Is the Brain Gendered?: The Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июн 2024
- What's inside a black hole? Is consciousness something we can measure? Where did life itself come from? How To Academy Science is a new channel from How To Academy. Subscribe today: / @howtoacademyscience
The idea that male and female brains are ‘essentially’ different is one of the most controversial and contested in science, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the future of medicine and mental health treatment, the workplace and society as a whole.
In this debate, two leaders of their field go head-to-head to debate the evidence for and against the existence of sex differences in the mind and the brain. We sift fact from conjecture, science from nonsense, and explore the ramifications for education, employment, relationships, psychiatry, and how we identify ourselves.
It’s time to accept that brains should not be ‘sexed’, says Gina Rippon. It’s misleading to attribute any differences in behaviour, abilities, achievements, or personality to the possession of either a female brain or a male brain. And she argues that new techniques can prove it. After centuries of ingrained neurosexism, neuroscience’s cutting-edge breakthroughs should at last liberate us from outdated misunderstandings of what our brains can and cannot do.
Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen takes a different perspective. Whilst he agrees that individuals’ brains should not and cannot be ‘sexed’, he reminds us that group studies of males and females do reveal differences on average: men on average are better at analysing systems and women on average are better at empathising with people. And he marshals evidence from studies of prenatal hormones and genetics that these traits have both biological and cultural roots.
In addition, Simon Baron-Cohen doesn’t just study average sex differences for the sake of it: he does so to understand autism, a neurological condition that affects three times as many boys as girls, and which he argues is an extreme version of the typical male brain.
Simon Baron-Cohen and Gina Rippon agree on their moral perspective: they both want a society free of discrimination on the basis of gender (or ethnicity, or disability). And they agree that pseudoscience is dangerous: men are not from Mars, or women from Venus. But they disagree on two key points: whether essential differences between males and females are part of human nature; and whether or not these should be ignored. 
Наука
Brain scan data show that there are differences. Why is this even being debated?
Because she has political agenda
societal expectations of women and men are different, and brain is plastic, hence why differences in brain scans
brain scan data shows differences without specifying the background of each induvial no matter their gender, knowing that the lifestyle has a huge impact on the brain.
@@juliaawada You're making that up. Please reference the study data.
@juliaawada No there's been multiple studies showing those same differences were consistent between men and women.
Science is a process of finding facts, not about managing feelings by not observing or distorting truths.
Are the facts about female and male brains?
@@k.manjericao1583 That question is a huge tell to what you're really thinking. So I have to ask do you know what facts are? If you're a Postmodernist then I already know your answer and we should just talk about the Postmodernist view.
@@RoddyPipersCorneas I'm doing online dating, and there's a lot of truth to this. If the sin of the man is to want to sleep with lots of women, then the sin of the woman it to want to have the perfect life. So women choose men that provide that service, they find men who are stoic to be sexier then men who are emotional, but they will hold the objectification of men against men to help them get their perfect life. Being honest is about vulnerability having status is either having a skill, or manipulation of others for power. Objectification of women is innocent compared to manipulation of others.
Gina Rippon's position seems to be either of two things: a) Humans are the only animal whose cerebral sexual dimorphism doesn't translate into behaviour or b) Humans are the only animal that doesn't have any cerebral sexual dimorphism. Both positions seem farfetched in my book.
Her attempt at 15:30 to show that there are no differences demonstrates precisely the opposite. Focusing on the overlap seems disingenuous. For instance, there's a 98.7% overlap between the bonobo and the human genome, should we simply discard the remaining 1.3% and claim both species are one and the same? "Overlap" doesn't mean "identity". Complex systems such as the brain or a society are extremely fine tuned, the tiniest differences can have the biggest consequences (butterfly effect), so the claim that a component like reproductive abilities has no influence whatsoever over psychology or behaviour doesn't stand to reason.
The fact that the animal kingdom displays gendered behaviour (and cerebral sexual dimorphism) without any intervention of culture is solid enough proof that said behaviour is at the very least partly biological in nature, which is all we need to demonstrate.
If gendered behaviour was exclusively social, it would be possible to raise boys like girls and vice-versa. And if it was possible to raise boys like girls/girls like boys, then socialisation would be enough to alleviate the pain of people suffering from gender dysphoria. There would be no gender dysphoria to begin with because behaviour would equal socialisation at all times since the latter causes the former according to the theory. The very fact that gender dysphoria is indeed a real thing is evidence that something else than socialisation is at play in the formation of gender identity. That something is biology.
I am team Simon Baron-Cohen. Cheers.
Well said and I am team Simon as well lol!
@@EricJohnsonresignWhile I do agree that the two sexes have different brains, it can be difficult to asign human behavior to which one. Many men can have feminine aspects and many women can have masculine aspects (even if both parties are mostly masculine and feminine respectively). After all, humans can be very complicated individuals.
Don't call humans "animals". Its an insult. We're people not animals.
There's a difference why we call ourselves people because of how we act. We're not like animals that have no morals.
Some comments on here are exactly why Prof. Gina had to insist so much on how knowledge is presented
"Our differences don’t mean one sex or the other is better or smarter or more deserving. Some researchers have grappled with charges of “neurosexism”: falling prey to stereotypes or being too quick to interpret human sex differences as biological rather than cultural. They counter, however, that data from animal research, cross-cultural surveys, natural experiments and brain-imaging studies demonstrate real, if not always earthshaking, brain differences, and that these differences may contribute to differences in behavior and cognition." Source: Stanford University School of Neuroscience.
You don't even know how to cite a source. Next time try "source: Earth".
@@k.manjericao1583 Logical fallacy #1 Ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
@@hectorestrada9877 You don't even know how to spot and identify correctly, not even close, a fallacy. Spotting how you fail citing sources when you actually did is not an Ad hominem fallacy. But I see your case is beyond ignorance, it's more about dishonesty.
@@k.manjericao1583 May you always be happy, healthy, and safe ❤️
@hectorestrada9877 What he is saying is for you to cite a an exact work like an article, book, video, etc. Instead, it was rather vague. The reason why you cite your sources is so people can check them out and verify your research. For all we know, you could have made it up. I'm not discounting what you said but you try to cite a specific work.
Mary Berry and Hans Zimmer can really make you think...
Tense vibe in that room.
I disliked that woman from just her presentation and she completely lost me when she tried to use shaming tactics to make people agree with her on feelings rather than science. She's an activist not a scientist.
Can somebody please explain to me what a p-value “p
In statistica hypothesis testing, a p-value tries to quantify how much your hypothesis under test is substanciated by the data.
It measures the probability of observing the data, given your hypothesis is false. (Probablity conditioned on the null hypothesis)
Having a very small p-value means the data cannot be explained without assuming your hypothesis is true. Therefore, a small p value, less than 0.0001 is a good indication your hypothesis makes sense.
In this case, the p-value was very small, 0.0000000000000002.
So his measured data definitely fits well with his hypotesis
Fact check #1: Alessandro Strumia did NOT say that men and women brains were different. He did not argue through neurobiology.
He should have - if he wanted to taken seriously in the 20th, 21st and 22nd centuries
Unfortunately Cohen's data can't be extricated from postnatal experience and conditioning. If anything, the theory of autism and systemizing and empathy seems to indicate the role of conditioning for non-autistic people, because autistic people might serve as a control group here. However, I do agree with other commenters about the tests and diagnosis of autism still lean toward makes and females slip through the cracks.
ı could not find the research at 35 min can anybody share
just wanna add some mathematic note to male female brain vs male female identify by birth (chromosome) is as he claimed for e-s type model and i love how data speak it self: its 40 % for both side in middle which means for people which no aligment its 50 50 for both male and female but when we talk about extremes which are 40 % in s and 40 % in e other side is 20 % which is half so for s type especefically its 66% vs 33 % thats how math works and if you want to build socaity around it because it shows its not 50 50 at all and if you wanna gamble i think 66 % is ok to put ur money on it!
Las burdas simplificaciones de Rippon son tan características de los académicos del like, de esos investigadores que están más preocupados por ser famosos extrapolando y torciendo los argumentos que en el trabajo de investigación lento y crítico. Provocar escándalo siempre es más redituable en esta sociedad de la mentira y el espectáculo. Me hubiera gustado escuchar más de sus propias investigaciones originales en vez de depender totalmente de lo que dice Baron-Cohen para tener algo que señalar. Su presentación no parece mostrar una investigación propia robusta (ciertamente nada como la de Baron-Cohen), pero lo que sí puedo corroborar es que respecto a la dimensión cultural que tanto defiende sabe muy poco, y desde una perspectiva sumamente reduccionista de buenos-malos, patriarcado opresor, etc. etc.
These comments illustrate why it is so important to have such a debate. The way of which we categorise things (such as some genetalia and behavior being classefied as female or male) affect how we structure the world, and thereby how we interact with the world. By going into looking at anything, with a perspective already established (Im looking for either X or Y or Z) you will find differences to categorise the things into X or Y and Z and thereyby having focus on differences and not similarities. We can all aggree that we are human, this is one category, by assuming there to be another essentiel category (eg. female or male) we are inherently biased in our research, and by then going to look at brain studies and such we will focus on what differs (even when the overlap fx is bigger than the difference, if we made the research to look thorugh another glass (not female male, but fx temperament regarding extraversion introversion) we could find a whole other graph with overlap and differences.
Imagine if we instead of categorising humans into male or female used over 150cm height or under 150cm, (doesnt even have to be a binary system tbh, but just for the idea) we would then in each categories probaly find differences, fx those over 150cm in height would probaly deal with knee-issues more often than those under 150cm; this not because they have essentially weaker knees, but because they live in a world where their height puts more pressure on their knees and they thereby weaken more often. But if we then started to tell those over 150 to act a certain way to continue to be viewed as "correct" in their categorie, we then end up discreminating and this is the problem one has to be aware of when conforming to the idea of "brain look diff then we must be diff" (also we have to think about how diff ways of looking at brain shows structure or fucntion and we often dont see dirrect effect between structure and fuction but we practically guess based on correlations and such)
English not first language lol, but i hope you get the point; your glasses of which you see the world thorugh are inherently affected on your current idea of differences, but those glasses are given to us, and we must be critical of this to continue to create better science (and science is not only defined by the classical natural science, human og sociological are just as good; we have a tendency to think if there is no brainscan or anything its no good, but this devalues a lot of good research and ideas.
Sidenote, read gender/sex as potentially essentially less categorised and more dimensional, on a spectrum.
@cunknownname9216 You dont understand.
Women and men on average have different heights for example. You'll find more men who are 6ft1 than women who are 5ft9.
Youre position is based on there being exceptions which leads to theres no averages.
@@antoniomosley9410 you completely missed my point, we are biased when going into science with precreated ideas of categories. The categories could have been anything, but we have chosen genetalia to define two categories, and thereby trying to fit everything else into this, even when there is plenty of studies demonstrating that these two categories (men/female) have a bigger overlap, more similarities than differences. We have to acknowledge our own bias.
@cunknownname9216 I didn't understand your point? That's actually false. Since on average xy and xx are completely different. It's based on the hormone chemicals that that are produced by the brain.
From a evolutionary point of view it seems to makes sense the two sexes would have differences in the brain. Like many other animals humans show quite significant noticeable differences in behaviours and interest which show from early age.
About 95% of men are highly sexually attracted to woman as aposed to other men once they hit puberty. Is this simply a result of social/phycological triggers and upbringing or is it largely a result of hormones and chemicals on the brain or is there something about the brain that differs in men to woman that makes them sexually attracted to woman. I think the latter is the case and men are basically hardwired (at least to some extent) to be sexually attracted to woman.
I have a question. How do males and females bond with each other? I don't see how men and women can bond (especially romantically) with each other.
Women can build incredible friendships and become very close to each other in a way men can't bond, and science shows that women can bond very well with each other. Generally, women are even more social than men are. After something bad happens, a woman quickly rushes to talk to all of her female friends to get support, whereas a man can isolate himself and grief alone.
Women tend to be more emotional, more caring, more empathic, more compassionate, more affectionate, more loyal, more nurturing, more understanding, more sympathetic, more sensitive, more kind hearted, more peaceful, more calmer, more gentle, more expressive, more intuitive, and more outward than men are, and thus bond more with other women in a special way that they can’t with men. Men, on the other hand, are not that emotional, and thus can’t bond with other men in a special way.
Women are more comfortable being around with other women than they are with men. They have a type of bond that usually men with women won’t really have, or with men and men. Men are usually much lonelier than women are. Men don't often talk about their personal problems with their male friends like how women do with their female friends. Females produce a lot more oxytocin than males do. And that's a reason why women tend to hug a lot more and be a lot more physically affectionate than men do.
Of course having a womb means if youre not able to take care of babies your babies will die. So women evolved to be able to take care of babies because they havee wombs ..and if women were stronger than men men wouldnt be able to rape them and therfore strong women who could fight that off wouldnt have babies and their genes would die out and probably all that happened well before we were even apes let alone humans. Now we dont really havbe any pressures that even keep the species fit. Disabled people would not have survived ...weak people sickly people simply wouldnt have survived our history. But all those abnormalities and weak examples are now able to survive. In reality there are 8 billion brains all of which are unique in uniwue bodies with combinations of dna never seen before never seen since (,excluding twins i suppose) i think any way you cut the population you will find average differences.
They also seem to be hardwired to be gay the more male babies the mother has previously had and the more dense the population. Many changes are hardwired. Just as updates are built into the programme. Change and adaption is part of our hardwiring. So if we all start drinking milk we are hardwired to be able to lengthen the time we produce lactase ..if we eat grain we are hardwired to adapt and change our blood antigens in reaction to our food supply. That could be a very very very old hardwired thing before we were even mammals i dont know. But certainly we are hardwired to be flexible and adaptable in many ways due to many different environmental inputs which inform our internal biology.
@@icysnow57cold64 Wow! You definitely have been rejected pretty badly by men.
@@icysnow57cold64as a British woman I can relate to this but I moved to Germany 25 years ago and discovered that it is not the case here. Women here are more wary and competitive of each other and don’t bond with each other in the same way. Conversely men treat women more equally here and there are more friendships between the sexes and there is an ease between them. It was a huge culture shock to me and a loss and a win simultaneously. I wouldn’t have believed it possible but I have adjusted a long time ago.
She drops the ball in her very opening statement. "My opponent will present studies that have found differences, and I can present studies that havent". Ok...but by the vey nature of the question, ANY difference settles the debate. It's like when trying to prove if all swans are white, one researcher shows proof of a black swan and their opponent goes "well yeah but the swans I looked at in my study are all white". I exaggerate a bit of course, but this is the point. Then she proceeds to say "Men and women's brains are more alike than they are different. Yes, homo sapiens is more alike to other great apes than we are different, especially genetically speaking based on the number of overlapping genes, but can you use that to claim we are not different? This is why critical thinking is necessary when building an argument. Also, how dishonest to conclude your opening statement by finding someone truly sexist and using that as an appeal to emotion to stir up negative reactions, but then pretending you're discussing science.
good point
Take a shot everyone she said brain
請問有好的中文翻譯嗎？
不幸的是，该视频的观看次数如此之低，以至于没有中文翻译。我怀疑视频数量少的视频是否足以获得中文翻译。来自美国的问候。
@@johngober4088 Thank you.^^
NO QUESTION !
This is hilarious she literally stops debating what they are talking about to talk about how vital it is as a society we agree with her and the social consequences if we don’t. She an activist.
They both do that, specially him towards the end of the debate. And they're not only discussing pure data, this debate also has a socialization question in it, even the public ask that kind of questions, so it's reasonable they mix scientific data (which is not extent of subjectivity in the process of getting and interpret it) with their views.
@@ntlpz Socialization had nothing to do with my point. Socialization was an alternating explanation to why the brain could appear to be gendered. Socialization defiantly had a place in the debate it was relevant to the question "Is the brain gendered?" What shouldn't have had a place in the debate and was very telling about Gina's motives is at 17:36 when she goes off about the "Consequences of belief" that women and men have different brains.
She stops debating whether or not the brain is gendered and gets on her soap boxes about why the audience should vote with her because she perceives the negative consequences of the belief (whether it true or not) as bad enough we should just believe the claim anyway.
He's clearly doing it to avoid accusations of sexism that she (and the audience) were implying. It was and should've stayed a debate about the facts whether the brain is gendered or it isn't. If he started talking about how the brain is gendered and "hey you should vote with me because women should stay in the kitchen" then we would all be skeptical if this guy maybe had an agenda. That's not what happened though.
One side gave a fact driven debate constantly referring only to the research on the issue. The only time he engaged with the social consequences is when he got put on the back foot by accusations of sexist science he was forced to assure everyone that he also thought sexism was bad. The women in the audience equally missed the point
@@thomasblackwell4229 ☝️NAILED IT. Social constructionism has been OBJECTIVELY, EMPIRICALLY, and NEUROSCIENTIFICALLY proven FALSE when it comes to sex differences in the brain and personality expression.
Wait, lemme guess; “but that doesn’t mean socialization doesn’t play a role!” CORRECT, AND NOBODY SAID OTHERWISE.
F i g u r e i t o u t .
I just dont understand the hostility toward Dr Cohen. He couldve showed opposite data and you know damn well women would still be addressing the "harm to society" or "reenforcing norms". I think its interesting that Asperger's and the hyper male brain need repetitive, predictable routines to feel comfortable. Yet our society at every turn demonizes people like Elon Musk and its a social sin to even have "norms". I exhibit several female traits but we dont even get to examine those unique characteristics because almost every question had to do with how harmful science is or whatever.
Maybe you saw what you wanted to see?
Xeno que sepas que mañana tendre sueño durante las clases por tu culpa.
Un gusto ver un seguidor de Xeno.
Otro aquí
Couldn't love SBC more - he always manages to argue his case with empathy to the other side. ...I wonder if the male lifespan for those who survive middle age is still shorter - due to women being selected for based on looks alone until recently... looks = health to some extent - whereas men have sometimes been selected for based on innovative capacity, which only = health of the default mode network of the brain...
That's a super interesting question about male lifespan. I've legitimately never thought about that.
What else would you expect? Evolution plays a big part in this. Human babies are the weakest of all the apes and most mammals. A pregnant woman or a newborn cannot hunt, run etc. The male had to provide. Hence we hunt. The bigger or healthier the male the more likely to survive.
Today men as a whole experience more violence throughout their life times than women. Studies show that even in the office, men of suitable height, weight and features lead to more success. These attributes are viewed as portraying strength, leadership and security.
I'm surprised we don't die sooner. 😂
Debates like this save having to endure a solo lecture by one speaker at least
The 24 hour old baby experiment: it would be interesting to follow up after 5 years or so and see if any of them are autistic. This test could be an early indicator
The test was rubbish.
Yes we have brains
I like trains, I have a train brain.
My brain is gendered, so I presume other mammals' brains are gendered.
Pensé que era ciencia y no activismo doña
What on Earth is this? These people should not be funded. I work for a living in the real world and pay tax to pay their salaries. This is compete and utter BS. My daughter behaved like a 40 year old woman from when she was about 18 months old. For Gods sake, just look at the world. Men and women and different. What’s the problem?
They just have agenda and they want impact what science says
behavior and innate biology are 2 different things
if your daughter behaved like a 40 year old woman when she was 18 months there's something wrong with your parenting that you forced her to mature so quickly, there's absolutely no gendered reason why a 18 month girl isn't behaving like a child
@@FruityHachiIdiot! Girls are women and different from boys.
You either have a poor command of English or no sense of humour - I was obviously exaggerating to make a point with some humour as a degree of relief against society's current misplaced obsession with 'gender'. Our biological differences make the world beautiful and fascinating - it seems that some politically motivated students, activists and self-appointed 'experts' want to undermine this - they will never achieve it, because it is so utterly flawed and, frankly, just wrong.
NO
yes it is!
That baby study: You can't treat statistical data like this! Taking out the outliers, and then doing statistics on them is BAD SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE. When there are outliers, you have to look for confounders (e.g. autism, chromosomes), and determine a criterion for systematically removing certain types of data points. This selection CANNOT be made on basis of the results, but must be done based on what is already known (e.g. chromosomes, assigned sex, parental genetic factors, factors relating to the mother's lifestyle).
What I understand from this study, is that looking at the complete data set, there was NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE for a difference between male and female.
To look at the data in an unbiased way, how about plotting all the data as x="time spent looking at face" and y="time spent looking at pattern", and see if the dataset arranges itself into two separate groups? If yes, then you can start looking at differences between the groups - it may have nothing to do with sex or gender at all!
Wow, you read along this far? Thanks, you're awesome! :D
The baby study literally proves there difference. Even in the womb we see clear differences between unborn female and male offspring.
Isn't Leonard Shlain's theories in "The Alphabet Versus the Goddess" applicable?
"Once you correct for differences ... differences disappear". I damn nearly choked on my tea.
“Once you correct for size differences, sex differences disappear.”
"We confirmed that women have a higher percentage of GM [grey matter], whereas men have a higher percentage of WM [white matter] and of CSF. These differences sustained a correction for total intracranial volume". - from Sex Differences in Brain Gray and White Matter in Healthy Young Adults: Correlations with Cognitive Performance. Journal of Neuroscience 15 May 1999, 19 (10) 4065-4072;
@@Zantorc This grey matter and white matter still varies as a part of conditioning .
@@arya8214 Could you please supply evidence for that by linking to the relevant research paper.
@@arya8214 That's a book not research. Furthermore it's a book which Larry Cahill has criticised in the most withering terms. You can read it in the link below.
(Larry Cahill is a professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Behavior at the University of California, Irvine and an internationally recognized leader on the topic of sex influences on brain function).
quillette.com/2019/03/29/denying-the-neuroscience-of-sex-differences/
Take a look also at Journal of Neuroscience Research: An Issue Whose Time Has Come: Sex/Gender Influences on Nervous System Function
January/February 2017
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.v95.1-2/issuetoc
Some 70 papers devoted to sex differences in the brain. There is something very disturbing when scientists like Rippon display such overt prejudice. Fine and Joel are two others. They all approach neuroscience from the standpoint of feminist ideology
All mention of difference is being suppressed in favour of the myth of equality by feminist pressure groups - some of whom incidentally turn out to be covertly funded by pharmaceutical companies. Don't take my word for it read it for yourself - Source the New England Journal of Medicine
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1513686#t=article
The world of medicine is believed to be full of drugs which don't work in the same way in women and have only been tested on men, (one of the reason women suffer greater side effects). The ideology of 'no difference' is one pushed by feminists and used by pharmaceutical companies to avoid liability.
The XX Factor
When gender differences are ignored in health studies, it’s women who pay the price by Claire Lehmann MAR. 15, 2017
www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-xx-factor/
If you believe men and women's brains are the same, then you'll be happy if neurological drugs such as sleeping tablets are tested on only one sex. Unfortunately zolpidem primarily used for the treatment of sleep disorders knows the difference between men and women, and for 20 years women have been overdosing on it - then driving while unwittingly under its influence. As a result women have died - sacrificed because the prevailing ideology said that sex differences do not exist. Thankfully the National Institute of Health decided that from 2016 all research applications had to account for sex differences (something which had already started).
Gina is just losing her arguments as time goes by and science advances. Many of the things she said in the begining are just claims to try and support her ideology. Meanwhile, science progresses slowly, and the truth is more and more evident...
Which ones?
@@k.manjericao1583he will surely respond any minute now!
Pray, fast, meditate and Bible study.
Exellence
Ooooof !!!
I think his logic is flawed at 1:07:43 when he says "You could be male chromosomally with a female brain" because the fact that that brain shows a specific set of characteristics that some percentage of the female population tend to have doesn't make his brain female, his brain is just as male as any other male's because it belongs to a male human being (XY chromosomes and sperm producer). And before anyone say anything, yes, there are some disorders or intersexual conditions, but that doesn't dilutes the fact that there is a pretty extreme binarism and not an equally spaced sex spectrum. Healthy individuals have a recognizable and aligned sex in all of its aspects.
More so, at 1:17:39 when he discusses the term "non-binary" it just doesn't makes sense.He said he welcomes the term because types of brains are not categorical and people who identifies as that can fall anywhere on an spectrum, but that would be just males and females having diverse kinds of brains so "non-binary" adds nothing to the discussion because in a sense everyone is "non-binary" so the concept is useless and also heavily ideological and poorly defined.
His point during the whole debate was that to some extent sex determines certain brain characteristics, but near the end he seems to shift it and implide that brain characterics have a role determining which sex an indivual is, which is a quite sexist point of view and which is also, unfortunately, defended by third wave feminists.
@the Lost Q there's no such thing as an innate psychological identity for females or males, and if there's how do you describe it? Of course we see some similarities in character but it's expected if male and females are raised so differently in society.
Transexualism only can exist if there's a belief that man and women have social limits to what they can do, and this can generate dysphoric feelings.
Instead of calling his brain "female", you could call it "type E". It doesn't change the fact that his brain belongs to a type which is more typical of the chromosomal females, which is why it's informally called female brain.
If you transplanted your mother's female brain in your father's body, could the brain now be defined "male brain"? I don't think so.
That's also why binarism, which implies a clear distinction, cannot be utilized in such blurred context to define the ENTIRETY of a person.
So, I think that misunderstandings arise when people don't clear up whether they are talking about a specific trait or a sum of traits, and also when it's not clear whether it's about an average or a universal rule. Under this light, i don't see contradictions in what he said, even though he could have been more precise and less politically correct.
Totally agree on transexualism, which hasn't much to do with this topic but, rather, with societal dynamics.
@@ntlpz I've been saying this for a while now and people don't like it. Alot of people have been saying this actually. Might sound stupid but hypothetically suppose there's an alternate universe where the gender roles and behavior are switched. Women are tough and stuff and men wear dresses and play tea parties or whatever nonsense stereotypes impose on girls. I wonder if the "trans" people would still want to change their sex are dress and act like the opposite sex if their behavior didn't match up to their own. I dare say none of them would be trans they would feel right at home in their bodies because there would be no conflict between societal expectations of their sex and their personality gender expression.
@@hitoshura2800 Yes, I think a lot of trans/gender identity narrative comes from a very sexist place, like when a little boy says he likes "girl stuff" they say the boy is trans because he thinks like a girl. But there isn't anything intrinsically connecting dresses, dolls, and makeup to being a girl, it's all social, so the boy is just a boys who likes things that we as a society assigned as girly. This makes total sense but there are some people out there who get really violent when hearing this.
about the hight thing, its always 7 x times the head height for females and 8 for males
What is always 7 times the head height? And where are you getting your information?
@@austin3789 female = 7 times their own head in height and males 8
@@austingoler6458 cool, thanks for the clarification. Where are you getting your information from?
People in wider society talk as though women being emotional to be a disadvantage and that they're "irrational". However I believe that it's a former of intelligence where you can connect with others more effectively
And that is called sexism, what you just said. :) So you cant really express yourself if you keep those marxist lefty PC rules
@@kashmirha Sexismo é meu ovo, mininx
@@kashmirha how?
@@kashmirha Marx didn't care about those topics. I'm not a fan of Marx or marxism, but people calling the current left marxist is ridiculous. People should study a little about. Most people have no ideia about the nuances that exist in left, center or right and tend to call different and even opposite gropus by the same name. It's bizarre.
@@kashmirha that’s not sexism, but rather a neurosexism
54:19 yes, greater diversity of variables required; less power-play
1:17:39
In hope of finding someone amongst you people reading this, to be educated in this field: How are are people usually (and especially in Simon’s cited studies) put into the groups of female of male? Since we can obviously use the terms of “male” and “female” in many different ways (eg gender by birth, chromosomes, genitals etc), I’m wondering how you can put someone in one specific group to start with. For example: I’m taking part in a study regarding this subject and although being born with genitalia looking like a penis, I also have two X-chromosomes. What gender will I be assigned to regarding the study? Sorry if this question is silly lol Thanks a lot in advance :)
the great majority of people have an aligment between chromosomes, genitals and secondary sex characteristics so I don't think it would be a problem to find them, you would just have to be cautious about the person not having an intersexual condition. More so, intersexual people are still male or female that's why there are some conditions that only apply to people who where supposed to be born with XX or XY chromosomes, but it could also mess with the study so I think it would be better to let those people out of it.
The post below by Topazthecat sums this up fairly well. The problem with gender is that is used by some as a physical description, but also by others as a social one. The more telling idea is the notion of masculine and feminine, which describes how someone has been socialized into the society and can be independent of male or female classifications. Male and female stereotyping is, like all stereotypes, lazy thinking. The problem with the debate above and some of the commentary here below is that some interlocutors are arguing about different things. Rippon is right about certain fundamental similarities between male and female brains, but the perceived differences between males and females are accentuated and perpetuated by the social construction of gender.
Women/feminist don't want it to be. BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!
@Arran Vijayadurai Nope what?
absolutely not, I'm a feminist. How could you not see a difference when people are physically different it makes sense to look at our mental differences. Doesn't mean women are less smart. Less big brain but more dense in neurons. Like the whales have a 6 times bigger brain than humans but it doesn't necessarily mean they are smarter. But we are certainly different. And for me we are complementary. Studies have shown that complementarity of men and women in a given domain is beneficial. They have done studies of the effect of testosterone related to aggressivity and risk taking as well. Doesn't mean we're going to exclude men from any activity neither. We need to work together with justice and equality. And to keep building a society where we protect each other in the laws, in our education etc.
Lol Gina Rippon's introduction was carefuly crafted to sound reasonable. Her reply to Baron-Cohen was just a bunch of ideological bullshit. This is what feminism does to your brain.
little tolerance towards humans would help here. There is a massive difference in our social construction that is directly unfair to women and indirectly to men. There are people called feminists that are fighting for justice and equality to build a better world.
Does it mean all feminists say the same and are systematically right on such a vast subject? Nope. Does it mean we should stop fighting to make a better society? Nope.
@@pl5304 Agreed. Inequality in society, despite the disproportionate experience of the disadvantaged, is damaging and a loss for everyone in the society as a whole.
is it possible to make somebody this debate for 3 argument in order to show brain is gendered and one counter argument ım okey for counter argument thesis sentence but ı don't know 3 arguments in order to show yes brain is a gendered organ
Considering their h index scores and the number of citations gina rippon is an absolute nothing as compared to Simon Baren Cohen
It's ironic how Gina Rippon argues from an entirely emotional standpoint whereas Simon Baron-Cohen presents more of a systemised scientific analysis.
No he doesn’t he presents bad personality tests.
nah,,you didn't quite get it ....
@@ivonnecaradenacho3726 Please explain... What didn't I get?
@@spicex4k901 "bad personality tests"
Yeah well, those tests are the most widely used and validated when it comes to scientifically assess personality, and btw, those differences are also apparent when using implicit test measures (such as IAT, which is often used by feminist researchers).
In fact, there are so many evidences in so many different field (animal studies, neuroscience, neuroendocrinology, psychology, evolutionnary biology...) that I don't even know how we can deny that sex-differences in brain and related behaviour do exist and are, at least partly, the result of biological differences. Even Gina Rippon isnt' denying that, she is only denying that we are foundamentaly hardwired to be male or female, and arguing that there is much variability (which S.Baron-Cohen agrees with).
We have to keep in mind that S.Baron-Cohen is only one of the famous scientist for whom this idea is consensual, but this is also true for many many specialists such as M.Hines or S.Brenenbaum. Here i'm not saying that we cannot fight this consensus on the basis of other evidence, but certainly S.Baron-Cohen's opinion reflects the opinion of most searchers in the field. Yet, i'm not even saying that neurosexism doesn't exist... it certainly does, but when you oppose the "main theory" in a given field, you have to be even more cautious, and you cannot just claim that others work is just "neurothrash" or that some consensual results are just a "myth".
Absolutely
- The reason there are more male Nobel Prize winners is because the Nobel Prizes were set up by men to award things that men think are important. In fact, both the subject areas of the Nobel Prize and the results that are recognized are quite arbitrary. There as easily could have been a Nobel Prize for innovations in teaching school or for developments in doctor's bedside manner (i.e., communication). Does that mean teaching and doctor-patient communication are not important? Well, maybe not in Sweden. Seriously, though, the issue of gender-related brain differences is a matter of understanding, not constraint---or, at least, it shouldn't be. With the amount of overlap demonstrated in every area of research presented in this video, we have no choice but to conclude there are no _essential_ differences in male and female brains, whether genetic or environmental, when we view ourselves as a population of the whole.
to award things that men think are important? Such as medicine, economics, peace, and literature? Pretty chauvinistic. And we have choice to conclude based on our own understanding of the debate.
@@RG-qt2fk I appreciate your comment, though I have to confess I'm not sure I fully understand it. Allow me to clarify my own. I chose one small aspect of the issues mentioned in this "debate" and then emphasized it to make this point: that societal values are often selected by unconsciously biased groups. In other words, just because the Nobel Prize committees say something is important, it does not necessarily make it so.
And, while not strictly relevant to the issues at hand, my point would also be extended to measures of intelligence, in general. Who is it, exactly, that was appointed to decide what constitutes intelligence and the means to measure it? That, too, has been determined by individuals who are inherently biased.
As to brain differences between men and women, why would we think there would not be measurable differences based on large populations? There are measurable gender differences in many aspects of our bodies; why would our brains be any different? That those differences would be used to categorize people, however, is simply one more form of prejudice. The only reason these differences have become a contested topic is because some people arbitrarily determined that these differences were somehow significant in socio-economic terms. However, the problem is not gender-based variations in brains, the problem is the lame-brains who are making an issue of it.
@@RG-qt2fk Lol
@Neil Mcintosh I would agree with the averaging, but only up to a point. I believe that there is ample evidence of an inherent bias toward like-kind within all humans and that, if not specifically acknowledged and factored into human socio-economic structures, it will affect the presumed ""fairness" of any outcomes. My belief is that anyone shouting, "I'm not prejudiced," is simply unaware of a factor so normal as to remain unremarked by that individual. HOWEVER, this is not to deny an individual's choice and ability to act contrary to those biases once they are defined. By like-kind, I mean of every sort: gender, age, clan, state, color, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, economic status, educational level, alma mater, or sport's team affiliation. It's just how we are. We need to quit denying it and start dealing with it.
@Neil Mcintosh Thus demonstrating our inherent bias against people who don't think/believe the same. The reverse evolutionary problem reminds me of those who can show the prophetic nature of Nostradamus, but only after the fact and by freely sampling from unrelated verses. In the face of all the nonsense, I am simply grateful that I, myself, am not prejudiced. '^)
I thought a 24 h old baby had almost no vision whatsoever...
miss me witht hat dollar tree propaganda
I like to differentiate things to gender because that makes me feel secured and better for being a man
Pseudoscience.