Looking for evidence - Male/female differences

[Aaeriele]

And yet, "throws like an accountant" is not loaded with centuries of societal baggage. Even now, comparing a man to a girl or vagina still has a stinging impact. Accountants just don't have the same sexist cachet.

Jocks will be offended by being compared to girls, and creative types will be offended by being compared to accountants... It's a matter of personal values.
The fear that gender differences will be used to make value judgements is as much of a problem as those value judgements, when it comes to determining what the actual differences are...

I think you missed the point, unless you honestly believe accountants have been an oppressed class.

[HungryHobo]

I think you missed the point, unless you honestly believe accountants have been an oppressed class.

oppressed need not be any part of it.
Something can still be racist or unacceptable even if mocking or belittling a race ,religion etc which hasn't historically been oppressed.

Choice is far more important.
a current high social standing just makes less people frown at you.

[jules.LT]

I think you missed the point, unless you honestly believe accountants have been an oppressed class.

My point was that oppression/discrimination isn't the point.
Just because facts can be used for wrong shouldn't keep us from trying to know what the facts are.

[Jessica]

There is a bias issue. Researchers are people, and they have biases. The concept of looking for differences between males and females is already biased. It assumes that that people can be easily divided into 2 categories. It assumes that there are differences. It assumes you can measure those differences accurately and finally that they can be attributed to something. And that's not even touching on the other biases which most of these studies have (that there is a biological difference, that evolved specifically in humans. That social factors can be minimized or removed.)

So many studies completely fail to take into account social, environmental, educational etc effects when studying gender bias. They believe they can account for them, but in many instances it really is impossible to separate the two.

Many studies use university students to test their theories on. This alone is putting bias into the system by only testing a small self selected population. There are stats one can do to help deal with this bias, but they can be and often are ignored.

That's all just the research side. There's the whole reporting on studies issue that itself needs work. That biological studies which demonstrate the "status quo" get much more press then those that don't.

So yeah... it's not just "facts". In fact, the concept of just "looking for facts" as if there isn't some sort of meaning behind both the search and the production behind them has problems in itself.

[jakovasaur]

There is a bias issue. Researchers are people, and they have biases. The concept of looking for differences between males and females is already biased. It assumes that that people can be easily divided into 2 categories. It assumes that there are differences. It assumes you can measure those differences accurately and finally that they can be attributed to something. And that's not even touching on the other biases which most of these studies have (that there is a biological difference).

You think it is "biased" to say that there is a biological difference between men and women? That's just a fact. And yes, people can generally be very easily divided into 2 categories: "men" and "women". Just because there are some fringe cases which don't fit neatly into either category doesn't mean those categories don't exist. Does the existence of twilight mean that we don't know the difference between night and day?

[HungryHobo]

So yeah... it's not just "facts". In fact, the concept of just "looking for facts" as if there isn't some sort of meaning behind both the search and the production behind them has problems in itself.

all right lads.
pack everything up.
the whole idea of science is bunk.
experiments are all hopelessly biased because researchers may be trying to categorise things or people.
reality can take a back seat to what we want to believe from now on.

Do you know what a systematic review is?
the whole idea is to avoid the problems with how much coverage research gets and to exclude poorly done research.

In a nutshell:

1:the idea is that first: you you define exactly how you will search for research papers. Search terms, databases etc etc etc.
2:Then you make sure you cannot see the results or conclusions at all when assessing a paper because otherwise you're likely to be harder on ones which you disagree with.(it's just human nature)
3:you then exclude research which does not meet the standards in terms of methodology etc.(this is the part where the craptastic stuff that comes out of arts psychology undergrad programs and has all the kinds of problems you listed gets excluded )
4:then and only then do you look at the results and conclusions and at this point you aren't allowed exclude research which you find disagrees with your previous ideas.

reality is not negotiable nor is it required to be ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying?.

[Enuja]

Paying attention to bias makes science better, not worse. Gender assumptions are something that scientists have historically (and currently) depended upon without being aware of it. If you don't know about biasing effects (say, stereotype threat, which makes women who check a gender box do worse on a math test, because they already know that "women don't do well at math"), and you don't check for those when doing meta analyses, you're going to come up with a very biased result. The status quo right now is that almost all human research subjects check a box before (instead of after!) a test, and the researchers crunch the numbers and report even tiny differences, often in the title of their article. When they see no difference, there is a quick line in the paper that no statistical difference between men and women was found, so the groups were pooled for statistical analyses, and that's not the point of the paper at all. It's like http://xkcd.com/882/, but not so obvious because it's not one group of researchers studying one phenomena that then gets split up, but lots of different researchers doing lots of different studies, and their statistics are valid within their individual study (unlike the hypothetical jelly bean example, would have greatly benefited from a Bonferonni correction).

And, no, people who don't fit into clear categories of "man" or "women" are not an irrelevant fringe. They are really important for understanding how these categories are constructed and enforced, and the exceptions highlight the real gaping hole of knowledge about what "gender" and "sex" really are.

[jules.LT]

And, no, people who don't fit into clear categories of "man" or "women" are not an irrelevant fringe. They are really important for understanding how these categories are constructed and enforced, and the exceptions highlight the real gaping hole of knowledge about what "gender" and "sex" really are.

What they "really are" is categories. Artificial groupings that are used by humans to refer to collections of items which share common properties. In this case, they tend to be easy to distinguish.
The criteria that make people put fringe cases in either category or none or both tell you what they consider most essential about the categories once most differences are blurred.
When you want to know what differences there are between the categories beyond the obvious, you need to look at individuals that at least have the obvious characteristics for belonging in one (and only one) of the categories.
Because if you find an essential difference between a trans woman and a hermaphrodite, what are you going to conclude about men and women??

[Jessica]

There is a bias issue. Researchers are people, and they have biases. The concept of looking for differences between males and females is already biased. It assumes that that people can be easily divided into 2 categories. It assumes that there are differences. It assumes you can measure those differences accurately and finally that they can be attributed to something. And that's not even touching on the other biases which most of these studies have (that there is a biological difference).

You think it is "biased" to say that there is a biological difference between men and women? That's just a fact. And yes, people can generally be very easily divided into 2 categories: "men" and "women". Just because there are some fringe cases which don't fit neatly into either category doesn't mean those categories don't exist. Does the existence of twilight mean that we don't know the difference between night and day?

I didn't say that they are incorrect, just that they are biases. People do have biases toward certain types of thinking, like attributing things to biology first, before environment, or assuming that everyone can fit into two categories. There can be problems with biases, like attempting to attribute something to "male" without actually defining what they mean by male. If you're saying "men do X" because they separated students into "men" and "women", is there any biological basis of that? The simple classification of these people is based on social norms. How can you possibly conclude anything biological if you're categorizing people based on socially constructed categories, self selected by the participants? Also, taking a sample of all white heterosexual college students and extrapolating that to everyone is just bad math.

@Hobo: That's a nice strawman of me you have.
I was saying one has to be critical of facts, and that these facts don't exist in some vacuum which can be objectively studied. There are statistical methods used to help deal with bias, but that doesn't mean that anything published is a fact. Or that the common wisdom about something is necessarily right. If something is studied, it doesn't mean it's a fact.

[jules.LT]

There can be problems with biases, like attempting to attribute something to "male" without actually defining what they mean by male. If you're saying "men do X" because they separated students into "men" and "women", is there any biological basis of that? The simple classification of these people is based on social norms. How can you possibly conclude anything biological if you're categorizing people based on socially constructed categories, self selected by the participants?

Let's define "men" as "people who self-identify as men" and likewise for women and ethnicities. Problem solved!
More seriously, the rate of error/lying is likely small enough that relying on self-reporting is just as safe as (and probably safer than) for marital status, age or country of birth.

[Jessica]

You're not understanding what I'm saying...

Self identified men aren't biologically homogeneous. How can you draw biological conclusions from a non-biological homogeneous group? All we can conclude is that there are social differences between socially homogeneous groups*.

Yet people declare biological facts all the time.

*Note: Not that a group of self identified men are socially homogenous, other than self identifying as men.

[Harry Manback]

Self identified men Ducks aren't biologically homogeneous. How can you draw biological conclusions from a non-biological homogeneous group?

Not exactly fair on my part, but the point is the same. Excepting the less than a percent transgender, it's pretty easy to identify post-puberty humans as either male or female. It may be that the differences are not what society at large would say, but gender is much more of a heads/tails deal than a shades of gray deal regardless.

[HungryHobo]

apply that to anything else and you could claim no research on anything is valid ever.

male/female because some people don't fit perfectly into either category.
old/young because people might be mistaken or lie or some people might physically age more slowly etc etc
drinkers/non drinkers because people might lie or they might be accidentally drinking alcohol without their knowledge or their bodies might simply produce slightly more alcohols than other peoples... .
colorblind/non-colourblind because prove that everyone in the non-colour-blind group perceive colour in the same way(yay,problem of other minds) or some of the colourblind might have spotty perception of colour etc etc etc
sufferers of some disease/non suffers because some people might just not notice the symptoms or might lie or might be in the early stages etc etc etc

yet it's perfectly possible to do high quality studies of all these things and it's generally quite reasonable to simply ask because people normally have a decent idea of their own gender,age and drinking habits etc and the cases where they're wrong are rare enough to not poison the whole dataset.
It's perfectly sensible to sort people into categories even if there's a tiny minority who don't fit perfectly.

[podbaydoor]

Why stick to old legacy categories handed down from generations of problematic social constructs? It would be more accurate to define your categories to something specifically relevant - like possessing a particular chromosome or something.

[HungryHobo]

Why stick to old legacy categories handed down from generations of problematic social constructs? It would be more accurate to define your categories to something specifically relevant - like possessing a particular chromosome or something.

actually that would be fairly bad.

some people are XY and normal female and other are XX and normal male because they're either missing a section of their Y or a bit of the Y has been copied onto the X.
You could also go with a particular gene sequence but if it's methylated and doesn't get expressed...

short version: "do you have a Y chromosome" sounds good but "do you self identify as male/female/other[please specify]" is simply far more accurate.

You might be genotypically XX but have a section from the Y chromosome copied on to one of the X's... so perhaps we should test for that region.... ah but no, still bad because when you have more than one X chromosome one of them randomly gets methylated so perhaps check if it's the methylated one .....one it doesn't get expressed fully (though it can vary throughout your body since this happens some time around about when you're a blastocyst ) so it might be in your genome but you could be phenotypically and from your own point of view completely female.

so chromosomes are a poor way of categorizing, self identification is simpler and probably fairer and more useful if you want to make useful statments about 99% of humanity who aren't ever going to get genetic test done.

[Jessica]

Self identified men Ducks aren't biologically homogeneous. How can you draw biological conclusions from a non-biological homogeneous group?

Not exactly fair on my part, but the point is the same. Excepting the less than a percent transgender brokers, it's pretty easy to identify post-puberty humans as either male banker or female non-banker. It may be that the differences are not what society at large would say, but gender banking is much more of a heads/tails deal than a shades of gray deal regardless.

Men and women aren't like comparing apples to oranges. They're human. And just because they have different body parts, doesn't mean they're drastically biologically different. Any more than black humans and white humans are drastically different, or bankers and non-bankers.

Studies which look for differences find differences. Studies which want to find biological causes find biological causes.

[jakovasaur]

Studies which look for differences find differences. Studies which want to find biological causes find biological causes.

You start a thread asking for evidence that supports your own view, and then you say that actual data is biased because of its initial outlook?

[KingofMadCows]

The only way for a study to find casual links is if they raised boys and girls in the exact same environment in which all variables are controlled. That's obviously not possible so the best thing we have are studies and historical accounts that look at cultures in which there's less of a division between the genders. For example, there is quite a bit of literature on the treatment of slaves in the United States where even though there was a division of labor between the sexes, women often had to perform the same kind and amount of work as men. If I remember correctly, black women who worked in the fields along with men had to do the same amount of work up until the second or third month of pregnancy, and often had to take care of children while working.

[Nordic Einar]

Someone who honestly believes that the study of gender doesn't contain inherent biases both in self-report, methodological bias and bias amongst the researchers has never taken more than a pre-cursory look at the study of gender or the psychology of gender and has no place discussing this.

It is absolutely absurd to assume that there are "Clean, cut, FACTS ARE FACTS" kinds of facts in the study of something so mind numbingly complex as human gender constructs. The truth of the matter is that we have absolutely no fucking idea where gender comes from and the idea that it is entirely biological is not supported by any significant body of research. Worse, this field of study suffers from an extremely biased history of research - a perfect example is the idea that "Men are better at math than women" which is largely based on a single study of the top 2% of students over 20 years ago.

Meta-analysis reviews of the studies looking at most attributes of men and women pretty commonly find either no difference between men and women, only minor differences (d-scores no higher than, say, +-.3) or differences that contradict established stereotypes. Whats more, even the existence of a difference does not prove any inherent, biological or intrinsic difference between men and women - in fact, many differences are increasingly shrinking as time progresses, which would suggest these differences are not biological.

The human being is an incredibly complicated construct. We're not created by equation or governed by easy to define laws. And the people studying us are equally susceptible to bias as anyone else.

[HungryHobo]

Meta-analysis reviews of the studies looking at most attributes of men and women pretty commonly find either no difference between men and women, only minor differences (d-scores no higher than, say, +-.3) or differences that contradict established stereotypes. Whats more, even the existence of a difference does not prove any inherent, biological or intrinsic difference between men and women - in fact, many differences are increasingly shrinking as time progresses, which would suggest these differences are not biological.

Perfectly reasonable.
I assume though you're going the no true Scotsman route and excluding physical differences like height, weight, skin PH, muscle mass, hormone levels, etc etc etc.

It is absolutely absurd to assume that there are "Clean, cut, FACTS ARE FACTS" kinds of facts in the study of something so mind numbingly complex as human gender constructs. The truth of the matter is that we have absolutely no fucking idea where gender comes from and the idea that it is entirely biological is not supported by any significant body of research. Worse, this field of study suffers from an extremely biased history of research - a perfect example is the idea that "Men are better at math than women" which is largely based on a single study of the top 2% of students over 20 years ago.

complete cruft.


Almost everything is complex when it comes to genetics and development of any organism and any large complex dataset.
that does not mean that it's not perfectly possible and perfectly reasonable to do studies and generate useful data on the subject and make assertions based on that.

that is unless you have a previous belief which tends to get contradicted like the creationists, the spoonbenders or the homeopaths in which case everything is far far far too complex and everything is far far too hard to define and any studies which contradict their previous belief are wrong because [reasons they don't apply to their own pet studies].

[jules.LT]

Nobody said that it was entirely biological. I wish that this strawman stopped coming up.
Nobody said that there was no bias in research either, only that it's possible to do high-quality studies. It's just that you have to take into account potential bias (including that of people who try to deny the existence of differences, btw).

In all but a fraction of cases, gender is absolutely clear-cut.
There are clean cut facts that are definitely biological: genitals, hormones, chromosomes, etc. The fringe cases don't make those less real as facts about typical members of either gender.
These definitely have a significant impact on individual behaviour (the prevalence of heterosexuality in both humans and animals is proof enough), although it's hard and sometimes nigh-impossible to know what part comes from social constructs.
It seems reasonable to think that most biological differences are amplified by social constructs, so finding that a difference shrinks with social constructs doesn't mean that much about the underlying causes of that difference (although there are definitely tons of differences that have no direct biological cause).

tl;dr - It is indeed complex. That doesn't mean that there aren't facts. Don't be as biased as the sexists.

[Rikeus]

In a recent study I read on biological differences there was a surprising disparity between the sexes in one particular attribute.

With a sample size of over 1000 (grouped according to physical sex) and p value greater than 0.01 the researchers failed to reject the null hypotheses: that the proportion of men with penises 1; and that the proportion of women with penises is 0. Additionally, with the same sample and a p value less than 0.01 the researchers found statistically significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of men with penises is the same as the proportion of women with penises.

Obviously this shows us that there is at least one difference between the sexes.

[Aaeriele]

In all but a fraction of cases, gender is absolutely clear-cut.
There are clean cut facts that are definitely biological: genitals, hormones, chromosomes, etc.

You have an odd definition of clear-cut.

[Роберт]

In a recent study I read on biological differences there was a surprising disparity between the sexes in one particular attribute.

With a sample size of over 1000 (grouped according to physical sex) and p value greater than 0.01 the researchers failed to reject the null hypotheses: that the proportion of men with penises 1; and that the proportion of women with penises is 0. Additionally, with the same sample and a p value less than 0.01 the researchers found statistically significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of men with penises is the same as the proportion of women with penises.

Obviously this shows us that there is at least one difference between the sexes.

It is true that a large percentage of those who self-identify as men have at least one penis, a much larger percentage than those who self-identify as women.

[jules.LT]

In all but a fraction of cases, gender is absolutely clear-cut.
There are clean cut facts that are definitely biological: genitals, hormones, chromosomes, etc.

You have an odd definition of clear-cut.

Categories of actual things of the material world are always imprecise.
Gender is one of the most clear-cut features of human beings that you can find. Are you going to deny that?

[Spambot5546]

Yes.

[gmalivuk]

It is true that a large percentage of those who self-identify as men have at least one penis, a much larger percentage than those who self-identify as women.

Right. And so the point is that there is at least *some* undeniably biological difference between self-identified men and self-identified women, even if it's not 100%. And of course there are many, many more than that one, it's just that none of them are individually 100%.

But that's fine. Science doesn't require 100% black-and-white distinctions to nonetheless make useful distinctions between useful categories. And we see this especially frequently in biology: what's the line between life and non-life? What's the line between two species? Two genera? These are all fundamentally fuzzy distinctions, but that doesn't mean they are useless.

Similarly, we may be able to talk usefully about biological differences between socially constructed genders without requiring that those differences account for fully 100% of the people involved. We just need to acknowledge that they don't account for 100%.

[Jessica]

You see, you make a jump between

In all but a fraction of cases, gender is absolutely clear-cut.
There are clean cut facts that are definitely biological: genitals, hormones, chromosomes, etc. The fringe cases don't make those less real as facts about typical members of either gender.

and

These definitely have a significant impact on individual behaviour (the prevalence of heterosexuality in both humans and animals is proof enough), although it's hard and sometimes nigh-impossible to know what part comes from social constructs.

There are general differences, averages and majorities. None of these are 100% and thus aren't really clear cut. In fact that's the whole point of not being clear cut - having things which blur between A and B means it's not clear cut at all.

But, even if you take these averages, majorities and generalities, you still have the problem of showing "significant" impact on individual behavior. Are you referring to statistically significant or common language significant? There is a large difference between the two.

I'm not saying biology has NO effect. I understand there are biological differences between the sexes. Most men develop in certain ways, and most women have certain levels of hormones. I argue that it's impossible to determine the amount that biology affects human behaviour, because there is no way to control for either biology of society. There are biological effects, certainly. But, they can (arguably) be completely overshadowed by sociological effects in most instances.

[Роберт]

Similarly, we may be able to talk usefully about biological differences between socially constructed genders without requiring that those differences account for fully 100% of the people involved. We just need to acknowledge that they don't account for 100%.

I think that's what a lot of people have a hard time doing.

[gmalivuk]

I argue that it's impossible to determine the amount that biology affects human behaviour, because there is no way to control for either biology of society.

You're making a pretty strong claim here, which isn't backed up by equally strong evidence. We *can* control to some degree for biology or society, and we can determine to some degree the amount that biology affects human behavior. For example, behaviors which are sex-linked and universal across human societies are likely determined at least in part by biology, while behaviors that are sex-linked in one culture but not in another, or which are even opposite in another, are probably determined mostly by society.

But of course what is impossible is claiming that anything at all is determined entirely by either biology or by the environment, because every behavior is likely determined partially by both.

[jules.LT]

There are general differences, averages and majorities. None of these are 100% and thus aren't really clear cut. In fact that's the whole point of not being clear cut - having things which blur between A and B means it's not clear cut at all.

Let's say it's just "as clear-cut as night and day"...
You're much better informed than me on the subject: what's the share of the population that don't have a definite gender?

But, even if you take these averages, majorities and generalities, you still have the problem of showing "significant" impact on individual behavior. Are you referring to statistically significant or common language significant? There is a large difference between the two.

The effect is definitely statistically significant; common language significant I'm only pretty sure of.
Now I didn't say "decisive", and I would oppose anyone who'd say it is.
But I don't see how I could get more than a general feeling about that.

I'm not saying biology has NO effect. I understand there are biological differences between the sexes. Most men develop in certain ways, and most women have certain levels of hormones. I argue that it's impossible to determine the amount that biology affects human behaviour, because there is no way to control for either biology of society. There are biological effects, certainly. But, they can (arguably) be completely overshadowed by sociological effects in most instances.

I wouldn't say "impossible", but really really hard indeed.
I'd stop discussing it, but I get pissed off when people who seem smart say things like "gendering is almost wholly a social function, physical sex has very little direct effect on behaviour".
I don't know if it's 60/40, 70/30 or 80/20, but it's most definitely not 98/2.

[Роберт]

There are general differences, averages and majorities. None of these are 100% and thus aren't really clear cut. In fact that's the whole point of not being clear cut - having things which blur between A and B means it's not clear cut at all.

Let's say it's just "as clear-cut as night and day"...
You're much better informed than me on the subject: what's the share of the population that don't have a definite gender?

What do you mean by that? If someone is definitely androgynous, which category does that go in?

[KestrelLowing]

Does anyone know where to find a list of the things that seem to be gender linked universally across cultures? I'd be quite interested in that as the only thing I'm sure of is that child care (at least until they're weaned) is always provided by women.

[Zamfir]

There are general differences, averages and majorities. None of these are 100% and thus aren't really clear cut. In fact that's the whole point of not being clear cut - having things which blur between A and B means it's not clear cut at all.

Let's say it's just "as clear-cut as night and day"...
You're much better informed than me on the subject: what's the share of the population that don't have a definite gender?

What do you mean by that? If someone is definitely androgynous, which category does that go in?

Let's include everybody who for some reason is not easily categorized as either male or female. For reasons of biology, or self-identification, or social identification, or whatever. How large a group do we get, roughly? What are the major reasons that categorization fails?

Nearly any categorization has edge cases, especially of people. That doesn't make them automatically useless. Categories like 'child' or 'employed' or 'American' have probably fuzzier boundaries than 'male', yet we would not consider them particularly useless or vague concepts. Or as jules says, night and day. Howarge its the twilight zone between men and women? Or are there many people who live in space, where night and day lose meaning?

[Jessica]

I argue that it's impossible to determine the amount that biology affects human behaviour, because there is no way to control for either biology of society completely.

You're making a pretty strong claim here, which isn't backed up by equally strong evidence. We *can* control to some degree for biology or society, and we can determine to some degree the amount that biology affects human behavior. For example, behaviors which are sex-linked and universal across human societies are likely determined at least in part by biology, while behaviors that are sex-linked in one culture but not in another, or which are even opposite in another, are probably determined mostly by society.

I forgot a word, which takes the claim from strong to obvious. I'll edit my post to put it in there.

But, even taking cross cultural studies, we can't be certain that a behavior is biologically based just because it's cross cultural. We can only say that people universally have behavior X, whether it's because it's socially beneficial (or most efficient) to do it that way, or because we're biologically wired that way, we can't be certain.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Personally I believe it's probably closer to 80 Cultural/environmental and 20 biological. But it's difficult (to impossible) to prove any split other than the all or nothing split. I personally believe in that split because it's beneficial to believe that things aren't biologically determined, as biological determinism is the status quo, and what society in general believes.

[Роберт]

[T]he only thing I'm sure of is that child care (at least until they're weaned) is always provided by women.

Men (and I'm not only talking about trans-men) have been known to lactate. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ate&sc=rss

So I wouldn't say with certainty that there has never been a man to provide the child care for a pre-weened baby.

[gmalivuk]

Does anyone know where to find a list of the things that seem to be gender linked universally across cultures?

Here is a list of some alleged human universals, including those which are gender-linked.

What adds further difficulty to any superficial nature/nurture discussion is the large category of things which are socially determined because of biological differences. Women are the ones who give birth and nurse infants, and so it's reasonable to expect a pretty universal tendency for women to be the ones engaged in other child-rearing practices (especially in cultures where many children is the norm, meaning that, when she isn't actually pregnant, there's almost always a completely dependent infant or toddler in the household).

Is this because she's innately biologically better suited for all of those activities? No, of course not. It's entirely possible that birth and breastfeeding are the only child-related things she's better suited for. But it also seems foolish to disregard the ultimately biological cause for those traditionally female roles.

[Роберт]

Is this because she's innately biologically better suited for all of those activities? No, of course not. It's entirely possible that birth and breastfeeding are the only child-related things she's better suited for. But it also seems foolish to disregard the ultimately biological cause for those traditionally female roles.

But I would be hardly be surprised if there is a link between breastfeeding a child and being better at caring for the child. There are a lot of interesting interactions with breastfeeding.

If that is the case, while most women may not be biologically better at caring for children, there would still be a biological reason that would cause many women to be better at caring for their own children then men. I have no idea if this is the case or not, I'm just saying it's pretty tough to separate out all the factors. I have no idea how you would do a study that is scientifically rigorous.

And without scientifically rigorous studies, prejudices, stereotypes, and pre-conceived notions have even more freedom to run wild than the would otherwise.

[HungryHobo]

I sense some extremely mobile goalposts there.
So are you claiming now that there are no biological differences full stop or that there are no differences without at least one exception to the rule?

If all you want is at least one exception then there's nothing.
No statement along the lines "if X then gender =male/female" can be true 100% of the time. 99.9[some number of nines] is the best you can ever do.
even giving birth which most people would consider very very female has almost certainly been done by at least one person who self identifies as male.

but in terms of simple biological differences on average then there's a fairly decent list starting with height and working down in obviousness.

[Роберт]

I sense some extremely mobile goalposts there.
So are you claiming now that there are no biological differences full stop or that there are no differences without at least one exception to the rule?

I have no idea who you are addressing here. Care to elaborate?