Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Science deniers?

So as a scientific experiment, two groups of people were created from a slightly different set of chromosomes. The one group was given a hormone called testosterone, while the other was given a hormone called estrogen. We referred to these two groups as having different "genders".

The difference in chromosomes and hormones caused some differences between the two group. There was obvious physical characteristics with one group being bigger and stronger. There was biological differences as it pertained to child bearing and child rearing, as one group carried the offspring and had a physical ability to feed them from their own body. There was also the appearance of many behavioral differences between the groups, such as a difference in physical aggressiveness, as well as differences in emotional bonding with the offspring.

Over the course of a few thousand yeas, and a few thousand different cultures, the observational data showed that these two groups of people took on different roles within their society, based on the fairly consistent characteristics that each group developed. Moreover, these roles were almost universally found to be the same, regardless of the society and regardless of the time period. Manual labor, hunting and gathering, as well as the actions associated with armed conflict were consistently delegated to the larger physical group, while the child rearing, preparation of food, and the upkeep of the homes largely fell to the group that carried and fed the offspring.

Of course, in 2017 we are supposed to fall in line with the theory that all of this observational data is actually inaccurate. We should accept that these chromosomes and hormones have no real effect on how these two groups of people behave. We should inherently understand that the thousands of societies and thousands of years of observational data is all just a matter of bias, discrimination, and some shared ability of all of these societies to poison the collective attitudes of their people with unfair preconceived notions of gender identity.

In 2017, we should all inherently understand, that this observational data collected over this broad period of time is as irrelevant as the concepts that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth.  The only difference here, is that the latter comparisons actually have scientific evidence that proves the previous assumptions wrong.


opie said...

The only difference here, is that the latter comparisons actually have scientific evidence that proves the previous assumptions wrong.

The only difference is you think your screed is accurate. Anecdotal and opinions prove nothing but your bias. Nice try and we all appreciate your wasting so much time to post drivel. My last post on this subject.....

wphamilton said...

You forgot to differentiate cultural roles, traditional roles, and coercive behavior from your claims of "scientific" differences.

As one example, in certain cultures a woman is required to cover every visible inch of her body. You would have it that it results from the natural consequence of different hormones. That is, of course, not the case. Women are as capable as are men in their ability to choose their clothing, and physically capable of dressing as they see fit.

In the same way, basing your interactions on similar stereotypes rather than on the qualities of the individual is an analogous form of coercion. That there ARE physiological differences, in general, does mean that you can use it as a catch-all excuse to discriminate. Such as claiming that women are less suited to tech jobs for example, an attitude which leads to imposed difficulties in gaining employment, in performing those duties, and in their advancement.

KD, Confused gender O'Jane said...

CHT why did you intentionally upset the three Liberal Stooges with t his thread.

Damn man, they are already on the razors edge and this might just be enough to push them over.

I mean how dare you in a post racial and post sexual identification legacy world point out that their are but two sexes, Male and Female.

KD, Trumps Economy Humming along very nicely, Productive Workers earning a paycheck that is biggly said...

Mortgage Applications"

"Consistently showing a strong year-on-year growth pace, purchase applications point to a solid housing market, driven by low mortgage rates and high employment levels."

All three of the indicies captured by this report were up very strongly, Jane and Mr 1100 sq ft of garage are very sad.
August 9, 2017 at 7:11 AM

Oh more good news in the US Trump Lead Economy.

Workers are earning more and are more productive in the latest report just out today on "Productivity and Costs". Workers are working more hours per week, for those that love the welfare redistribution Lost Years model this is devastating.

C.H. Truth said...

WP - I am not suggesting (at all) that biological differences between men and women should be used to discriminate. Suggesting as such, is purely a straw man argument.

I am also not suggesting that there are not other forms of religious traditions (such as covering of women) and other forms of coercion that are demeaning to women. Suggesting this is my argument is also purely a straw man argument.


What I am saying, is that there is centuries of observational data that shows that there are differences in the roles that each gender has performed within those society. I am arguing that centuries of observational data is almost universally consistent.

Your argument seems to be that because over the past couple of decades and in only certain parts of this planet... that some societies are making attempts to change the attitudes about gender stereotypes...

that the centuries of observational data can be tossed aside as an Archie Bunker style bigotry. Quite frankly this is a combination of too many fairly obvious logical fallacies to even list.


The reality (like it or not) is that when you have one person born with certain chromosomes and having specific hormones running through their body... and another with a different set of chromosomes and having a specifically different hormone running through their body...

There are simply going to be differences. Physical differences, biological differences, and behavior differences.

Are you really going to stand behind an attempt to discount this scientific fact as somehow just Archie Bunker bigotry?

opie said...

Your post is just like the google idiots....opinions and anecdotes that ain't science even in CH world!!!!!

opie said...

KD, who thinks screwing goats does not constitute an affair posts....

ey are already on the razors edge and this might just be enough to push them over.

Yeah sure, asshole....I have my CSI t shirt on....CAN'T STAND IDIOTS...... And you lead the list.

opie said...

Are you really going to stand behind an attempt to discount this scientific fact as somehow just Archie Bunker bigotry?

WP 10 CH nil.......the only bigotry shown is yours CH, defending a humongous pile of steaming excrement. Maybe someone should leak this screed to your current employe. I'm sure it would go over well. Especially if you post from there.

C.H. Truth said...

Your post is just like the google idiots....opinions and anecdotes that ain't science even in CH world!!!!!

So biological differences between men and women "ain't science" - huh?

wphamilton said...

You didn't cite scientific facts. You mention genetics, hormones, and "centuries of observations" as if that supports your thesis.

Your "centuries of observations" would prove that social gender roles are fluid, variable, and dependent on tradition.

But you tell me, what "scientific fact" should impel us to treat a female system administrator in the manner that a 16th century hand-maiden would expect? I'm all about fact, and very curious about how you make that connection.

C.H. Truth said...

WP -

1) centuries of observations for gender roles (leaving out the very late 20th and current 21st century - which is a blip of time in the grand scheme of things) are anything but variable.

They are incredibly consistent. There is no reason to believe that males became hunters and gatherers for any reason other than they were more physically capable of it. There is no reason that they fought a vast majority of the wars over time other than they were more physically able to do so. There is no reason to believe that females took on child bearing roles for any reason other than they were biologically built for it (they carried the child, they breast fed the child, etc).

Critique your own argument (that this was based on some "tradition" that was somehow consistent everywhere and at nearly all time) by your own standards. When you claim that genetics and hormone and observational data is not considered science... what "science" are you using to conclude that such historically consistent gender roles are based on "tradition"?

Any science that you can cite?

2) I am not arguing that women are not capable of doing anything that they want to do. Show me where I make that particular argument?

Obviously a woman can become an administrator, a woman can become a fire fighter, a woman can join the military. That is not my argument, and was not the Google dissenter's argument.

The debate is whether or not having the biological make up of a male with testosterone flowing through their system vs the biological make up of female with estrogen flowing through their system... makes a difference in what someone might choose to do, or what someone might be more successful doing.

Let me be clear, as well. There is no judgement as to whether or not one gender is superior to the other... only that there are differences.


Bottom Line:

The argument being made by the Google dissenter was that the 70/30 male to female makeup of the google company was not likely to be due to some inherent form of discrimination... but rather it is because males (more than females) tend to choose to work in an industry that requires more independence and less interaction with people. He argues that the reason why there are more male executives in the tech industry is a combination of having more males to choose from, and the opinion that Males are more driven by competition and status that comes from job promotions.

His suggestion... was that in order to attract more females into the technical industries, that Google (and others) could possibly change the structure of the work environment, to make it less about sitting at your desk developing code and fixing bugs, and more cooperative and collaborative.

Now WP... I don't have to agree with him. Neither do you.

But to suggest that this isn't an argument that can even be logically made is silly. The concept of biological differences between genders was "the" mainstream sociological argument for a much longer period of time than is the current argument (that there are no differences in the genders).

Moreover, the mainstream argument that there are differences between the sexes "is" based on biology, sociology, and psychology.

What science (other than the science of political correctness) provides the argument that there are no physical, emotional, or intellectual differences between the sexes?

Commonsense said...

And biologically males, are more expendable than females hence society and culture assigns the dangerous roles of hunting and war to them.

It's a simple evolutionary prerogative.

KD, Coal to come to the rescue of Solar, again said...

This is so funny , I have to share it, NBC News is reporting that Coal fired Electric Generation Plants are being asked to produce MORE Electricity on Monday, August 21, 2017.

What happens on that date a solar eclipse, so the little fairy dusters will not get the solar they need to run there toys, so they fall back on a 24/7/365 technology, COAL.


wphamilton said...

When you claim that genetics and hormone and observational data is not considered science...

Whoa there, I don't claim that they aren't considered science.

I claim that your conclusions don't fit the facts, and however you came to them is something other than science.

Your cutting off the "centuries of observations" at the dawn of the first agricultural revolution for example. Hunter-gatherer is a man's job etc. 10,000 BC. We've had a few centuries since then, and most of them were a lot more pertinent to the role of female Systems Engineers than hunting with sticks. What's up with that CH?

For that matter, cite your scientific justification for your claim that only the males hunted or gathered food in 10,000 BC. What "science" leads you to that conclusion, other than your own gender-based stereotypes filtered through the lens of your own tradition?

C.H. Truth said...

WP -

Would you argue the fact that neuroscience back's Demore's claim. Would you argue the fact that biology clearly shows that men and women are physically different in ways and have different chemical compositions

Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in Darwin's theories at they pertains to natural selection? Do you believe in the concept that animals (including humans) that mate, have certain characteristics that the are looking for in that mate?

Where is your science that would prove the argument that there are virtually no behavioral differences between Men and Women? Because there simply seems to be quite a bit of proof that there are differences. Physical, biological, and behavioral.

opie said...

So biological differences between men and women "ain't science" - huh?

Not when you haven't provided any evidence other than you opinion or when you get pregnant....anecdotes is not science as WP so eloquently has pointed out and you fail to recognize. I guess that is the IT in you, being the superior being you think you are.

Roger Amick said...

I'm amused . Wp and Opie having shredded our host . Quite amusing, it happens more often than he wants to admit.

Is denial of science, a male genetic problem? The majority of regular posters are of the male gender don't believe in science . Because you know those scientists are really socialist, who want to destroy capitalism, of course.

Go back forty years and remember how the automobile manufacturer, fought smart emission, regulations and safety regulations. Modern automobiles get incredibly better mileage and performance. They have emission of a small fraction of those in the 60s and before. Structural improvement airbags and seatbelts saved thousands of of lives a year.

Commonsense said...

For that matter, cite your scientific justification for your claim that only the males hunted or gathered food in 10,000 BC.

The prevalence of broken bones and other hunting related injuries in male fossils as well as weapons and other hunting related grave goods found in ancient male graves.

As opposed to the lack of these injuries in female fossils along with grave goods such as charms and baskets that are associated with gathering, medicine, and child care.

C.H. Truth said...

Sorry Roger...

But the argument that males and females are born with different chromosomes is a biological fact. The argument that males and females have different hormones running through their bodies is a biological fact. The argument that men and women show different brain activity has been shown in neurological scientific studies.

Neither WP, or Opie, or you, or anyone else has disputed this.

WP is only disputing whether or not my argument of observational data actually backs up what I say it does. He doesn't dispute the science, or if he does... he hasn't produced any real argument to that degree. His "opinion" may be that traditions and attitudes are more likely than the biological and neurological differences to account for behavior differences... but he offers nothing other than it has become an increasingly popular viewpoint with the liberal p.c. crowd.

You and Opie seem to share the same basic argument; that while all of this science may be true, that the fact it is offensive to some women, makes it a scientific throw away that is not to be discussed in public (and that those who do should feel the wrath of the P.C. police).

mugwort said...

You seem to be talking in gross generalities. By gross I mean major generalities as if every male and every female was the same. There are physically strong women and not so strong men . EG Women bodybuilders. I think you know what I mean by physically weak men. In case you don't men who are milquetoasts. Sorry if spelled that term wrong. Plus there people who are psuedohermaphrodites. Men with female chromosomes and women with male chromosomes. These people one could say are naturally transgendered. BTW What of transgendered people?