Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sandra Pinches's avatar

Thanks for providing a summary of the conference! My main takeaway is that people are very hung up (again) on the nature/nurture dichotomy when it comes to sex differences. It seems obvious that most of the development of human individuals is an interaction between innate tendencies and environmental influences. Arguments that polarize these factors are usually driven by emotional concerns arising from political and cultural pressures outside of the scientific debate. Sex-based discrimination is one of these. It would be helpful if both the scientists and the advocates for various interest groups could stop using arguments about sex differences to support positions that favor or oppose discrimination, which continues to be a real thing in our society.

Expand full comment
Lisa Selin Davis's avatar

Interesting to take on feminists as opposed to TRA's, but I understand the importance of being able to talk about these issues. There was a common 19th century phrase, "Classics for gentlemen, science for ladies." Computer engineering was initially thought of as a woman's job. And there have been massive increases in women in STEM, because of a concerted cultural effort to create room for them. I don't understand why these points are so often ignored. Of course there are average behavioral differences, and of course some of them are rooted in biology. But why ignore the cultural?

"In 1970, women made up 38% of all U.S. workers and 8% of STEM workers. By 2019, the STEM proportion had increased to 27% and women made up 48% of all workers.

Since 1970, the representation of women has increased across all STEM occupations and they made significant gains in social science occupations in particular – from 19% in 1970 to 64% in 2019.

Women in 2019 also made up nearly half of those in all math (47%) and life and physical science (45%) occupations."

Expand full comment
67 more comments...

No posts