Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decwrl!dyer@vaxuum.DEC (This did not happen to/Pablo Picasso) From: dyer@vaxuum.DEC (This did not happen to/Pablo Picasso) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Innate Sexual Differences Message-ID: <574@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 09:02:41 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.574 Posted: Wed Sep 25 09:02:41 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 04:33:40 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 282 Re: Innate Sexual Differences____________________________________ This is a long article, but I hope that doesn't turn too many people off. The issues are important, and I've made every effort to provide intelligent discussion about them. The discussion of innate sexual differences was going on about a month ago, with Sunny Kirsten and myself as the main par- ticipants. Sunny has since left net.women (I believe), and I went on vacation. Perspective First things first; I'll tell you where I'm coming ~~~~~~~~~~~ from. I major in social psychology, with particular emphasis on what is known as "feminist social psychology." This perspective is more holistically aware than the traditional socio- logical perspectives, it emphasizes the so-called "feminine" human traits as much as it does the so-called "masculine" ones, and it takes into account such issues as control and power. This perspective emphasizes the social, but it does not ignore the biological. A critical analysis of other perspectives which *do* emphasize the biological reveals that most theories that attribute traits to biology have no visible means of support. Most of you are probably already aware that such perspectives have traditionally used arguments to purport the biological inferiority of women. Use of the Scientific Method Part of this perspective's holistic ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ awareness is a recognition of the possibility that biases can enter and have entered into the scien- tific process. One specific focus is the existence of sexist bias in psychological and sociological research. Scientific knowledge is obtained when the scientific meth- od is used. There are several steps to the the scientific method, but there are four "main" ones: The first is *observation*, see- ing (or hearing, or feeling, or whatever) something occur, most likely in some sort of pattern. The second is formulations of a *hypothesis*, a possible explanation of the observations. Third is *experimentation*, testing to see if the hypothesis holds true. The final step is to construct a *theory* from the results of the experimentation. Bias can enter in every one of these steps, es- pecially in psychological and sociological research. The source of my disagreement with Sunny's articles is that the claims they make are not supported by science. More spe- cifically, they suffer from the following: (1) she has not gone through the entire scientific method, just the first two steps (observation and hypothesis); (2) these two steps are the most subjective steps in the method, where bias is most likely to enter into things; and (3) in a number of instances, the hypotheses are incorrect according to knowledge that has already been established as scientific theory. Hemispheres and Hormones Sunny outlined some information about ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ the brain's two hemispheres: "[L]ogical and mathematical and the spatial perceptive abilities are active primarily in the left hemisphere . . . emotional and intuitive and artistic abilities are active primarily in the right hemispheres . . ." The traits associated with the left hemisphere are consid- ered masculine and those with the right are considered feminine in our culture. Sunny tells us that men are more adept at the left-brain capabilities and women are more adept at the right-brain capabili- ties. This is not correct: science has found no correlation be- tween sex and brain hemisphere dominance. The only brain hemisphere difference with regard to sex that I know of is this observation: in our culture, women are more adept at integrating the effects of both hemispheres than men are. It is not at all clear (it almost never is in these matters) whether this is a biological or a culture condition. She continues: >>> . . . from the medical literature I have studied . . . and >>> from my own experiences with the sex hormones, . . . the male >>> hormones promote left-brain activity and aggressiveness and >>> competitiveness, while the female hormones promote right- >>> brain activity and passivity and cooperativeness. I'd like to see some references for this, because I've never seen a study that has said any such thing. Our culture may connect emotional and intuitive (right-brain) traits with passive and co- operative (purportedly female hormone-induced) traits and call them "feminine," but other cultures do not; and as far as I know, our body does not either. Brain hemisphere dominance has nothing to do with hormones. (I should mention that there is a very wide variation of the definition of "feminine" and "masculine" among and within cul- tures, including definitions that are the exact opposites of our culture's definitions. Psychologists have found it useful to con- sider these gender-defined-traits as constellations of traits that *all* humans have the potential to posess or experience. In fact, people who have access to all of these traits enjoy better mental health than any other group of people!) >>> . . . what I have observed about myself, is a lessening of >>> [aggressive] behavior, a lessening of preoccupation with mat- >>> ters sexual, and an increase in emotionality and sensuality. >>> >> . . . is it possible that there is some placebo effect here? >> Did you have any expectations, conscious or unconscious, of >> the effects that hormone changes would have on your thought >> patterns? Is it possible that you have preconceived ideas >> about how women think, and unconsciously altered your thought >> patterns to meet your expectations when you started to become >> a woman? >> > My only expectations were of physical changes to my body, i.e. > the reason for taking them was related to my transition from > male to female body characteristics. My observations of > mental changes were unexpected . . . This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that such observations are no substitute for experiments where varia- bles are controlled. Sunny can only account for what she's been conscious of; she cannot know what has happened unconsciously. This is where we have myriad variables that have not been (and perhaps cannot be) accounted for. >>> In Other Words, the prime shift has been from left-brain/ >>> right-handed/logical/[aggressive] dominance, to right-brain/ >>> left-handed/emotional/passive dominance in my brain activity. Perhaps it has, but since your observations have not been subject to controls, there is no basis for concluding that this shift has been the result of the hormones alone. >>> I believe you will find that these are precisely the differ- >>> ences observed between the stereotypical "male" and "female" >>> of the species . . . Not of the species. *Of*this*culture!* I cannot stress this point enough. >>> The behavioral patterns brought about by testosterone influ- >>> ence, which tend to get beyond conscious control, tend to be >>> active/[aggressive] behavior patterns, often leading to viol- >>> ence (or other physical [aggression] (e.g. rape)) and harmful >>> release of emotions (anger). First we have to define aggression, and I'll use the def- inition that most psychologists and sociologists use: Aggression: overt physical behavior with intent to harm. There is no scientific evidence that support the claim that testosterone promotes aggressive behavior. What the evidence shows is that testosterone promotes *active* behavior; if you pre- fer, you could think of it as promoting overt physical behavior, but the hormone has nothing to do with the "intent to harm" part. Indeed, "intent to harm" is a complex behavior that could hardly be caused by hormones. Competitiveness, passivity, and cooperat- iveness are also behaviors which are too complex to attribute to hormones. (By the way, one will occasionally see an article in this newsgroup that suggests an inherent link between sex and violence. Such suggestions are obviously the result of a confusion between activeness (is that a word?) and aggressiveness.) Another effect that Sunny reports has to do with, as she puts it, "preoccupation with matters sexual." It is a common be- lief in our culture that men are inherently more interested in sex than women; even though surveys show that this is simply not true. (And if it's not true in a culture that insists it *is* true, the grounds for believing that it's true are very shaky indeed!) Again, a look at the scientific evidence is enlightening: testosterone increases the sex drive of men; estrogen and progest- erone increase the sex drive of women. Reaching Conclusions I've said before that I don't think Sunny's ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ observations are worthless. They are, how- ever, only observations, not valid scientific theory. Unfortu- nately, Sunny extrapolates things from her hypotheses: >>> It is no accident, after observing the discussion in net.women >>> about rape, that so many men can relate to the concept of: "I >>> raped her because she asked for it by being dressed that way" >>> or "I find the defendant guilty of rape because of her provoc- >>> ation. The reason why so many men believe this way, is be- >>> cause they have first-hand knowledge of their inability to >>> control their own sexual impulses and their own violent ex- >>> pression of their need to dominate, to [aggress], as a result >>> of testosterone taking over, and overpowering their ability to >>> think rationally. I don't recall "many men" "relating" to that concept in this newsgroup, but let's say (for the sake of the argument) that they did. Even so, Sunny's explanation why (i.e., testosterone takeover) is perhaps the least feasible explanation. First, it is based on her (scientifically unverified) observations. Second, it neglects the fact that humans, the most complex species on the planet, are the *least* effected by hormones. Finally, if it were true, one would expect to find it to be true for every culture on the planet, and it is not. >>> The reason that rape is a men's issue, not a women's issue, >>> and the reason that only men can stop rape, is that only men >>> are under the influence of testosterone. I want very much to end rape, so I take very strong excep- tion to this statement. Studies of rapists who have been convic- ted and incarcerated (a population that is probably not represent- ative of all rapists, but for now, it's the best we can do) reveal that a desire to dominate is what motivates rapists. Testosterone has *not* been shown to cause such a desire. A more likely source of this desire is our culture's in- sistence that men be powerful and our culture's accompanying in- sistence that the "masculine" traits are most worthy. It has been shown again and again that demonstration and encouragement of dom- ination will yield a net gain in dominating behavior. To concentrate our rape-prevention efforts on testosterone - which, again, has *not* been shown to motivate rapists - would be barking up the wrong tree, and rape prevention has waited long enough (thanks to years of silence on the issue) to waste time on the wrong tree. (A few years back, the media picked up on a controversial subject: the experimental use of chemical castration - i.e., re- duction of testosterone levels - for habitual rapists. You've probably heard about this. What you probably haven't heard - ap- parently because it "wasn't controversial enough" to "merit" the media's attention - are the experiment's results: it failed.) > . . . a direct correlation between excess testosterone levels > and habitual rapists exists . . . I have contacted several rape crisis centers, mental health clinics (treating habitual rape offenders), and checked my local library, but I have found nothing to support this claim. Again, for the sake of the argument, let's say this is true. Even so, it would be no indication that excess testosterone causes rape. The direct correlation between ice cream sales and the occurring rapes (most rapes happen in the summer) does not indicate that ice cream causes rape. It might be possible that the higher activity levels that testosterone does provide could contribute to rapists acting out their desires to dominate (I'm hypothesizing here, if you haven't guessed). On the other hand, excess testosterone levels could encourage others to build a house or something. > . . . many men can reach the point of almost crying but can't > seem to quite make it over some unknown threshold. Under estro- > gen that threshold is breached . . . My source for this is obscure (I think it was an issue of _Psychology_Today_, way back when I still read it), but a study of men who admit to crying went something like this: These men could remember this "threshold," but found that that they could cross it when it became culturally "okay" for them to cry (either because of changing values (thanks to the Women's Movement) or because they were in a social situation (such as an encounter group) that did not discourage crying). I presume that there is no correla- tion between social contexts like these and the level of estrogen in men's bodies. Let's Be Careful Out There The overall problem here seems to be ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ an enthuiasm for attributing certain things to biology instead of society. This is a very common act- ion, and I can think of four reasons why it's very common: (1) _A_desire_to_say_something_meaningful_. When you say that something is biological, you're saying that it's innate. You are, in fact, saying something about Human Nature. Somehow it seems more exciting to have discovered something universal among the species than to have discovered something that is only rele- vant until (for example) one's culture changes its ways. (2) _The_murkiness_of_the_subconscious_. The effects of culture often manifest themselves subconsciously. Thus, they seem to come from nowhere - or, more accurately, they seem to come from within. (3) _Support_of_prejudices_. Prejudices, especially wrong ones, are inevitably supported by shaky rationalizations. If one can convince oneself (and others) that one's prejudices are based on biology (inherent and unchanging) instead of society (artifici- al and constantly changing), one can feel more secure about them. (4) _Ethnocentricity_. Cultural relativity is often ig- nored, and one often assumes that a behavior or trend is species- wide when it is actually culture-wide. My advice is to be especially leery of claims that certain things are biologically innate. Again, such claims have traditi- onally be used to support sexism against women. In Sunny's case, they have been used to support sexism against men. <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::' :: `:::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::' :: `:: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: .::::. :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: ::..:' :: `:..:: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax} ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::::' :: `:::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com