I just don't think that's a sexist interpretation. I can't speak for the scientist or journalist who made it, but there's no mistake in assuming that a difference in neuron structure is inherent any more than there is in assuming it's not. Assumptions aren't smart in general, and scientists should know to include all possibilities (maybe they did -- still haven't read the article, I really really should before I type any more about this), but I see nothing wrong with one assumption over the other. There is ample evidence a) that the genders have lots of fundamental differences and also b) that how we raise those genders matters a ton. Attributing a new find to one or the other is just a guess. Might not be right but I don't understand why we have to go straight to sexist. iammyownrushmore raises the further point of whether that guess, or hell the whole study, might contribute to the continuation of the latent sexism in our society. That to me is closer to a likely possibility, although of course it shouldn't ever happen at all and only does because so many people are so mind-boggling stupid. I don't know. It's such a shame when science gets politicized in any form, and I think the various sensationalized headlines that have been bouncing around the net this week have far more to do with everyone's reaction than anything in the study itself. (That said, I fall firmly on the "science should exist in an ideological bubble" side -- we wouldn't be where we are today if scientists hadn't consistently ignored the backwards social pressures around them and continued to study important subjects.)
But that's the crux of this whole issue. It is an interpretation which allows it to have power and relevance into the real world. This is not a field such as molecular biology wherein I can say: "Protein A and Protein B interacted (which I show with plenty of physical evidence) and they both have been shown to an extreme degree in the past to play a role in immune response, but no one knows why, so this may help us see how." When you speak about behavior, consciousness, and so on, there are real world implications you cannot ignore that exist solely in a social contex, they probably played a role in creating your interest in the field in the first place. And the interpretation itself contains the sexist element, it can be interpreted in the light of previously held assumptions, not facts. I would say that yes there is. As I said before, for me, the most incredible, mind-blowing, astounding facet of the human brain is that they're all almost exactly the same and yet still unique. Neurons (barring impairments and known diseases) function the same regardless of sex. You cannot make the assumption that they could function differently when there is no reason or evidence to believe so. Also, to clarify, your statement about an individual neuron and it's behavior/role can be vastly different to the cytoarchitecture, overall physiology or the "connectome" of the brain, which is where the focus currently is and should be if we are to prove any differences based upon gender. But even then, it has been very difficult to show any differences in that respect as well. Also, I didn't read the primary article either, but I'll go ahead and do that now to further build upon my point and probably get madder. From Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain First line: Well there goes the damn bubble. They are well aware that this study would garner and be relevant to societal interest, not just the scientific community. Also in the Significance section: Fuck that, fuck that to death. Just because you throw a "suggest" in there does NOT mean you can scrub yourself clean of any perturbations from this idea, considering they are untestable at this point in time. When you make statements such as the ramifications on the emergent phenomena of the brain that lead to behavior, propensity and innateness (that we do not even have a rudimentary understanding of) that this correlational data could maybe help describe or outline, you are reaching so far that you are giving your neighbor a handjob while you watch porn. I'm being an asshole, but whatever. From Abstract: Read: "Other people have tried to use imaging techniques to give us the data we think we should see but we're the first to find the technique and data to make the curve fit. Huzzah" I'm being shitty and obfuscating while procrastinating writing a report, so while I still have legitimate critiques of the science, I'm going to defer to the Neuroskeptic article, they are much better at this and communicate it better than I could and mostly cover the same ground. Don't pass up the comments section either, clusterfuck some of it may be."I just don't think that's a sexist interpretation."
"...there's no mistake in assuming that a difference in neuron structure is inherent any more than there is in assuming it's not."
"Sex differences are of high scientific and societal interest because of their prominence in behavior of humans and nonhuman species."
"The observations suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes."
"Studies also show sex differences in human brains but do not explain this complementarity."
Okay, I finally got around to reading the various articles. I now posit two things: a) there is little present understanding of the brain, but one of the few things that is understood is that men and women have, as should be expected, slightly different brains*. For whatever reason. b) there's simply nothing sexist about trying to guess why. Did the mainstream media turn the issue slightly sexist to grab attention? Yep -- witness the Independent's "joke" about map-reading. Does that matter to scientists and should it? Nope. Should anyone intelligent even read that publication or care what it says? Course not. Once again, if scientists considered scientific pressure when publishing or researching (any more than they already do/did -- see Newton et al.) we would never have had Galileo, to use the most famous of many examples. So: should the idiotic, sexist conclusions that people draw matter to scientists? No. (This is the focal point of our disagreement, as I see it, and it's one people have been debating for a long time.) So, with that out of the way, we look for examples of actual sexism from the various scientists. If there is any, it's buried deep, and it cuts both ways. The bit you quoted could be construed that way, but I'd rather not be 21st-century PC, and just construe it as maybe they're trying to contribute to the debate. Never do they claim that one gender is better than the other. (It seems relatively clear and likely to me that men and women excel at different things -- generally -- and that this would naturally have to do with, among other factors, how our brains work. Both are good at lots of necessary things. Am I sexist? If I am, then I guess so are the U Penn people.) *I guess it is pretty incredible how similar they are, really. I couldn't say for sure without looking at parallel cases in other species.
Goddammit I just typed a long response and accidentally deleted it. In summation: Yes and No this question is sexist. It is sexist in this particular study because the bias lies in the data itself. Not that the data is biased towards the truth, but the goal of the research was to find differences or at least ascertain them. These differences are not just in "white matter connection strength" but, as the article itself begins to posit, in the translation of this to actual inferences and the story that this data contributes to. There are many similar studies where the data was not found to be different, but they "found" it this time. The curve fits for the scientists and the audience with respect to the idea that even you yourself already brought to the table, that "as should be expected", there were differences present. I do not think that they intentionally forged any data at all, other than the absolutely typical deletion of outliers, etc., and it may show exactly what they say, however, this does not make it true. Without elaborating as much as I was previously, from a genetic, biological and developmental standpoint with our current knowledge, the differences most likely do not exist, and more so, not with respect to a biological woman and a biological man being innately different in brain function from one another when removed from exterior influences. This is not considered in this study, (so far as we can tell since this isn't completely published) therefore this study doesn't matter, as it does not present a reductionist model with the necessary caveats, but literally men and women in our society. The philosophy of science as an deterministic endgame works wonders for basic chemistry, molecular biology, physics etc., but this determinism deteriorates rather quickly when it exposes itself to seemingly "empirical" viewpoint on a multi-faceted issue wherein the data this analysis is driven by is massive and stems from correlation, as well as being tangential and abstracted to the dialogue it contributes to. Science is not just numbers, they contain no truth in themselves. Science tells a story. What the hell kind of story is it trying to tell here?
I can't help but feel that finding differences is not sexist; assigning comparable worth to those differences would be. Searching for the truth regardless of societal pressure or what the truth may be. Whether differences exist or not is irrelevant to the question of sexism.Without elaborating as much as I was previously, from a genetic, biological and developmental standpoint with our current knowledge, the differences most likely do not exist
What the hell kind of story is it trying to tell here?