Summary

You have repeatedly employed the deliberate misrepresentation of criticism in order to refute them.  This is a classic retreat to straw man arguments.  The careful description of each one of these transgressions has been pointed out in detail in the supplied links.

It is clear that you intentionally avoid reading these explanations as to why your concept and arguments are faulty, and merely continue to deflect from the salient points in order to obfuscate your errors.

Fortunately, your participation in this dialogue is crucial in demonstrating the tactics used by those with the agenda to promote fallacy, and bully those who point them out via attempts to injure by personal insult.  Furthermore, you falsely accuse your critics of promoting some concept of “men are better”.  This betrays a seriously prejudiced mindset with the clear intent to force your ideas on others.

Nonetheless, here is a synopsis of the latest refutation.

No, I didn’t. That entire sentence is semi-incoherent balderdash.

Lol.  That’s pretty weak.  The old “no I am not!” tactic.  Your employment of straw man arguments was clearly demonstrated in that instance and in many others.  You proceed to draw on this fallacy several times in this response alone.

You opinion of the coherency of what you attempt to refute is, well, left up to all to judge on their own.  There is complete confidence that few will see it your way.

No, I have not once denied evidence of sexual dimorphism.

Nice try, again.  No one said you directly “denied the evidence” in and of itself.  It was said that you were “denying the evidence of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom IN ORDER to support your fallacious claim”. You are merely mincing words again and not admitting to a clearly demonstrated tort.

Visual spatial skills are traits consistently associated with prenatal levels of testosterone. Look it up.

One would think that at the striking amount you misrepresent the opposing view in order to refute it, that perhaps you really don’t see what is actually written. (Yes, people can read these posts independently and determine who has said what).

Just where is Nelson being disagreed with?  Please.  Show us where anyone, much less I, has claimed, or implied that it is not related to pre-natal testosterone levels.  This one is critical.  Tell us where this was said.  If you cannot, this is clear proof that you are misrepresenting others in order to refute them.

They’re just on average more likely to have it than women. At an INDIVIDUAL level, it in no way means that any given man at all times has better spatial reasoning than any given woman. You will find women with better spatial skills than men, and men who have worse spatial skills than women.

Yes.  The average is higher.  At the individual level, tell us how the probability of the male having a higher score is not significant between men and women.  No one has claimed that overlap cannot happen.

What is also consistently seen, which is also pointed out in “Behavioral endocrinology”, is that statistically, theres a bigger variance WITHIN the sexes than between them. If you’ve got a problem with that, read the book yourself and give me a reasonable explanation to why you mean its wrong. Because if it is, I would like to know.

Overlap is the critical factor, and varies depending on the trait.  You were given differences in traits.  If we chose a physically observable trait such as facial hair, it should be clear that REGARDLESS of variation within a gender, the OVERLAP between genders is miniscule. Upper body muscularity is another.  Does this really need to be explained… again?

The question was ARE there traits that exhibit remarkable divergence.  Yes. There are.

I never once dismissed dismorphism or anything of the sort. I said its stupid as hell to say “All men are X and all women are Y in all cases”.

No one has claimed you directly “dismissed dimorphism” on it’s own. But “anything of the sort”?  Why yes.  You effectively dismiss it when you ignore it in order to support your claims.  You are taking the term OUT OF CONTEXT again in order to refute the criticism.  This is mentioned above in the first section of this response.

Your EXACT words were:

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

To which the examples of peahen versus peacock (no great variation in the tail of a peahen will give it the tail of a peacock), and other examples were given as a proof of the contrary (in the detailed discussion link).  You have no defence of this and are only resorting to denying that you said “anything of the sort”.

This applies to almost every single person who wrote a comment here.

 The record unequivocally shows that you take far greater effort in attempts to injure your opposition via passionately crafted insults and personal attacks.  There is a post from you to JC that begins with:

“This extreme view on the significance of genders is almost certainly due to the fact that you feel inadequate…”

That is clearly laced with pejorative commentary, pure conjecture based in personal bias, designed to inflame, and was clearly an intentional personal attack.  In contrast, the audience at large will be hard pressed to find anything of the sort directed at you (save the short remarks in response to your equal provocation).  The next section of your response here contains the same ad hominem.

And my views haven’t been “challenged” in any way. I would love for you to come with an argument which actually did, but so far you’ve been incorrect.

You views have not been challenged?  That is more of the DENIAL that was already proven by your repeated straw-man arguments, deflections and attempts to derail the discussion into a flame war.  You may not acknowledge the challenges, but they are evidently there.

No, no, and NO. You couldn’t do a better job at demonstrating why people with absolutely NO understanding of basic neurobiology COMPLETELY misunderstand a lot of these dismorphism studies.

Lol.  That is so out-dated.  It was hoped that you would go beyond the rudimentary and understand that there are others who have looked at the science in detail.  So. No.  The only miscalculation here is the underestimation of how your contempt for any who oppose you completely clouds your ability to understand what is being discussed.

Even neophytes to this science understand that total brain volume is directly related to the GM volume.  The results of past research did not preclude a gender related correlation as well as the size factor.  Recent research has been done that shows clear evidence of gender differences beyond what differing size can account for.  Someone familiar with this branch of knowledge would be aware of these findings.  It is possible that you are, and is why you would so fervently try to deflect away from it with this deflection into an unnecessary lesson on grey matter and neural load.

The rest of the dismantling of your “refutation” can be found in the detailed link.

This means you are merely repeating things you read, without actually understanding what it means or what implications it may or may not have. You’ve just arbitrarily decided it means “Men are better”, oblivious to the fact that you may very well NOT be good at the cognitive traits commonly associated with men. A lot of men aren’t. In fact, a lot of people aren’t all that good at any of the cognitive skills.

Please show exactly where I have said, “men are better” (not “physiology of a structure promotes better innate skills”, but, ipso facto “men are better”… not “men are better equipped” or “men are functionally better”, but “men are better”).  Where have I even suggested, or implied, “men are better”?  Really?  Where?

You asked for evidence that men and women are different in construction, and this has been provided.  You asked for situations were men or women are seeded with equipment that differ (beyond the genital organs) and this was provided.  You asked for examples where the structural differences are separated such that prediction of difference based on gender is not merely random.  This was provided.

Your constant false allegations are clear proof that you have the proverbial “chip on the shoulder” and this is seriously affecting your judgment on this topic.

Women are on average better at other cognitive tasks, but that sure as hell doesen’t mean ALL women are good at said tasks. Not all women are linguists, just because women on average score better at linguistics than men.

Again, just where have I said or implied that a better aggregate score automatically means the entire gender will score high, or higher than the other gender?  Really.  Where?  One really needs to stop this constant reliance on straw-man arguments.

Until you show all of us how bearded women exist in the percentage that one cannot reasonably predict that a goateed individual is male, you are blowing proverbial smoke.

It’s just not as simple as what you’re trying to portray it as. Cognitive function is extremely complicated and variable, and more than associated with sex, its associated with genes NOT associated with sex….  …Gender just makes one set of abilities much more likely to occur. It does not guarantee it in any way. Once again: It is MUCH more complicated than that, and simplifying it the way you do is incredibly silly and ignorant.

No.  It is not as “simple” as you falsely represent your opposition of portraying.

Firstly, this discussion encompasses ALL the difference between the genders, and not just the overall resultant cognitive skills.  It is you who isolates this aspect and infers that this aspect alone is the yardstick (that random distribution in overall cognitive skills means exact prediction based on gender can determine who is “better” than the other).

You conveniently gloss over the dynamic that this discussion is about IF and HOW the sexes differ (hence they are not equals), and focus on this “I’m not inferior because I’m a woman” agenda.  Please. Yet another straw man argument?  Please stop misrepresenting the opposition, use that misrepresentation to accuse them of simplifying the problem, and then criticize that for being “incredibly sill and ignorant”.

I have NEVER disputed sexual dismorphisms, I am pointing out its not as relevant as you’re making it out to be, and there are several factors which influences said dismorphisms. Prenatal testosterone is a widely accepted fact in regard to the importance of many of these factors, for example.

Again, do not misrepresent a criticism in order to refute it.  The remark wasn’t that you “disputed” it.  It was that you CLEARLY STATED that there are bigger variations within sexes than between them.  It was then pointed out that this IGNORES sexual dimorphic traits that have little to no overlap (such as the manes found on lions).  Your EXACT WORDS once again:

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

IN CONTEXT, you were not referring only to certain traits.  You were referring to the difference between sexes. There are numerous examples of traits that do not exhibit the overlap your theory relies on.  That is why your theory is fallacious.

Prenatal testosterone’s role is just a deflection.  NO ONE was saying this wasn’t the case (you just brought it up and ran with it in an attempt to showboat your “superior” knowledge.

I’m not repeating it again.

ROFL.  We will all believe that when we see it.  Chances are you will just take snippets of comments out-of-context and refute them again.

Details

Straw men defending straw men

It was said:

“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.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

No, I didn’t. That entire sentence is semi-incoherent balderdash.

Answer:

Lol.  That’s pretty weak.  The old “no I am not!” tactic.  Your employment of straw man arguments was clearly demonstrated in that instance and in many others.  You proceed to draw on this fallacy several times in this response alone.  Deny it if you wish, but most of the audience here can see what was written, and how you chose to take a single word (“belief”) out of context and proceed to refute that false representation.

You opinion of the coherency of what you attempt to refute is, well, left up to all to judge on their own.  There is complete confidence that few will see it your way.

Misrepresentation Nation

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

No, I have not once denied evidence of sexual dimorphism. I’m well aware of what these dimorphisms are, why they occur, and why it varies. In other words, I wouldn’t say something as completely stupid as “All men are X and all women are Y”. It is not the case, and any neurobiologist would laugh at such a claim. Its much more complex.

Answer:

Nice try, again.

Taking things out of context is a common defence when people cannot argue their case.  No one said you directly “denied the evidence” in and of itself.  It was said that you were “denying the evidence of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom IN ORDER to support your fallacious claim”. You are merely mincing words again and not admitting to a clearly demonstrated tort.

A detailed explanation as to how you did this was supplied in the link.  It is apparent that you have refused to acknowledge this (and probably have not taken the time to read the detailed explanation though others have).  You seem to think that if 99% of a gender does not exhibit the trait that 99% of the other gender does, somehow no case of reasonable prediction based on sex can be made (that IS the correct representation of claiming that “anomalies refute a trend”).

Specifically, you state here that unless something accurate to 100%, any suggestion of a rule is “completely stupid”.

Many things are successfully designed and built on systems of probability.  In reality, phenomena do not have to be absolutes to be practically predicted.  The amount of lightly veiled insults laced into your response reveals that you are likely aware of this, but cannot admit it in order to defend your theories, and instead attempt to punish any who publicly point this out.

Spatially Speaking…

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Visual spatial skills are traits consistently associated with prenatal levels of testosterone. Look it up.  If you mess about with levels of testosterone in animals, you will also consistently see changes demonstrating this.

If you have some sort of ground breaking evidence suggesting that its NOT related to pre-natal testosterone levels, I would love to see it. “Behavioral endocrinology” by Nelson contains a whole bunch of studies that disagrees with you.

Answer:

One would think that at the striking amount you misrepresent the opposing view in order to refute it, that perhaps you really don’t see what is actually written. (Yes, people can read these posts independently and determine who has said what).

The point isn’t how the spatial skill capacity is imbued during development, but that, it is, and that it is differentiated by what gender is being manufactured.  You are just deflecting from the focus that the difference between the genders exists and is clearly measurable.

You proceed to IMPLY that opposing your view (that spatial reasoning skills have enough overlap to make the prediction that a male representative will excel over a female representative to be statistically insignificant) is denying or ignoring the process of how the skill capacity is enabled.  That is wholly non sequitur, and really about as weak an attempt at surreptitiously placing words in someone else’s mouth in order to claim they are wrong, as it gets.

Just where is Nelson being disagreed with?  Please.  Show us where anyone, much less I, has claimed, or implied that it is not related to prenatal testosterone levels.  This is critical.  Tell us where this was said.  If you cannot, this is clear proof that you are misrepresenting others in order to refute them.

Statistically Speaking:

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

They’re just on average more likely to have it than women. At an INDIVIDUAL level, it in no way means that any given man at all times has better spatial reasoning than any given woman. You will find women with better spatial skills than men, and men who have worse spatial skills than women.

Answer:

Yes.  The average is higher.  At the individual level, tell us how the probability of the male having a higher score is not significant between men and women.  No one has claimed that overlap cannot happen.  However, demonstrate how this overlap is significant enough to negate any reasonable prediction of initial capacity.

Personally Speaking:

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

For all you know, I might have better spatial skills than you do.

Answer:

Making this rather personal are we not?  Innately?  Not likely. Based on all that has been demonstrated in this dialogue?  Well, we’ll let each member of the audience decide that one on their own.  However, I’m sure your “opinion” overrides everyone else’s in your mind.

Trick or Trait:

Sickle (formerly Bella) Said:

What is also consistently seen, which is also pointed out in “Behavioral endocrinology”, is that statistically, theres a bigger variance WITHIN the sexes than between them. If you’ve got a problem with that, read the book yourself and give me a reasonable explanation to why you mean its wrong. Because if it is, I would like to know.

Answer:

Actually, if you wanted to support your point, it’s not the variance, but the overlap that should be mentioned.  All the variance in the world doesn’t amount to anything unless the clusters actually show significant overlap. That’s pretty basic probability and statistics (ever for us simple men). (What?  Like I have to argue your side for you too???).

This is mentioned because, again, the correct application of knowledge is far more important than the pure acquisition of it.  This dialogue has been quite the demonstration of this adage.

Anyways, this overlap is the critical factor, and varies depending on the trait.  You asked for differences in traits.  You were given differences in traits.  If we chose a physically observable trait such as facial hair, it should be clear that REGARDLESS of variation within a gender, the OVERLAP between genders is miniscule. Upper body muscularity is another.  Does this really need to be explained… again?

I’m certain you can cherry pick traits that show enough overlap in measurement to be statistically insignificant.  The question was ARE there traits that exhibit remarkable divergence.  Yes. There are.

Note too, even with a great deal of overlap, that still doesn’t mean the summation of any individual is “equal” to an individual with a different design even if they apparently achieve the same skill level.  Inherently, there are costs involved in compensating methods to achieve the same result.  For example, a forced induction power plant has longevity constraints that are not the same for a normally aspirated one.  Both can achieve the same output, but the duty cycle, the energy costs are different.  Seriously, Sickle (formerly Bella), achieving the same end result is not at the same expenditure for differing systems.

Deflective Material

It was said:

“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).”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

I never once dismissed dismorphism or anything of the sort. I said its stupid as hell to say “All men are X and all women are Y in all cases”. I also added that there is a larger variance within sexes than between them when it comes to several mental traits. If you’re going to argue against that, argue against the authors of my books.

Answer:

No one has claimed you directly “dismissed dimorphism” on it’s own. But “anything of the sort”?  Why yes.  You effectively dismiss it when you ignore it in order to support your claims.  You are taking the term OUT OF CONTEXT again in order to refute the criticism.  This is mentioned above in the first section of this response.

Your EXACT words were:

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

To which the examples of peahen versus peacock (no great variation in the tail of a peahen will give it the tail of a peacock), and other examples were given as a proof of the contrary (in the detailed discussion link).  You have no defence of this and are only resorting to denying that you said “anything of the sort”.

No one needs to say “ALL men are X while all women are Y in all cases” in order to claim that a paucity of overlap allows for reasonable prediction of directional difference.  You are simply creating an extreme statement and using it to misrepresent your opposition in order to refute it.

Mental traits?  Firstly, just where it is stated that difference between the genders is restricted to mental traits only? You asked for differences.  You were given differences (including differences in the physical and biochemical structure of critical components.  Typically, that which you cannot refute, you pretend does not matter, or ignore altogether.

In that there is CLEAR PROOF that you are now deliberately misrepresenting what you actually said, your credibility is essentially forfeit.

Clone of the Attacks

It was stated:

” and they noticeably showed that you were quick to initiate protracted personal attacks when your views were challenged.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) replied:

This applies to almost every single person who wrote a comment here.

And my views haven’t been “challenged” in any way. I would love for you to come with an argument which actually did, but so far you’ve been incorrect.

Answer:

The record unequivocally shows that you take far greater effort in attempts to injure your opposition via passionately crafted insults and personal attacks.  There is a post from you to JC that begins with:

“This extreme view on the significance of genders is almost certainly due to the fact that you feel inadequate…”

That is clearly laced with pejorative commentary, pure conjecture based in personal bias, designed to inflame, and was clearly an intentional personal attack.  In contrast, the audience at large will be hard pressed to find anything of the sort directed at you (save the short remarks in response to your equal provocation).  The next section of your response here contains the same ad hominem.

You may maintain whatever opinion you wish, but it is really doubtful that there will be a consensus in your favour.

You views have not been challenged?  That is more of the denial that was already proven by your repeated straw-man arguments, deflections and attempts to derail the discussion into a flame war.  You may not acknowledge the challenges, but they are evidently there.

Last, and vying for the Least:

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

It was said:

“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”.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

No, no, and NO. You couldn’t do a better job at demonstrating why people with absolutely NO understanding of basic neurobiology COMPLETELY misunderstand a lot of these dismorphism studies.

Answer:

Lol.  That is so behind the current state of the science.  It was hoped that you would go beyond the rudimentary and understand that there are others who have looked at the science in detail.  So. No.  The only miscalculation here is the underestimation of how your contempt for any who oppose you completely clouds your ability to understand what is being discussed.  This will be explained…

Absolutely Grey

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

YES, men on average have a larger amount of grey matter. The problem is, you seem to be COMPLETELY oblivious as to why. Which brings me to the question: Do you have any idea what grey matter IS?

Grey matter consists of cell bodies. White matter consists of axons. In other words, connections between cell bodies…

Answer:

Ah yes, the ubiquitous deflective argument.  The point was in how the sexes exhibit different ratios of grey and white usage in processing information.  It was not about what the material was made of specifically.  Going into a lecture about how grey and white matter differ, etc. is just an attempt to ridicule.  It’s a form of beating one’s chest in domain knowledge and, in this case, is really moot when one considers what was being examined.  There seems to be this constant need to demonstrate a belief that you are “superior” to any who challenge you.

As far as the size of body…

Even neophytes to this science understand that total brain volume is directly related to the GM volume.  The results of past research did not preclude of a gender related correlation as well as the size factor.  Recent research has been done that shows clear evidence of gender differences beyond what differing size can account for.  Someone familiar with this branch of knowledge would be aware of these findings.  It is possible that you are, and is why you would so fervently try to deflect away from it with this deflection into an unnecessary lesson on grey matter and neural load.

Lol.  Now who is being oblivious?

Hold your sea horses

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Also, YES, there are observable differences in the hippocampus, on average, and this is also true to other animals. Male rats, for example, navigate more efficiently in mazes than female rats. You do however fail to realize what causees these dismorphisms, and as such also fail to realize why it can occur differently in both sexes. You also seem to have a very poor understanding of what these structures are, how they function, and what effects follow (re: white/gray matter).

Answer:

This particular deflection didn’t work in the past, and it isn’t working now.

How that structure arrived in its launch state is inconsequential when you consider (no taking this out of context now) the outcome at the launch state.  The point is that it is significantly different and that difference is related to gender.  The different exposure rates are wholly tied to the manufacturing process.  This process varies by gender.  Variations within a gender will not pre-empt prediction based on gender if there isn’t significant overlap.

Incidentally, you seem to be unable to separate the person from the position.  There is this constant need to suggest that your opposition has “poor understanding”.  This can and has proven to be quite detrimental to your cognition in this discussion.  It is probably evidence that women do differ from men in how the apply a solution to a problem (then again, it’s a test population of 2… lol).

Lexicon carne

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

This means you are merely repeating things you read, without actually understanding what it means or what implications it may or may not have. You’ve just arbitrarily decided it means “Men are better”, oblivious to the fact that you may very well NOT be good at the cognitive traits commonly associated with men. A lot of men aren’t. In fact, a lot of people aren’t all that good at any of the cognitive skills.

Answer:

Please show exactly where I have said, “men are better” (not “physiology of a structure promotes better innate skills”, but, ipso facto “men are better”… not “men are better equipped” or “men are functionally better”, but “men are better”).  Where have I even suggested, or implied, “men are better”?  Really?  Where?

You asked for evidence that men and women are different in construction, and this has been provided.  You asked for situations were men or women are seeded with equipment that differ (beyond the genital organs) and this was provided.  You asked for examples where the structural differences are separated such that prediction of difference based on gender is not merely random.  This was provided.

Your constant false allegations are clear proof that you have the proverbial “chip on the shoulder” and this is seriously affecting your judgment on this topic.

As far as personal cognitive abilities, they are not directly material to this discussion.  You may assume that I am a certified imbecile if that makes you feel more “superior”.

Curves

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Women are on average better at other cognitive tasks, but that sure as hell doesen’t mean ALL women are good at said tasks. Not all women are linguists, just because women on average score better at linguistics than men.

Answer:

Again, just where have I said or implied that a better aggregate score automatically means the entire gender will score high, or higher than the other gender?  Really.  Where?  One really needs to stop this constant reliance on straw-man arguments.

The point (AGAIN) is that if a trait scores do not have enough overlap, there will be a trend that can be predictable.  Outliers do not negate the existence of a notably divergent distribution.  Men and women have notable differences in physiology.  The overlap on many aspects of this physiology is minor REGARDLESS of the variation within each group.  Until you show all of us how bearded women exist in the percentage that one cannot reasonably predict that a goateed individual is male, you are blowing proverbial smoke.

Tunnel Vision

Sickel (formerly Bella) said:

It’s just not as simple as what you’re trying to portray it as. Cognitive function is extremely complicated and variable, and more than associated with sex, its associated with genes NOT associated with sex. It is not a coincidence that intelligent parents more often spawn intelligent offspring. Intelligence is extremely inheritable (regardless of environment). And while its not entirely “mapped” out yet (it’s one of the things I work with), specific cognitive traits are also likely to be extremely inheritable. Which is also most likely why children do similar professions to their parents, and also why separated identical twins have been found to have quite similar natured jobs. We tend to choose profession based on skill.

And these vary *A LOT*, completely regardless of gender.

Gender just makes one set of abilities much more likely to occur. It does not guarantee it in any way. Once again: It is MUCH more complicated than that, and simplifying it the way you do is incredibly silly and ignorant.

Answer:

No.  It is not as “simple” as you falsely represent your opposition of portraying.

Firstly, this discussion encompasses ALL the difference between the genders, and not just the overall resultant cognitive skills.  It is you who isolates this aspect and infers that this aspect alone is the yardstick (that random distribution in overall cognitive skills means exact prediction based on gender can determine who is “better” than the other).

You conveniently gloss over the dynamic that this discussion is about IF and HOW the sexes differ (hence they are not equals), and focus on this “I’m not inferior because I’m a woman” agenda.  As a by-product, the constant retreat to fallacies like straw man arguments, and deflective commentary, does indeed bias readers to believe that women are indeed inferior when it comes to civilized discussion (of course, it’s a sample size of 2, a single topic, and no control values are set, etc…)

Waffle, Anyone?

Sickle (formerly Bella) Said:

I have NEVER disputed sexual dismorphisms, I am pointing out its not as relevant as you’re making it out to be, and there are several factors which influences said dismorphisms. Prenatal testosterone is a widely accepted fact in regard to the importance of many of these factors, for example.

Answer:

Again, do not misrepresent a criticism in order to refute it.  The remark wasn’t that you “disputed” it.  It was that you CLEARLY STATED that there are bigger variations within sexes than between them.  It was then pointed out that this IGNORES sexual dimorphic traits that have little to no overlap (such as the manes found on lions).  Your EXACT WORDS once again:

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

IN CONTEXT, you were not referring only to certain traits.  You were referring to the difference between sexes. There are numerous examples of traits that do not exhibit the overlap your theory relies on.  That is why your theory is fallacious.

Prenatal testosterone’s role is just a deflection.  NO ONE was saying this wasn’t the case (you just brought it up and ran with it in an attempt to showboat your “superior” knowledge.  The point still is that the end result of differing structures between sexes occurs, and, that a notable number of these structures are distinct enough to be predictive.

Rinse and Repeat

Sickle (formerly Bella) Said:

I’m not repeating it again.

Answer:

ROFL.  We will all believe that when we see it.  Chances are you will just take snippets of comments out-of-context and refute them again.