Jessica wrote: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?
Jessica wrote: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.
Jessica wrote: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