In practically every attempt at a rebuttal you have either misrepresented the criticism, or, have chosen to purposely go on a tangent (deflective argument) in attempt to detract from the original point.  The departure into mechanism of how certain structures end up different between the sexes was one attempt (this was moot since the end product is still different AND mainly because the manufacturing process diverges between the sexes).

You challenged anyone to present cases where the genders differed in physiological construction.  This was answered.  You then attempt to refute that by claiming that the examples given were invalid due to variation within a gender being greater than between the genders.  Examples of traits where this was clearly not the case were summarily ignored.  Relatively rare anomalies do not negate trends.

You completely, yes COMPLETELY, lose your credibility the moment you claim that logic cannot successfully argue a case.  Science is wholly built on logic.  To deny this is to deny any truth based on deduction.

Note that NO ONE has denied that need for more clarity or model refinement is effective. HOWEVER, this would matter only if the original conclusion was based on incorrect or incomplete relevant information.  In the case of differences of physiology, the research clearly SHOWS the difference.  You can deny it or deflect from it all you wish, but those are the observations.

Don’t even try to claim that this is being “closed minded”.  People who don’t want to believe the observations always try to look for data that supports their desired view.  Failing that, they will claim that the current science is “incomplete” and therefore the answer it yields is wrong, or isn’t relevant to the final analysis.

Furthermore, while you asked for cases where men and women differ in physiological construction (beyond that of genital organs) your agenda is clearly one of trying to say, “men are not better than women”.  If you really want to demonstrate that, it would be better to stick to the topic rather than take everything as an affront and attempt to injure your opposition by personal attack.

A detailed deconstruction of every one of your “refutations” has, as always, been provided in a link.  It is doubtful that you have even read any of it before trying to retaliate rather than reassess your position.  You can claim that you don’t read it because “you know it isn’t correct”.

However, considering your incorrect conclusion about WM vs. Total Brain Volume in yet another hasty effort to dismiss your opposition (you can read the detailed link to find out why you are wrong), there is serious doubt that you are applying any real acumen on the topic.

However, by all means, continue.  No one needs to prove that you are wrong to YOU.  We only have to prove you are wrong to the AUDIENCE AT LARGE (apparently, they read the detailed explanations.)


In the Beginning…

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Dear lord. Where do I begin.


You could begin with actually admitting to error when it has been clearly pointed out.  That would be a good start.

Soil and Water

It was stated:

“The mud slinging (as in the verbal insults) is attributed to emotional vulnerability and not the other way around.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

Thats a convenient interpretation of the situation. Wether its true or not, you would come to the same conclusion.


Nice try.  The subject there was that verbal insults are an outcome of emotional vulnerability.  You had the cause and effect reversed.  It is not merely a “convenient interpretation”.  When carts pull horses, you might have a point (no taking the “cart” out-of-context and making it a motorized cart now).

Convenience Store

It was stated:

“More testosterone does not make men more “emotionally vulnerable”.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

Another convenient interpretation.


That’s even weaker.  IN CONTEXT, you had suggested that testosterone made men emotionally vulnerable.  It was explained that increased testosterone intensified response, but that it is self-esteem (and the perceived compromise of it) that triggers response (hence emotional vulnerability).

You can deflect this by curtly dismissing it as a “convenient interpretation”, but there’s confidence that few will align with that reasoning.

Polly, want a cracker?

It was stated:

“As was said above, when someone’s self-esteem is fragile, and that esteem is tied to one’s argument, they will feel personally slighted when the argument is dismantled.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

When someones self-esteem is fragile… A man with low self esteem is easily spotted when he finds it necessary to “hide” behind the success of other men, attributing good qualities based on his sex, and not on his actual character.

Being born male doesent mean you are born superior to anyone else in any way.


Not sure what you are referring to here.  I have not brought any of my own scores into this discussion.  Is there something you are seeing that isn’t there?

It is clear you have some sort of “chip on the shoulder” about being seen as inferior to men.  This discussion is about how men and women differ in physiology beyond merely the genital organs.  You have seen fit to treat this thread as some sort of personal platform to promote this odd agenda.  If this is the case, please take find the correct forum for it. ONLY YOU are harping on this.


It was stated:

“As it was mentioned before, this is just another attempt to dismiss trends by claiming the existence of natural variation automatically negates predictive modeling. When someone cannot safely guess the gender of an individual 99 times out of 100 when they have a beard… you still wouldn’t be correct.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

I’m not sure if you’re intentionally not understanding what I’m typing, or if you actually don’t.

Existence of normal variation only means one thing. There is no guarantee that someone is equal or inequal due to sex. Sex does not guarantee any set of cognitive characteristics. Far from it. Also, 99/100 is no where near the actual number.

But even if it was, it still wouldn’t mean the claim “all men are better than all women at X” is true. Because even at 99/100, when it comes to 7 billion people, that ends up being quite a few females with the exact traits you value differently.


This is really along the lines of a “plea to ignorance” fallacy.  Basically, because outliers can occur, and that in possibility (not probability, but POSSIBILITY) some odd case can occur, a definite trend is cast aside.

Normal variation in the entire population does not automatically mean two mutually exclusive groups do not have differing curves.  The variation of each and the overlap are of equal importance.  Whether you admit to this or not, you cannot simplify the mathematics to fit your reasoning.  That’s one of clues that you really don’t understand these things.  This is the crux of the matter.  You may feel that any given individual from one group can exceed a random individual in the other, but the odds are not in that favour.

Specifically, while there is no guarantee of a result, the probability is that the innate propensity in a sample of one sex is greater than sample of the other is not trivial.  Certainly one can argue that the upper body strength of a randomly selected female can be stronger than that of an equally randomly selected male, but how often that happens is the matter.

Again, no one is stating “all men are better than all women at X”.  It is only you placing that false statement onto others.  The question was whether or not there are differences in the innate structure of the genders.  There are and you are pretending that ANY variable distribution means that no reasonable prediction of ranking can be made.  This is fallacy.

Not the exact rate of hirsutism to the point of a full-on beard?  That’s just another numerical permutation of a semantics argument. The point is made.  Feel free to enlighten all of us on what the rate is and how that detracts from the principle noted.

So, according to your theory, we should rename the World’s Strongest Man competition to World’s strongest Human just in case some female ranks up there.  Do you think that ANY of the top rank will be a woman?  Since, you feel any normal distribution allows for this possibility.  We are waiting… (Do you really think that even a single woman will crack the top 1,000?, 10,000?)

If it isn’t true, change the rules…

It was stated:

“So, when one can prove something logically, and, explain that logic with precision and detail, it falls short of the task? This is odd coming from someone who is relies on the efficacy of modern neurology.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Yes. Because you cannot always “Prove” something with logic alone. Logic is important when it comes to proving something, but it needs a set of factors and observations to give sensible proof.


If there was any credibility left in your position, you have completely removed it with this statement.  This is not denigration although, it’s pretty certain you will take it personally and see it that way and attempt to retaliate, nonetheless the explanation will be offered.

Firstly, logic is used to prove or refute YOUR ASSERTION.  We have seen numerous attempts by you to hide behind the science (as in “go question Nelson”) but neurology was not what was faulty.

Secondly, the ENTIRE field of science is based on logic.  (That includes “fuzzy” logic, quantum probabilities, etc.  It is all LOGIC based.) Either something is true or something is false.  If there is insufficient data, or if the question has insufficient clarity, that is a matter of gathering information or defining the question.  However, the principles of logic apply universally.

Thirdly, what you are confusing as the limitation of logic is the limitation of technology in acquiring unequivocal proof.  In regards to traits that are divergent between the sexes examples have been provided.  You can’t bring up the 100 or so reported cases of bearded women in history (and we are not talking about a little bit of facial hair, but full-on beards) and claim that the trait isn’t divergent enough as proof.  You can’t take single cases and cherry pick a comparison to refute a trend.  THAT is not science.  That is selective cognition.

Hence, yes.  Logic does not fail. Not millennia ago. Not today. Not tomorrow.

It’s Greek to you

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

I’m having a hard time how you managed to completely ignore the clear cut point I made when I said that Aristotle, a man gifted when it came to logic, was completely wrong when it came to the elements. This because Aristotle lived at a time where there was a limited amount of knowledge about chemical elements. As such, logic alone did not bring him to the right answer. If that was the case, we wouldn’t need chemistry, biology or anything of the sort. LOGIC ALONE would be sufficient to come to the right answer. And it ISNT. Logic is an ancient art, and while it did help us find answers, it ALONE could not give us the answers.


The biggest reason you are having a hard time is probably because you have not read the details in the links provided (remember that part about how the detailed explanations are important if you wished to entertain a refutation?) In those details it was explained that when the model (say, a 4-element system) doesn’t fit the real world, then the model needs refinement or re-construction.

As much as you wished your opposition had a faulty model, this had not occurred.  The whole literary journey into the prenatal role of testosterone for instance was a deflection.  Regardless of HOW the differing structure came about, the eventuality was that the final structure is significantly different between the sexes.  That aspect of the science is only critical if it refutes the assertion (that the final structures are different).  It doesn’t and more importantly it is really moot to the point being made.

If someone had said, the structural differences occur because women’s are made from “sugar and spice” you might have a point.  But this wasn’t the case.  Seriously, Sickle (formerly Bella), it would be like someone going into the minute details of the biochemistry.  It’s a showcase of knowledge that doesn’t remove the observation that the structure differs.

Balance of Error

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

You cannot do neurobiology with logic alone. You need consistent observations and evidence. Without the chemical elements, its absolutely impossible to do anything related to neurobiology. You wouldn’t even be able to explain something as simple as an action potential, because you don’t know what a charged ion is.


OK.  We will try one more time.

All the subtle and intricate knowledge of two differing articles of fruit (say an apple and an orange) is irrelevant if someone postulated that, in the case at hand, one weighs 10% more than the other.  One can stand on the soapbox and expand on their deep knowledge of the chemical composition, the genetics, the structure of the sugar molecules, the variation within the species, the role of the apple in the Spanish Civil War, etc… all may or may not contribute to the answer, but all is over-complication to the matter at hand.

One only needs to weigh them.

What you are attempting to do is to literally “hide behind the science”.  The request was for physiological differences between men and women aside from genital organs.  That was answered.  The structure of the mentioned components is notably different between the sexes.

To err is taught wholly

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

So yes, I’ll say it again: Logic alone, without knowledge, will not always bring you to the right answer. As demonstrated by both Aristotle and yourself.


Whether Aristotle demonstrated this or not is irrelevant.  However, being that there was not a request to EXPLAIN how the difference occurred, there has been no demonstration on my part.  You asked for differences, and those were given to you.

Please stop making these false accusations.  Perhaps there is a need to feel that your opposition is uneducated or relatively simple.  Heck, say it as many times as you want.  You may think as you wish, but it would be fantasy.  There has been no such transgression.

Bored of Examination

It was stated:

“Do you really think that you are the ONLY person that has delved into the science behind all of this (merely because others do not attempt to lord their knowledge over others)?”

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

I’m pretty sure you haven’t, as you at a number of times have said things that are downright wrong, over-simplified, or misunderstood.

Ironically: “One is mistaking the acumen of applying knowledge with the act of merely demonstrating the breadth of one’s ingested information.”


ROFL.  Considering that every single “downright wrong, over-simplified, or misunderstood” concept has been a misrepresentation or fabrication on your part (and I am not saying this merely to be contrary, you really HAVE done this, read the detailed links if you think I’m making this up), your evaluation of other people’s breadth of knowledge does not carry a lot of weight.

Seriously.  We have carefully pointed out that in every instance where you claim your opposition has erred, you have either provided a deliberate misrepresentation, deflected into details that weren’t even part of the original question, or completely invented a false position in order to provide a refutation.

It is likely done to defend your “knowledge” of neuroscience.  Ironically?  Not on this end.

The Best for (almost) Last (as you say):

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Now I find it quite ironic that you should mention that, when you did that exact thing while mentioning the white/gray-matter ratio. You mention this ratio because you’ve *seen* studies pointing this out, but because you lack knowledge about what white/gray matter actually is, and several basic concepts about it, you are unable to apply that vital piece of knowledge in to what you read about the different ratios, resulting in you just repeating what you read about white/gray matter without understanding it at all.


Too incredible!

You realize that this is what happens when people shoot from the hip, right?  It wasn’t expected that you would let your contempt for your opposition to obscure your judgment to this level.

As it was mentioned in the earlier rebuttal, the relationship between GM composition and body mass was not noted because it’s been quite some years since observations have shown that the difference between genders is above and beyond that.  It was expected that, as an admitted expert (and certainly admitted to a belief of more expertise than your less erudite opposition) you would be aware of that research.  Instead you chose to assume that people weren’t aware or up-to-date on the subject (and you are being given the benefit of the doubt that you are).

So, yet ANOTHER incorrect assessment based on bias.  This is getting to be a trend.  Perhaps a theory can be coalesced.

Theory of a relative obscurity

It was stated:

“Your theories fail because they are based on fallacy.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

My theories are not “my” theories. Its based on consensus within the field of neuroscience.


No.  Your assertions here are YOUR assertions.

They may be based on consensus within the field of neuroscience, but that consortium agreement does not include:

  1. Ignoring the importance of the breadth of overlap and concentrating only on the existence of it to assume statistical insignificance.
  2. Ignoring the clear observation of sexual dimorphism demonstrated in humans and other species to claim that variation within a gender renders distinct variation between genders insignificant as a prediction.
  3. Attempting to transform a discussion on the physiological differences between genders into a confrontation on which gender is superior.
  4. Employing misrepresentation of criticism in order to refute it.

The challenge to show that men and women differ structurally beyond the genital organs has been answered.  Is there something else that you are disputing?