The scientific side of the Great Gender War

I’m starting a new thread instead of continuing the “male bashing in the media” thread, because I believe articles that don’t actually bash males shouldn’t be lumped in with those that do.

Here’s an example:

1 Like

If scientists don’t stop looking through a male lens, outdated gender stereotypes will continue to foster dangerous assumptions about the brain and behavior, resulting in clinical studies and eventual treatments that don’t work equally for all people on the gender spectrum.

So they will includes trans animals and people and some of each of the millions of gender in research now?

All jokes aside, how does this work? Finding treatments that work equally for all people on the gender spectrum?

I’m confused as the article seems to say there are differences between male and females and yet there is a spectrum.

She emphasized that sex is biological and gender is a social construct, and that using gender stereotypes to study basic biological concepts first contributed to omitting female subjects from research. But drawing conclusions about gender from animal subjects that don’t have this social construct potentially reaffirms damaging stereotypes or encourages dangerous practices.

So gender is a social construct, but if we find evidence that it’s not in animals, we should not believe it and it’s just dangerous stereotyping?

I do agree that over and under dosing is a serious issue. I often have to convince my doctors and remind them I’m much heavier. No way I should be prescribed the same dose as a people weighing half of me.

1 Like

It’s encouraging to learn that Canadian scientists still recognize that there are biological differences between the two sexes. Whew. (Wonder how long that will last?)

That’s almost the only takeaway from this article, though. Are NIH and Canadian scientists prepared to invest resources in studies that include enough members of both sexes to represent every possible place on the gender spectrum?

I am asking if during human trials these scientists will consider otherwise conclusive results of a scientific experiment unconclusive if the sample did not include, for example, a male who wishes to express as a female but considers himself to be heterosexual as well as a male who wishes to express as a female but considers himself to be heterosexual as well as male who wishes to express as a female but considers himself to be bisexual? Etc. Etc. Would seem to make experiments that depend on random samples more difficult, to say the least.

Or since many experiments aren’t performed on humans at all, is it in fact sufficient to make sure females are included in the sample and we can simply consider all the gender talk in the article to be noise?

There are male and female animals, also hermaphrodites (like snails). It would seem quite logical so study male and female rats seperately as hormones are different even entire organs like ovaries, testicles etc. Isnt this kind of a “no duh” kind of thing?

Cultural studies in rodents, bugs, yeast etc are quite interesting as well. But as a base it seems clear to draw a 2 sex line in basic testing, and work up from there.

So the easy scientific answer is using the word gender vs sex maybe? If its a study on hormones, use sex. If its a study on food preferences in family units, gender might become interesting.

Scientists arent suppose to have bias so let the facts speak and be proven wrong. If not proven wrong, perhaps theyre right. Simple science.

I wonder though if the different results between male and female rats for example would translate into human male and females?

Almost certainly not. But again it provides insights into more study. Science is the diacipline of expanding and trying harder. Once they learn 1 thing, they have 100 new ideas to teat and prove or disprive…and so on. Its much like how they choose closely related things but they cant really be 100 % so they move onto human trials after.

Unless the FDA or whatever organizations each country has makes this into regulation, it’s probably not going to happen. These guys have millions on the line, adding another variable is not what they want to do.

Ya i probably agree. Im just mentioning how actual science and scientists think. What really gets done often has a ton of bias and sceqed/unfinished results. When that happens though, we should refrain from calling it science and dragging down the entire discipline.

1 Like

Scientists will think in whatever way secures grant money. At the end of the day they’re all Lysenko.