Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
From: gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Gretchen Chapman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: sex/gender
Message-ID: <54213@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 11 Jul 89 18:58:51 GMT
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Gretchen Chapman)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 69
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


	I would like to argue that there are indeed differences
between men and women, but that these differences are not necessarily
(morally) valid or unchangeable.
	Us psychologists believe that behavior is the result of
genetics and environmental (experiential) factors.  This it the old
nature-nuture controversy.  In the recent discussion about "natural"
versus "socio-historically specific" gender, I would think that
natural gender maps onto genetic behavior and historically specific
gender maps on to evironmentally determinined behavior.  The first
point I would like to make is that characteristics about me which are
the result of my genes are no more a part of me, no more natural, than
characteristics which are the result of my experience (learning,
nutrition, etc.)  A second point is that there is no such thing as a
behavior which is 100% genetically based, or 100% acquired.  It is
becoming increasing clear that answers to the nature-nuture
controversy are in the from of explaining the interaction of genes
and environment.  So for example, whether one has XX or XY chromosomes
(a genetic factor) usually deterimines what kind of genitalia one will
develop, which determines whether one will be exposed to testosterone
in utero (an environmental factor) which in turn determines what kind
of reproductive behavior one engages in (at least if one is a rat).
	Another term that has been thrown around is "biological" or
"physiological".  Again, I would argue that the genetic component of
triats are no more biological than the acquired component of traits.
According to a materialist, everything can be explained by something
physical; in short, all behaviors and traits are biological.
	There certainly are statistical differences between men and
women.  More women bear children than men, but also, women are more
verbal and less spatially skilled than men; women are more nuturing
than men, less sexually aggressive than men, etc.  Some of these
differences are larger than others, and some are better backed by data
than others.  But if someone provides empirically evidence about a sex
difference, I refuse to close my eyes and pretend it isn't real.  I
also do not believe that some differences are more "natural" than
others.   If a difference is found, it is interesting to explore the
reasons behind this difference, but I don't see why some reasons
are more natural than others.
	None of these differences, nor any empirical finding
imaginable, flies in the face of feminism.  All of these differences
and the reasons behind them are *DESCRIPTIVE*; they simply describe
the way the world is.  Feminism is a *PRESCRIPTIVE* position; it
states the way we should behave to change the world (not everyone
agrees on exactly what feminism says, but we all agree that it is
prescriptive).   I really want to trounce on the naturalistic fallacy
here.  Is does not imply ought.  A description can never lead directly
to a prescription.  Just because women are more nuturing than men does
not mean that they should be, that they should try to be nuturing,
that men should try not to be nuturing, etc.  The description of the
world is informative because it tells us where we need to improve
(assuming we know where we would like to be) but is does not validate
anything that currently exists.
	Knowing what we would like the world to be like might not help
us change it if certain things are unchangeable.  For example, perhaps
women are doomed to being nuturing and there is nothing anyone can do
to change that.  I think some people want to believe that certain
traits are not "natural" or genetic, because if they were, they would seem 
unchangeable.   Certainly to say a trait is genetically based is not to
say it is unchangeable.  Take, for example, the illness of depression.
It is known to be largely genetically determined, yet is very
modifiable with drugs or cognitive therapy.  Although it may be true
that genetic determination of a trait is negatively correlated with
its changeability, we cannot makes something modifiable simply by
refusing to believe that it has a genetic component.  Whether a given
trait is modifiable or not is an empirical question.  If it turns out
that some sex differences are not modifiable (and there is always the
hope that someday someone will discover a way to modify them), we will
have to accept that and find other ways to give women and men to
freedom to become whomever they would like to become.