Feminist Biology and Pseudoscience

On this blog we've already looked at how feminist biology cries wolf over issues that have nothing to do with biology, so now let's look at ways in which this discipline interprets the subject. The good news for us is that a cognitive neuroscience and gender studies student is going to explain to us how science supports feminism. The bad news is that it's published on Everyday Feminism, which means it's a certainty the article will be complete shit. In any case, let's examine the arguments.

Really this whole article is based around one big strawman argument. I'm not sure who these commoners are that are proclaiming feminism is advocating for some Frankenstein type monster and going against nature. It was my understanding that many of these objections to feminism arose from the idea that it loves to shoehorn ideologies into scientific fields. I can't imagine what sort of articles would give people that idea. In any case, the scientific illiteracy begins almost immediately. On one side we have dubious studies that aren't in alignment with certain political views, and on the other we have the universally solid side of science that just so happens to follow my political worldview. Hmm, that sounds a bit suspicious. However we probably shouldn't be following the advice of an idiot that proclaims the evolutionary differences between men and women is a dubious science. Unbeknownst to me the idea of sexual dimorphism is apparently now dubious. Easy mistake to make, as it's not as if humans are one of the most sexually dimorphic species on the planet. Turns out opening your eyes and looking at the striking differences in physiology is a hard task for some.

The scientific illiteracy is just a forefront to the real scientific discussion surrounding gender roles. We'll forget that gender roles have no basis in science, because they sure as hell do in feminist biology. It's so fucking frustrating when an ideology finds it acceptable to interchangeably use scientific and sociological reasoning, and invariably this usually leads to statements of pure ignorance. I'm seriously worried if this shit is considered scientific discussion. I don't know if this person was enrolled on a science class at a really shit university with dreadful teaching standards, but my money would be on the fact they interpreted factual information through their own personal bias, failing at a fundamental requirement for science students. We still haven't even reached our first 'scientific fact' yet.

Oh here we fucking go again. No, there are not more than two sexes. Not only is this statement flat out incorrect, but it also makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, considering how sexual reproduction is based on two opposing sexes. That's sexual reproduction, the way humans pass on genetic traits. These intersex individuals you are referring to are medical abnormalities that cannot under any circumstances be classified as a trend. I've said this before, but this would be like claiming humans cannot be naturally bipedal as a small minority of people use wheelchairs for locomotion. Don't try any of this 'typical chromosome' bullshit, because this is just factual scientific information you can't even have the balls to admit is true. The reality is the dichotomy between sexes is almost perfect, and actually one of the most profound you will find in nature.

To say that gender expression isn't necessarily tied to chromosomes is absolute nonsense. Not only are they tied, chromosomes fucking DETERMINE sex. Hormones as well drastically differ between the sexes. Gender on the other hand is purely sociological, not scientific, so I'm not quite sure what science supports this idea of feminism, but my guess is it's your idealised view of the subject. You can't claim to follow scientific principles if you deny that hormones, chromosomes and physical characteristics aren't tied to sexual expression. How am I supposed to believe your advanced points on the inner workings of science when you can't even understand the basics?

I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics from either. The actual number of individuals that don't follow this 'typical chromosome' pattern is one in every 1,666 births, and only one in every hundred births had different bodies from their assigned sex. That's certainly not anywhere near the 4% figure you gave, but more importantly the statistics show that these anomalies do not describe a trend. Even more absurd is that the paper you cite is actually nothing more than a thought experiment. Such was the solidity behind its scientific method that it was actually later revised, and your solid evidence was nothing more than 'tongue in cheek'. So again, scientists are not supporting the idea there are more than two sexes, because it's just not true. Next point please:

What the fuck are you talking about? Sex chromosomes are critical to biological function. Why don't you pull some more statistics out your ass about what percentage of babies are born without sex chromosomes? I'll give you the answer now actually, it's not a single one. Even in the context of behaviour these chromosomes are still absolutely critical. You are right to say that environmental variation has a role on behaviour, but without genetic variation there would be no alleles for this environmental variation to effect.

This idea that no behaviour is set in stone at birth is absolutely bonkers. How the fuck is a baby going to survive if it can't distinguish food from birth? Your telling me that facial recognition is purely environmental. Fuck off. I wasn't even aware that gender is a behaviour. At least it's not in a scientific world that's for sure. I just love how you claim we have an overly simplistic view of gender at birth and then in the very next line give possibly the most reductionist account of neural network formation possible. Are you convinced you went to university?

This is a very one sided account of a controversial subject, so it goes without saying there is a fair amount of evidence against what you're proclaiming to be universally true. For example twin studies have shown that traits such as IQ and multiple other cognitive traits are heritable, but as we're about to find out you have an obviously biased view into this subject.

I think we have our next Nobel prize winner here guys. Not that you get Nobel prizes for biology, but credit for the woman who single handedly gave us the undisputed answer to a debate that scientists are still having to this very day. Turns out some random feminist on the internet has the answer, and not distinguished researchers who've spent their lives in this area. In reality it's simply untrue to state that many scientists are using this dynamic systems theory. The 'nature vs nurture' debate is a highly controversial subject, so quit acting like science has a unified answer.

Again, this idea that nurture is solely shaping human nature is just nonsense, and if anything it's the other way round, as without a nature there would be no fucking nurture. You may have an argument if you were discussing the ambiguity of acquired and inherited traits, but your claims go far beyond this, even blatantly dismissing the role nature plays full stop. Genetic variation and environmental variation are two totally different variants, so please treat them as such. You can't just amalgamate the two because they're vaguely related. If what you're saying is true, and that natural behaviour is manipulated by environmental factors all throughout life, then how do you explain the arise of these oppressive behaviours you're campaigning against. There's this overriding naturalistic fallacy here that human beings are inherently 'good', and it's those that disagree with your moral outlook that are destroying the brain's unanimously positive functions. Why for that matter do vastly different environmental pressures all conform to the same idea of oppressive behaviours? You later go onto say that gender has different roles in different cultures, so why is there such an alarming similarity in these various oppressive systems if behaviour is purely environmental?

There's an old saying in science that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so how can you sit there and lecture me when you provide such anecdotal and pitiful evidence? This whole point is a classic example of a just-so story, and there is no conclusive evidence that maternal handling and neuromuscular function are even related. Even in the quote you supplied there is complete uncertainty. How on earth is this sufficient evidence to amalgamate two conflicting ideas? How can you honestly say that these studies prove nature has no effect on sensory development. They say nothing of the sort. Again, science is not supporting your ideas.

There may well be a cultural aspect as to why women tend not to go into science careers, although you should tell that to the girls that make up 90% of my biology course. Even if this cultural division is true it doesn't instantly invalidate the point you're arguing against. Where is the evidence that women are actively discouraged from being selected for science courses? That would certainly be evidence for active sexism, but women choosing not to participate in courses because they don't want to definitely isn't. Funnily enough I never see this same argument used when men are absent from biology or midwifery courses, or for that matter university places in general.

My primary gripe with this point is how any of it is supported by scientific theory; a growing trend in this piece. This is purely a sociological argument. It's also highly suspect, considering once again we're just flat out ignoring the role of anything that isn't considered oppressive, and comparing statistics to countries with greater 'gender equality', which is an incredibly tenuous statement. If socialisation really is the defining feature of gender differences that's deeply ingrained from your earliest memory then explain the famous scenario of David Reimer, who killed himself after being forcibly socialised as another gender. An anomaly maybe, but one that puts into question this narrative that it's only women that are adversely socialised. Stop playing the victim and hiding behind this false idea of what science supports.

We really haven't quite got our head around the fact that none of this is scientific theory, and has actually been heavily criticised by other contemporaries. This is a big claim you're making, and just because it supports your ideological view doesn't mean it's solid science. In reality you picked a hopelessly flawed study as evidence. A recent meta analysis of this claim of stereotype threat described a non existent trend.
 
The rest is just anecdotal nonsense, and certainly not scientific reasoning. Who honestly gives a fuck if men and women are held to different standards when it comes to their sexual partners? Maybe it's because men and women typically have different roles during reproduction. But no, it's ambiguous social reasons that must be the answer, and not the biological fact that men typically have more partners because they're limited purely on the number of mates and not by resources; a trend almost universal in nature. Oh shit that's biological reasoning, and not environmental, so obviously it must be wrong. That's how science works guys. Not an ideology, but science. It's obvious there's a clear confirmation bias found throughout this article, but I'm appalled at the lack of discussion in an article exploring controversial areas of science, not to mention the continuing absence of any scientific reasoning.

Oh, you're now lecturing me on insufficient evidence. Ha, the chickens have come home to roost. What this segment does is literally just described a dichotomy between sexes, but apparently this is invalidated because there's variation within this dichotomy. I'm not sure how you think evolutionary processes work, but for the majority of life on earth there isn't the ridiculous variation between the sexes you think constitute a sexual dichotomy. The example with height difference that you mention is a perfect example of this variation. If you plotted the average height of both men and women in different countries around the world these points would form two bell shaped curves in different positions. The different in these curves is that dichotomy. However the way you've worded it is like you're assuming there's a whole mish-mash of quantitative traits irrespective of sex, which is quite obviously bullshit. I know you don't understand what a trend is, but on this one all you need to prove it is being able to open your eyes. If this dichotomy is weak science then no study in history is going to be considered strong science by you, unless of course it supports your ideology, and then it can be as flawed as it needs to be.

The highlighted point in this section is the serious equating of differences in height with differences in behaviour. Let me guess, can genetics and psychology now be inaccurately amalgamated as well? If you were to equate height differences with behavioural differences I'd be careful considering that height is predominantly determined by genetics, therefore further invalidating your already stupid argument that behaviour is purely environmental. In any case, you can't fucking quantify behaviour. I honestly don't know how the fuck you can make the last point and expect to be taken seriously.

THIS ISN'T SCIENCE. If your point was that different cultures treat the idea of sex differently in accordance to their differing DNA structures you may have a weak point, but your point has nothing to do with biological facts. Of course humans share most of the same DNA with each other. Technically we share most of our DNA with fucking fruit flies, so what's your point? It worries me when a self proclaimed neuroscience student can't tell the difference between a scientific source and gender studies bollocks.

Honestly this is 'wacky conspiracy theory' level nonsense. Just more mounds of anecdotal shite that doesn't in any way prove science sides with feminism. I'm not even going to fully address that last flippant comment. I bet doctors in Iran get payed less than doctors in Russia, and I bet you all the money in the world there aren't many female medics in Iran. It's almost like gender isn't the determinate factor here. Remember, when studies do find gender differences they are often too weak to serve as the basis of generalisations, apart from when we're talking about generalised masculine traits. Fucking hypocrite.

Nice tautology to start this section with. We can generalise behaviours from other species to humans. It's called comparative psychology, and although I'm not a huge fan of the discipline I will admit in a heartbeat it's got far more weight than whatever rhetoric you're spewing. It really makes me wonder why animal behaviour doesn't adhere to your gender based nonsense. Is it because what you're suggesting is fabricated bullshit? Is it because animals have evolved separately from humans for millennia, and therefore have totally different brain functions? I just can't put my finger on why this point might not be watertight.

According to this idiot we apparently can't generalise behaviours from other species to humans, except when it's providing evidence to their point in the next fucking paragraph. I'm really not sure who's claiming that the animal kingdom follows gender roles, when animals have no notion of what gender is. The examples you use indeed show the plethora of sex based behaviour shown in nature. Surely the alarming division of labour in lions, the dichotomous battle of the sexes in antelope and the random point on homosexuality in birds does anything but prove your point that gender is prevalent in the animal kingdom. That article on antelopes really pissed me off actually, because it assumes the theory of sexual selection relies on stereotypes rather than theory. There's nothing inherently wrong with the science behind it, but it has nothing to do with how different cultures perceive gender.

Well the consequences of factual inaccuracy are the creation of a website called 'Everyday Feminism', so I can't imagine there could be any more direr consequences. I find this reasoning hilarious considering it was you who attempted to describe gender roles in animals during the last paragraph. The only person bringing nature into gender roles is you. Science doesn't give a fuck about your perceived idea of gender. That's ideological, not scientific.

And then it's all capped off with such a stupid point. 'Everyone deserves the space to express their authentic personality whether or not it aligns with commonly accepted ideas about nature'. Jeez, forgive my boy Jimmy Savile. Turns out he did nothing wrong. Oh and just another timely reminder: THIS ISN'T SCIENCE.

Am I missing something? Is being gay suddenly a new gender. Didn't you literally provide evidence of homosexual behaviour in albatross couples in this very article? How the fuck can then you go and say that science allegedly ignores this community with no further evidence? In any case the LGBTQBLWHJDBLHWBBHDKB community aren't spoilt children, well some of them anyway, so why the fuck does science owe them preferential attention? Imagine being factual and equating sex with chromosomes. How the fuck can you claim to be a scientist when you make a remark as fucking dumb as that?

Woah, woah, woah. I know you don't understand how chromosomes work, so sexual selection was probably a bit of a stretch, but fucking hell. You are literally mentioning a single scenario and applying that to a vast theory. Even by your own standards that's a huge fucking leap. The article you cite is the biggest load of shite I've read in a while. It's written with the insight of a student journalist on their day off. However that article isn't as bad as your pathetic rebuttal. Your evidence as to why sexual selection can't manifest itself in humans isn't anything to do with science. You claim that because this isn't unanimous behaviour it can't possibly be a trend, which is the whole fucking point of sexual selection, and if you actually bothered to do some research you would find that these kinds of behaviours evolved due to the variation in the number of mates. Some sexual relationships that you like to describe don't involve sexual reproduction, which means they're irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint since they have no control over gene flow into the next generation. (This isn't strictly true, but the point I'm making is that this woman makes no sense from an evolutionary stance, and once again doesn't understand how trends work.)

Quit banging on about psychologists. We're discussing the science of sex. If you want to claim that various studies suffer from certain biases then you must provide evidence. In any case the biology of sexual reproduction does not vary from culture to culture, so once again this point does nothing to counter gender essentialism.

So no, science does not support feminism in any of the ways this article claims. Science doesn't support any ideology for that matter, it's merely a method for pursuing knowledge. It's quite difficult for me to believe what this woman is saying when she clearly doesn't understand these principles. Simply applying an ideological lens to science is not evidence that the two disciplines go hand in hand, and the lack of debate in this argument brings forward pseudoscientific assumptions rather than any objectivity. Gender essentialism is not a scientific theory, just a term used by the gender studies crowd to try and prove the existence of systematic oppression towards women. Believing in gender essentialism does not make you anti-science, whereas misconstruing studies and creating a narrative based around an ideology certainly does. Even when you try and focus the argument on a tiny fraction of science you still can't provide the evidence that science in general supports your ideology. Take your political activism out of places it doesn't belong and fuck off back to your echo chamber.