Summary

This is not a matter of belief

Nice try.  You are merely taking the word “belief” out of the context of what was asserted, placing it in isolation, and refuting this false representation.

That is absolutely not true from a neurobiological standpoint

Please have another look at the discoveries made by neurological scientists as to how the ratio of grey to white matter is sexually dimorphic, and how this ratio relates to how the brain is used to solve problems.  As a key component to visual spatial processing, explain how the clear difference in hippocampus physical build and neurochemical composition is somehow “absolutely not true”.

Theres actually a bigger variation within sexes than between them. Not only in humans, but in other species as well.

You are now denying the clear evidence of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom in order to support your fallacious view.

Traits you might consider “typical female” is extremely likely to occur in a number of men, and the other way around

When we see a person with a beard, most of the time, you would be right to predict it was male.  When we come across another with d-cups and a slim waist, the forecast that you have encountered a female is pretty reliable.

…on average, men are exposed to higher levels and therefore on average have better spatial reasoning. But a fair amount do NOT, in fact, and at the same time theres a fair amount of females who ARE.

Visual spatial skills are one of the traits that men definitely as a whole, excel in over women as a whole.  As individuals, it is an ability that men score consistently higher than in that most women.  The average for men is higher, and, the probability (yes, statistics again) that any given man will score higher than most women is notable.

You’re just bringing up examples of traits that occur in both sexes, theres just slight statistical variation in likelihood.Meaning you still haven’t understood what I was trying to bring up. Statistics and probabilities of traits.

It was not understood what you were trying to use to obfuscate a flawed assertion?  No, as it has been repeatedly noted, you are ignoring the disparate nature of certain traits by claiming the mere existence of variation negates distinct clustering demonstrative of an underlying attribute (gender).

Actually, no. They are built on decades of consistently observable neuroendocrinologic phaenomena.

Lol.  Please.  The criticism wasn’t WHAT material was used.  It was HOW the material was used.

One can acquire the strongest and most resilient steel for their superstructure.  However, poor construction techniques combined with contempt for structural axiom will surely result in a pile of crumpled beams and columns.

I suggest you read the other posts on this thread, because most men have done the exact same thing. Mud slinging.c

On the contrary to the implied condition for your advice, the exchanges in which you engaged in were carefully examined, and they noticeably showed that you were quick to initiate protracted personal attacks when your views were challenged.

I most definitely am not equal to the men here. There is also a huge variation in equality and worth between the men themselves here.

No matter how many times you mention that there is a wide distribution of worth amongst men here, it’s footprint is still essentially independent to your comparative sum.

I asked for specific traits all men have which no female has, which makes no man or woman equal in any way. You have spent way too much time scribbling a long post which doesent answer that question in any way.

You actually didn’t ask that specifically, but, you already have you request fulfilled and we have refuted your theory.  Pretending that hasn’t happened doesn’t negate that fact (Well, maybe to you, but not to any reasonable person reading this).

Details

…Mince and Misrepresent

Bella Wrote:

This is not a matter of belief, its a matter of statistics. Ignoring said statistics to have a strong belief in either direction, is extremism.

Answer:

Nice try.  You are merely taking the word “belief” out of the context of what was asserted, placing it in isolation, and refuting this false representation.  That is an expected straw-man argument tactic when one cannot find fault.

This is what was presented to you (note how belief is used IN CONTEXT):

“A more appropriate description of the dichotomy of opinion is those who believe it has no significance, and those that do.”

The contention at hand was that you exaggerated the polarity between those believed the observed differences are significant enough to be notable, and those that didn’t, to be indicative of extremism.

As far as the “statistics”, to think that such distinctions between the gender groups do not exist is fantasy.  The notion is not supported by any science (including that of neurology).  If you believe that to be false, please explain why the difference between the sexes as far as hippocampus structure is somehow “not statistically true”. (Yes, that would be something in your touted area of expertise).

…Re: Lying on Science

It was said:

“Observation of other species, as well as humans, tells us that the genders are diversified to fulfill different roles in the social structure. With that in mind, the sexes are not “equals”. They are complimentary, and depending on the species may vary a great deal in many aspects of function.”

To which Bella responded:

That is absolutely not true from a neurobiological standpoint

Answer:

That is too precious.  From a “neurobiological standpoint” you espouse?

Please have another look at the discoveries made by neurological scientists as to how the ratio of grey to white matter is sexually dimorphic, and how this ratio relates to how the brain is used to solve problems.  As a key component to visual spatial processing, explain how the clear difference in hippocampus physical build and neurochemical composition is somehow “absolutely not true”.

…Mane-ly the Truth

Bella Wrote:

Theres actually a bigger variation within sexes than between them. Not only in humans, but in other species as well.

Answer:

Seriously?  OK, let’s look at another species.  Please let us know how the variation of manes on adult male lions overlaps with the variation of manes on adult female lions.  Wait… female lions exhibit little to no manes at all, while male rarely (well, really never) do not have a big shaggy one.  How about another species then?  Sea Lions? Pheasants? Vesper bats?  Can you demonstrate how a mature female of those species exhibit enough variation to even appear as a mature male?

You are now denying the clear evidence of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom in order to support your fallacious view.

…Guaranteed to be Wrong

Bella Wrote:

While there is a tendency for the average person within the sex to have a given trait, these are merely probabilities. Not guarantees of anything.

Traits you might consider “typical female” is extremely likely to occur in a number of men, and the other way around”

Answer:

Your logic here intentionally ignores that the norm of each gender on many traits are quite separated and distinct.  It also seeks to play up the magnitude of variation.  You’ve already been called out for applying this fallacy and are merely repeating it.

When we see a person with a beard, most of the time, you would be right to predict it was male.  When we come across another with d-cups and a slim waist, the forecast that you have encountered a female is pretty reliable.

The ability to give birth to a human fetus is “typically female”.  Please, feel at liberty to explain how this trait is “extremely likely” to occur in a number of men.  Since some of us here are so cognizant of “probabilities”, indicate around what percentage this “number of men” represents in the population (no exact numbers are required) to get some perspective on what significance this subset represents.

As was mentioned before, some traits exhibit overlapping scores, while others are clearly divergent by sex.  It stands to reason that behaviours that are largely controlled by the amygdala, or the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (I always forget the name of this for some reason…) will be different and quite divergent between the genders.

…Grey Matters

It was said:

“It also seeks to discount traits that are difficult to precisely quantify (yet exhibit differentiation in observation) such as spatial skills, and situational awareness.”

To which Bella responded:

Spatial skills are related to prenatal hormonal levels of testosterone. This might come as a surprise to you, but both sexes may be subject to different levels of testosterone during the fetal stages. In other words, on average, men are exposed to higher levels and therefore on average have better spatial reasoning. But a fair amount do NOT, in fact, and at the same time theres a fair amount of females who ARE.

Answer:

Visual spatial skills are one of the traits that men definitely as a whole, excel in over women as a whole.  As individuals, it is an ability that men score consistently higher than in that most women.  The average for men is higher, and, the probability (yes, statistics again) that any given man will score higher than most women is notable.

The “fair amount of women who have better spatial reasoning” (and it is implied that “better” means better than most men) you claim is not supported by the evidence.

As far as mentioning the exposure to Testosterone during development, you are just mentioning part of the process.  The final outcome of a hippocampus structure and “software” configuration designed for spatial reasoning adeptness is still the fact of import.  The genders differ in this neurological aspect.  The skill is relevant to human interaction with the natural environment.  This alone, refutes your claims that there are no neurological differences (and the resulting differences in performance) that bifurcate the genders.

…Probably… NOT

Bella Said:

You’re just bringing up examples of traits that occur in both sexes, theres just slight statistical variation in likelihood.

Meaning you still haven’t understood what I was trying to bring up. Statistics and probabilities of traits.

Answer:

The examples of traits that occur in both sexes were exactly what you challenged your opposition to bring up.  It was in answer to your postulate:

“However, its hard to quite figure out which traits you relevantly ascribe to being “not equal to”.”

To be sure, both traits that exhibited in both genders, and the traits that are only exhibited in only one (gestational capability), were used as testimonial to the error of your claims.

The notable difference in visual spatial skills between males and females has been well researched and document.  There is no “slight statistical variation” in that at all.

It was not understood what you were trying to use to obfuscate a flawed assertion?  No, as it has been repeatedly noted, you are ignoring the disparate nature of certain traits by claiming the mere existence of variation negates distinct clustering demonstrative of an underlying attribute (gender).

The variation in upper body strength within a gender will not mask the evidence that men are generally far more endowed than women in that regard.  Natural variation?  Even very strong women are unlikely to possess the same shoulder strength as the typical man.  The overlap in this attribute does not in anyway remove the statistically supported prediction that any given woman will, in all likelihood, be weaker in upper body strength, than any given man.

You cannot use “rare cases” to negate a clearly demonstrated trend.

…Woman of Steel

It was said:

“Since the arguments you have presented are either poorly constructed, or altogether a fantasy built on wishful thinking, the result is far more illusion than allusion.”

To which Bella responded:

Actually, no. They are built on decades of consistently observable neuroendocrinologic phaenomena.

There is a great book on the subject you should have a look at. It’s called “Behavioral endocrinology”, written by Nelson. It brings up quite a few interesting studies in which they affect hormonal levels on different animals during different stages of life, as well as natural variations within groups.

Answer:

Lol.  Please.  The criticism wasn’t WHAT material was used.  It was HOW the material was used.

One can acquire the strongest and most resilient steel for their superstructure.  However, poor construction techniques combined with contempt for structural axiom will surely result in a pile of crumpled beams and columns.

This is the classic problem with fitting the evidence to suit a desired result.  All the training and familiarity with a subject becomes moot once one biases results.  Firstly, the neurobiological observations already refute your assertion that there is NO statistically significant indication that structural and dynamic differences exist between genders.  They clearly do.  Secondly, these differences amount to measurable performance differences between the genders.  In the case of spatial reasoning skills it is far more significant than you pretend it isn’t.

All the “natural variation” observed does not make a peahen appear as a peacock.

…What the Muck?

It was said:

“Furthermore, the quick retreat to mud slinging in clear effort to injure your opposition rather than defend your assertions illustrates a weaker resolve than one pretends to have.”

To which Bella responded:

I suggest you read the other posts on this thread, because most men have done the exact same thing. Mud slinging.

Answer:

Really?

On the contrary to the implied condition for your advice, the exchanges in which you engaged in were carefully examined, and they noticeably showed that you were quick to initiate protracted personal attacks when your views were challenged.  The very pointed and detailed invectives employed definitely betray a desire to injure those who do not agree with you.  You may claim that they are provoked, but the level at which you have stabbed at posters like JC is far beyond what can be considered “self defence”.

So, No: the frequency and depth of personal attacks hurled your way is far below what you resort to.  As such record supports the assertion of an over-estimation of one’s constitution.

…“Post” Mortem

It was said:

“If you alone were representative of the female gender, we would have sufficient evidence of a woman’s emotional vulnerability that many indicate as a separation between the sexes.”

“Since all those you contest are likely imbued with a penis, the correlation that the inequality in maturity is related to having said penis is strongly supported.”

To which Bella responded:

I suggest you read the other posts.

Answer:

Ibid.

…The Dynamics of Statistics

It was said:

“Indeed. You are truly NOT the equal of the men here.”

To which Bella responded:

I most definitely am not equal to the men here. There is also a huge variation in equality and worth between the men themselves here.

Answer:

No matter how many times you mention that there is a wide distribution of worth amongst men here, it’s footprint is still essentially independent to your comparative sum.

Insofar as how your sum compares to the men here, the determination that you are not equal is based on several things including, but not exclusive to:

  1. The reliance on misrepresenting criticism in order to refute them.
  2. The reluctance to acknowledge the clearly evidenced consistent physiological differences in brain structure and application of structures between the genders.
  3. The deliberate and crafted attempts to injure your opposition with insults and name-calling (far beyond what is provoked).
  4. Conveniently ignoring the clear differences in muscular development to repeat the fallacy that no traits exhibit sexual dimorphism to a “statistically significant” rate.
  5. The false allegation that sexual dimorphism is not exhibited in the animal kingdom at large.
  6. The repeated but ineffective attempts to intimidate others by introducing scientific details that, in reality, do not support your case.

That few of your direct opposition have resorted to any of these tactics (save responding in kind to your attacks) is how one arrives at the conclusion that you are not the equal of the brethren here.

You may well be the world leading resource in neuroscience, and have no peer here in that regard.  However that remains to be seen.

On this topic, it is your argument that is being tested and easily shown to be fallacious.  The constant mantra of “natural variation within each gender creates enough overlap between curves based on gender to make predictions of ranking between random samples of each group statistically insignificant” isn’t supported by what is seen with traits such as spatial skills.  It is also false for upper body muscular development.

…See no Evil-ution

Bella said:

I asked for specific traits all men have which no female has, which makes no man or woman equal in any way. You have spent way too much time scribbling a long post which doesent answer that question in any way.

Answer:

Nice try, again.  Your request wasn’t specifically that.  It was exactly:

“You say women are defnitely not your equal, but I’m curious as to which aspects you’re referring to, and if you believe these aspects applies to all men and all women.”

None of that implies that the specific trait exists in all men, and, that no female has it.  You’ll have to try harder to catch your opposition on gaffs like that.

At any rate, a trait that is mutually exclusive was presented in the form of one gender being naturally able to bear children while the other is not.  Following that is the trait of the physical proportions of the brain components (as well as the actual biochemical composition within them).  The Grey-to-white matter ratio, the amygdala, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and the hippocampus, all exist in different forms that are distinctly related to the sexes.  What statistically significant percentage of women have to shave their face… compared to the percentage of adult men that do?

You already have you request fulfilled and we have refuted your theory.  Pretending that hasn’t happened doesn’t negate that fact (Well, maybe to you, but not to any reasonable person reading this).

As far as your concern for the time others spend tapping out a reply.  It’s appreciated, but it really doesn’t take that long.