Notjust because.Because we've peered into the brain and not seen any evidence of significant structural differences. The science has been done. Yes, there are some differences, but they're not significant compared to external forces, and most of those differences are the result of hormones levels during brain development from birth to adulthood which are to a large extent also influenced by external forces.
Those are adult brains. Not brains at birth. Brains are highly plastic and are shaped during their development all the way into ones early 20s, and still a little bit beyond that. Those changes are shaped by both hormones and how wechooseto use our brains, and those choices are socially influenced. A boy who chooses to use his language areas as much as a girl is going to have the same amount of development in the language centers when he reaches adulthood as the girl does. The ways we use our brains are influenced by all sorts of modelling behaviors.
I just posted a link for you to read. There are vast differences.
First there were no significant differences, now there are, but it's society's fault. And it's nice to see you know more than the one's conducting the meta study
There's actually plenty of evidence that pre-civilization humans didn't have as rigid gender roles as we imagine them to have. Yes, biological necessity put the brunt of childcare on the women, and evolutionary forces put the bulk of the risk-taking behaviors on the men, as you could lose a whole lot of your men to wars and hunting accidents and the remainder would be more than happy to inseminate all of the women.
I just want to go back to this earlier statement at the start of the day where you plainly stated that there are significant differences in the older areas of the human brain between genders at birth and now you've said that there are some differences even at birth in the more recently evolved portions.
Biological necessity breeds biological differences. You can go back (well, across) to chimpanzees and see the same gender roles which would point to our common ancestors also displaying ingrained gender differences. You can't just say "well, cave men and women HAD to conform out of necessity" when it's been that way for millennia. Just because we're able to contemplate our differences doesn't mean that they're suddenly a modern construct
No, I didnotsay that, and you will not find scientific evidence to support that. If I said anything that sounds like, which I don't think I did, it's because it's 3am and I'm trying to attack people with many many goblins right now in between posts.
I'd actually be curious to see something cited for this. Not just for the conversation at hand, but out of genuine curiosity
Have you considered Mist's position that no, no they do not? That the only trait passed on is that boys copy men and girls copy women?
"We have found no evidence of differences" doesn't support your end of the argument any better. That's my point. Your end of the argument is more conjecture and less scientifically based than my end of the argument.
Nor will you find scientific evidence to support the contrary. All we have right now is scientific evidence to support the fact there are differences in adults over 18... but that doesn't mean you get to claim 0-17
It's not the ONLY trait that's passed on, but it is by far the dominant one that is passed on. 80 years of behavioral psychology has shown that modeling behaviors and other learned behaviors get more and more dominant the more evolved the animal gets.
Yet you discount all the evidence of pretty much every other sexually reproducing creature on the planet and posit something new. It doesn't make sense.
You don't really understand my point. There was a time when there wasn't anything special thought of breast milk. Scientists didn't find any evidence it had additional benefits. Not finding evidence of its benefits is different than finding evidence it has no benefits but the one was treated like the other when actually it isn't a particularly useful piece of information to have.
And you're trying to make a case that, after 3.5 billion years of evolution (one billion or so of that being sexual reproduction), in the last 3 thousand years (10 thousand years? What is your timeline anyway?) , humans have suddenly become sexual blank slates. That makes even less fucking sense from a scientific standpoint