Last edited by Space Pirate Roberts; 06 Feb 2018 at 01:11 AM.
Except the discussion was just the start of basic thought exercise setting the bounds to test your point. There were no definitive assertions even made. Just a request to hypothesize if people could still discern sex (even though diamorphism is low). This is an absolutely dishonest portrayal of this discussion. I can see why people accuse the social sciences of being lax on methodology. I have literally never denied or claimed that there is no social influence on gender roles and characteristics. Not once.
It’s the exact same with the other side btw. All biology and no social influence.
Last edited by Drewbacca; 06 Feb 2018 at 01:29 AM.
Originally Posted by rezo
Again, no one is stating social constructs don’t exis... oh why bother. It’s clear you’re only willing to discuss a premise if it can lead to a tidy self fulfilled conclusion and select out any discussion about it as hostile.
If you have any interesting lit to share I’d be happy to read it, but this is clearly the wrong forum to discuss this.
Originally Posted by rezo
So what was the point of all this again? Was it that moderate levels of visible sexual dimorphism indicates that neurological dimporhism isn't real and Drew is a shitlord?
I seem to remember something about women choosing different careers than men even when opportunity is more or less equal. Also, we have to pick sides based on whether we think that's 100% cultural or 100% biological, and then get angry at each other.
Last edited by Drewbacca; 06 Feb 2018 at 09:14 AM.
Originally Posted by rezo
Bookmarks