sexes".

Are you saying that it's only because of society that transsexuals wish to transition?

[Faun]

Because society treats the sexes differently. Not to mention if you're transsexual, then that would be your driving force to want to "change sexes".

Sorry but no. I couldn't give less of a ->-bleeped-<- about gender roles. I want to transition because I feel really uncomfortable in my body. If society viewed the male body as female, and the female as male, I would still transition.

[suzifrommd]

If men and women were fundamentally the same, why would so many of us be eager to change our sex?

Randi

For me, because living as a woman is a more comfortable and natural way to live.

[~RoadToTrista~]

They ARE different pschologically, and those differences are valued. For example, having a female perspective at a crime scene can be very useful, because woman have an easier time catching some things that men don't, or vice versa.

[insideontheoutside]

Are you saying that it's only because of society that transsexuals wish to transition?

Sorry but no. I couldn't give less of a ->-bleeped-<- about gender roles. I want to transition because I feel really uncomfortable in my body. If society viewed the male body as female, and the female as male, I would still transition.

"Not to mention if you're transsexual, then that would be your driving force to want to 'change sexes'." I'm implying that being trans almost always includes things like dysphoria ... which is a major reason to want to transition, not simply because of society.

[Gina_Z]

As usual, there are the influences of both Nature and Nurture. Who needs a scientific study like this? All we have to do is interact with men and women in real life and make our own observations. In my life I've seen a wide range of gender types. It makes me laugh when I see the extremes- guys and gals who want to be the stereotype. I remember my first girlfriend, a sexy beautiful person who liked to work on her car. The stereotype of wearing pink dresses and baking cakes was thrown out years ago. Not that anything is wrong with that. I adore pink. 
    I have to add that there are some differences, like women cry easier. (Nature) That's my observation. Sometimes that part of me kicks in during sentimental or tragic films.

[yaka]

Our stereotypes about sexes have to come from somewhere - based on the truth that many women and men act/think in a certain way. Not the same as all.

Certain traits are linked to hormone levels - e.g. aggression from higher T, moodiness from higher E.

The same-sex schooling was silly (but intriguing that female-only schools generally excelled), and was of no benefit to myself, lol.

[Taka]

i measure psychological differences by what literature or movies people prefer, not what abilities they have. most people can excel at anything if they just work hard enough to learn. but nobody can make themselves like something just because they're told to.

there really are some differences, but i'm not too sure what exactly those would be. it's somewhere in the reasons for liking whatever it may be. i can't understand why so many girls liked twilight. but there's no doubt that many more women than men liked that series. there is a difference, or we wouldn't be able to observe something like that.

[KabitTarah]

Interesting study, but doesn't support the claim made in the headline. The study documents overlap on a number of variables between men and woman. From that you certainly can NOT conclude that the notion of men being different from women is debunked.

I mean, if a study concluded, for example, that there are some women that are taller than some men, some men who have longer hair than some women, some women have a jaw is wider than some men, some women have more facial hair than some men, etc. (all true), could you conclude that it is generally impossible to look at someone and be able to tell if they are likely to be a man or a woman?

Sorry for the rant, but I see the press do this a lot - put a sober study under a sensational headline that distorts the study's finding.

This. I saw the title and I was like... nuh uh... no way.

It's like saying that, because some women are taller than some men you can't say men are taller than women. Of course men are taller, on average... it's well known. Statistical outliers cannot make a majority.

The premise of the article itself is good - that gender is a continuum and nobody falls at any discrete point along that scale. But that premise is also pretty obvious. It's like saying that nobody is exactly 72.0 inches tall (with infinite precision). Well, of course not... that's basic statistics.

Politically, the article makes a good point for us. Sociologically, it may be important. Scientifically, it's drivel.

Nevermind. I read the article more closely. It's saying that there's a uniform distribution across each psychological trait instead of the socially expected bell curve. I don't entirely believe it... and have to wonder if there's something else, or a combination of traits (i.e. the sum is more than the sum of its parts).

If this is true (with no correlations of combined traits)... then psychological gender must be 100% social. I don't disagree that socially imposed roles play a big part in gender, but at the same time my boy and my girls are very different in what they liked from a very young age. I understand there are social roles imposed from birth, which could account for it.

Here's a good article on gender biased toys in America:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-watson/hey-toys-r-us-stop-thrusting-gender-roles-on-my-kids_b_4025214.html

[Lo]

there really are some differences, but i'm not too sure what exactly those would be. it's somewhere in the reasons for liking whatever it may be. i can't understand why so many girls liked twilight. but there's no doubt that many more women than men liked that series. there is a difference, or we wouldn't be able to observe something like that.

Taste can definitely be socially influenced, and it happens all the time, especially with young people. I couldn't tell you how many CDs I bought because I'd convinced myself that I liked such-in-such band or singer because my friends did. Or that I really really liked shopping at such-in-such store because my friends did. I mean, I know that I was pretty impressionable as a youngster, but I highly doubt that I was some kind of statistical anomaly. Even my bullied outcast friends later on did things to fit in with each other because they didn't really have a concrete idea of who they were and what they liked.

There was a time where I would have loved Twilight. There were themes and storylines that I used to absolutely adore, but now I don't. If you hear a hundred times about how liking X thing is bad and makes you a bad, stupid person, you're going to wind up associating X with being a bad, stupid person, and who wants to be that? For years, I associated loud talking/raised voices with imminent violence. It's taking me years to unlearn my "preference" for quiet talking. And how many people actually bother to think about the things they like and why they like them? Most lives go unexamined.

If this is true (with no correlations of combined traits)... then psychological gender must be 100% social. I don't disagree that socially imposed roles play a big part in gender, but at the same time my boy and my girls are very different in what they liked from a very young age. I understand there are social roles imposed from birth, which could account for it.

Here's a good article on gender biased toys in America:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-watson/hey-toys-r-us-stop-thrusting-gender-roles-on-my-kids_b_4025214.html

There was a study that Cordelia Fine debunked in her book 'Delusions of Gender' (god I love that book and I wish every trans* person would read it) where the researchers tried to prove that female babies were naturally predisposed to find faces more interesting than male babies, and the explanation of why the study was bad, and why such studies are empirically problematic to begin with, was amazing and could be applied to every study conducted on infants. (It saddens me that so many people underestimate a baby's ability to recognize and learn from patterns in their world from such a young age.) The entire book is one debunked study after another. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to get your research funded, published, and distributed if it just reinforces the things we already "know". It would take 100 books to debunk all the bad, binarist, essentialist science out there... and in the end, no one would read them anyway.

(On another note, I want this book too: 'Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences')