Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Harry Baldman]

Yes, the causal link between testosterone levels and certain behaviors has been somewhat established. That is not the question, which is what is the causal link between genetics and prenatal testosterone levels (barring something like CAH) compared to the link between environmental factors and prenatal testosterone levels.

Once again, it's the immediate leap to genetics (and the usage of simplified genetics thereof) without evidence that I have a problem with to begin with. Hormone levels are strongly reactive, after all - this is why they're useful to begin with. So what lets you claim that genetics (beyond the drastic differences in XX and XY type fetuses, where one does have an edge over the other which is neutralized by infant mortality) are involved to a significant degree to the point where selection pressure may appear?

[Reelya]

So we know (duh) that the XX or XY chromosomes make the biggest difference in testosterone exposure, much bigger than any observed environmental factors. Yes they're reactive, but they're also highly correlated with gender. Otherwise you'd see a lot more people born with the wrong, or intermediate, genitals. That's pretty damn rare however, which shows that accidental crossover from male/female levels of testosterone are equally rare. Testosterone levels are strongly clustered by gender, therefore any variation that they cause is also strongly clustered by gender.

The most likely answer is that testosterone is just a signal, and the things it turns on and off are the evolved traits. e.g. penises and vaginas are fairly arbitrary and complex organs. Testosterone does a good job of signaling which set to create (the vast majority of the time). Clearly genitals are complex and evolved systems, and there's nothing inherent in testosterone that makes them that way.

So we have other things that are evolved traits too, and some of those have different settings for different testosterone levels as well. Evolution can and would change how much those traits are receptive to testosterone. I mean, sexual attraction is a pretty arbitrary and complex trait, that is clearly evolved (otherwise how would you recognize a mate), and which one you are attracted to seems to correlate to testosterone exposure, which is a fairly arbitrary chemical. So the evolution happens in the systems which interact with testosterone. Basically there's nothing inherently special about the molecule that makes it do all those different things we know about: they're things for which testosterone receptors were evolved. And evolution has pretty free reign for what "low testosterone" means compared to "high testosterone": e.g. the dolls vs trucks thing. It's a completely arbitrary choice that low-T means liking dolls/babies.

[Harry Baldman]

But then you're still just shuffling the blame around to another part of the signal cascade. It's picked up by receptors and causes arbitrary changes, yeah, sure. That's the function of a signal molecule, and saying there's nothing fundamental to them that causes the change is a statement devoid of any real meaning or truth since their fundamental chemical nature determines what they bind to, what membranes or channels they may cross and what their functional properties and synthetic pathways are.

But even if all that is arbitrary on a broader level, what determines the expression of the receptors they bind to? Is it a change that's reactive to the environment and caused by a different signal (which is possibly near-ubiquitous and thus not subject to evolution on a meaningful level), or a different level of expression affected by genetic differences? Probably both, I would say. But how much of it is one or the other? And how relevant are masculine or feminine traits to reproductive fitness? I have no proof either way, and neither do you.

So your argument based on evolution that the article is being fallacious is compromised because it's a judgment you're making based on the vague, unfounded intuition that A) specifically non-binary gender identities are genetically determined as opposed to being social constructs under the article's model and B) they are also detrimental to reproductive fitness, both of which need to be true for the counterargument to stand.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Hmm. As a response to Reelya's testosterone and geekiness post:

I am incredibly geeky, and don't particularly value social interaction. But plenty of girls are like that too. Plenty of cisgender girls. So how does geekiness correlate with gender?

You're probably right about the "manly man" overcompensating. I meant "reminding" in the sense of constantly doing stereotypically manly man things, not by talking, but your response probably does apply. There's just one problem, though: most manly men would not like being female. I wouldn't care either way, if not for nonidentity reasons. (Such as !!science!! and the way that manly men torment me for not being manly.)

Come to think of it, what is gender anyway? Gender roles are those made by society that are associated with a sex. Sex is whether or not you have a penis (usually; this is a gross oversimplification when no binary XXY and such are involved). But where does gender fit in?

[Reelya]

And how relevant are masculine or feminine traits to reproductive fitness? I have no proof either way, and neither do you.

Well we have the example of thousands of other species which have similar behavior differences that clearly evolved. Occam's Razor here. Either we decide that our traits that are identical came out of the same process as identical traits in similar species, or we assume that completely different processes gave rise to the exact same traits. That's one, much bigger, assumption right there.

Hmm. As a response to Reelya's testosterone and geekiness post:

I am incredibly geeky, and don't particularly value social interaction. But plenty of girls are like that too. Plenty of cisgender girls. So how does geekiness correlate with gender?

It's to do with the link between pre-natal testosterone, autism-spectrum disorders, and engineering. Basically men or women who have an autistic child are much more likely to have an engineer in the family tree. Autism is also highly gender-correlated.
http://www.wired.com/2001/12/aspergers/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/03/boys-with-autism-likely-exposed-to-more-hormones-in-the-womb
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/autism-experiment-reveals-people-in-technical-professions-are-more-likely-to-have-autistic-traits-a6719956.html

Come to think of it, what is gender anyway? Gender roles are those made by society that are associated with a sex. Sex is whether or not you have a penis (usually; this is a gross oversimplification when no binary XXY and such are involved). But where does gender fit in?

It really depends exactly what you mean. Gender roles are social constructs, since they only exist as ideas. Gender identity is another issue - how one feel's about oneself. Gender traits just means any traits which are associated with a sex or gender, and can have a mix of biological and social causes in their exact expression.

[Harry Baldman]

Hmm. As a response to Reelya's testosterone and geekiness post:

I am incredibly geeky, and don't particularly value social interaction. But plenty of girls are like that too. Plenty of cisgender girls. So how does geekiness correlate with gender?

You're probably right about the "manly man" overcompensating. I meant "reminding" in the sense of constantly doing stereotypically manly man things, not by talking, but your response probably does apply. There's just one problem, though: most manly men would not like being female. I wouldn't care either way, if not for nonidentity reasons. (Such as !!science!! and the way that manly men torment me for not being manly.)

Where there's gender, there's always room for unrealistic gender-based expectations. This seems to be a strong case of those.

Come to think of it, what is gender anyway? Gender roles are those made by society that are associated with a sex. Sex is whether or not you have a penis (usually; this is a gross oversimplification when no binary XXY and such are involved). But where does gender fit in?

Gender seems like a label, just as the back-to-basics feminists such as the writer of that gender spectrum article say, but one with a great deal of weight and importance both to individual people (particularly transgender folks, who are very strongly invested in transitioning from one gender to the other) and society as a whole (the idea of gender roles being at the core of misogyny, misandry, homophobia and many other things).

Well we have the example of thousands of other species which have similar behavior differences that clearly evolved. Occam's Razor here. Either we decide that our traits that are identical came out of the same process as identical traits in similar species, or we assume that completely different processes gave rise to the exact same traits. That's one, much bigger, assumption right there.

I mean more in the context of having more or fewer of them. Is a woman displaying more masculine traits less reproductively fit than a more feminine one? It's not such a simple matter to equate a slight preference for different toys or a tendency to take up different hobbies or do better on certain tests to, say, a larger plume of 'fuck-me' feathers on a bird during mating season.

That these traits evolved to begin with is undeniably true, but our basic ability to text 'XD' to our mates also undeniably evolved by the same measure. Its prerequisites probably did present an advantage in fitness, such as manual dexterity, the presence of thumbs and the ability to use language. But our proficiency with the act itself is learned and thus safely assumed to not at all be affected by evolution until you get some really sound proof in here. Which means that the nightmare scenario of a monstrous race of humans with hypertrophied thumbs addicted to their phones wondered about by people not educated in genetics is probably an unlikely thing to happen in the near or even distant future.

[mainiac]

In fact, there's a strong correlation between generous family leave packages and a rising wage gap. Countries with a "screw you" attitude to new mothers actually tend to have the lowest wage gaps.

Sorry to backtrack, but I haven't had time for more then phone access for a bit and I wanted to ask you about this.  If we grab the data from the OECD: http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm we can see these numbers.

You are looking at this and saying you think there is something significant between how much women are paid for maternal leave and the gender wage gap?

[Reelya]

If you took out the few outliers on the right, the graph would be a lot steeper. Most of the data on the left does actually look like it follows a progression. It could be that exceeding the 6 month mark doesn't really make much more difference.

But this is the link I was refering to:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/20/the-link-between-parental-leave-and-the-gender-pay-gap/

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Ispil, that's mainiac's point. There doesn't appear to be much of a correlation.

Unless you're agreeing with him...

And I do agree that if you remove the outliers, some correlation is noted. But what should be done? Should the government itself increase taxes for everybody and then distribute to new mothers? Because "screw you" isn't going to cut it.

[Reelya]

Where was your one sourced btw Mainiac? I can't find the actual source for that, and without labels, I don't trust how it was calculated.

I think the pew research one shows a much higher correlation than the one Mainiac shows. If you look at the countries with 0 weeks of paid leave vs those with 6 months or more.

Also, if we excluded confounding variables then I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the direct correlation between the amount of parental leave women actually take and the pay gap is going to be more evident. Norway on the right is an outlier, with high leave but a low wage-gap. My bet is that Norway offers quite a bit of paternal leave for dad's, but they don't actually take much of it, which skews Norway far to the right.

[Reelya]

Long bouts of leave probably (certainly) factor into women advancing more slowly in careers. So it's another part of the same issue. Sure they might hold your job open while you're off for 6 months, but they're not required to give you a promotion.

[mainiac]

I gave source already.

Back on phone so I can't run those numbers but it sounds like you want me to cherrypick.

And when I follow the link it turns out that it's just talking about a tiny sub sample. So when you said strong correlation you meant strong for a tiny subsample.

[kilakan]

Long bouts of leave probably (certainly) factor into women advancing more slowly in careers. So it's another part of the same issue. Sure they might hold your job open while you're off for 6 months, but they're not required to give you a promotion.

Why should they though?  I think the entire concept of 'I worked for you for 4 years, give me a promotion' is absolute trash no matter who or what you are.

*Ugh sorry in advance normally this is a post of mine I'd delete but bugger it.  I've worked in corporate offices before where no matter what your individual skill or ability is, promotions are 100% based on tenure.  I personally got passed up for a promotion by a woman who came off maternity leave because she had worked for a year longer than me.  At that point she had actually been at the job for a year and on maternity leave for a year.  I had worked for them for a year and a half straight.  She then ended up becoming pregnant again, and I was put into the job with zero pay raise or status change but expected to do her work and mine.  This was all told to me as 'equal rights initive' so I ended up working double for zero raise, and would never get promoted over someone who had clocked less hours than me but was 'on the books' longer.

I quit after that.

[mainiac]

Yknow looking at the heteroscedasticity of my chart I think eliminating those outliers will just weaken the correlation. I am just eyeballing it here but you can see the countries in the middle are way more spread out then the supposed outliers.

[Reelya]

I gave source already.

Well which part of the OECD page did you pull that from? The image is sources to googleusercontent.com, and it's not apparent where on the OECD website you cited that data is even from.