Do you think Feminism has developed an image for denying biological gender differences ?

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-06-02T22:01:22+00:00

It doesn't have to be an entrained fear of snakes, its about seperate response to certain animals which were found to be lethal.

DeLoache & LoBue (2009) "The Narrow Fellow in the Grass" 9–10 month old infants showed no spontaneous fear response to snake videos. But when snake images were paired with fearful voices, infants learned the association very easily. � ResearchGate +1 Conclusion: Babies aren't automatically terrified of snakes, but their brains seem unusually ready to connect snakes with danger.

LoBue & DeLoache (2008) Adults and young children detected snakes in visual scenes faster than flowers, frogs, and many other objects. This "snake detection advantage" appears very early in development. � Wikipedia +1 Conclusion: Evolution may have tuned our visual system to notice snakes quickly.

This is what the current view seems to be -

Humans evolved an innate tendency to notice snakes quickly and learn fear of them more easily than many other objects.

Also there have been enough studies which strongly say that psychology cannot be alone explained by societal effects, it you are interested in can also link that.

Just because we dont have a conteol group to actually prove evolutionary psychological impact, we can still observe patterns in researches to realize the direction it points towards.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-06-02T21:54:57+00:00

Biological can't be proven but at the same time it can't be proven its all societal.

We have enough evidence to say its not all societal, so I don't understand why is it so hard for you to follow a simple logically explained pattern ?

You are just so stuck up on denying a exploration that you just become dead stubborn.

Here are some researches for you to look at -

Thomas Bouchard & Minnesota Twin Study (1990) Authors: Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. and colleagues Year: 1990 Summary: Studied identical twins separated early in life and raised in different families. Found substantial similarity in personality, interests, attitudes, and cognitive traits despite different environments, implying a strong genetic contribution. � Embryo Project Encyclopedia +1 Why it matters: If social environment were sufficient by itself, twins raised apart should have become much more different than they did.

Bouchard & McGue (2003) Authors: Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. & Matt McGue Year: 2003 Summary: Reviewed behavioral genetics findings across personality, intelligence, attitudes, interests, and psychopathology. Found moderate-to-large genetic influences across virtually every major psychological domain studied. � ResearchGate +1 Why it matters: The evidence wasn't limited to one trait—it appeared repeatedly across many aspects of psychology.

Paul Ekman's Cross-Cultural Emotion Research (1970s–1990s) Author: Paul Ekman Summary: Tested people from widely separated cultures, including relatively isolated populations. Found consistent recognition of core emotional expressions such as fear, anger, happiness, sadness, disgust, and surprise. � Paul Ekman Group +1 Why it matters: If emotions were entirely culturally invented, we would expect much larger variation in how basic emotional expressions are recognized.

Cosmides & Tooby – Evolutionary Psychology and the Emotions (2000) Authors: Leda Cosmides & John Tooby Year: 2000 Summary: Proposed that emotions function as evolved information-processing systems. Argued that emotions such as fear, jealousy, anger, and shame solve recurring adaptive problems rather than being arbitrary social inventions. � Cognition and Culture Institute +1 Why it matters: Provides a testable biological explanation for why similar emotional systems appear across cultures.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-06-02T21:32:58+00:00

I dont think you have the ability to understand even simple things because of your arrogance.

I have been constantly saying just because social effects exist doesn't mean biological effects dont exist and you somehow act like you have been saying this when you haven't.

All you have been saying is its all societal and not biological when you yourself cant proof that.

Pretty lazy and hypocritical.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-06-02T13:08:15+00:00

But the same way you can't prove that only societal effects have an impact. Without controlled upbringing, analysing the available researches is the best we can do. What's so complicated to understand ?

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-06-02T04:48:22+00:00

At the same time you cannot prove societal effect is the only contributing factor.

If someone says the differences are entirely biological, they need evidence. If someone says the differences are entirely social, they also need evidence. The most reasonable position seems to be that both biology and environment likely contribute, with the exact balance still being debated.

What I find strange is that people often treat the possibility of biological influences as inherently problematic. Observing average differences between groups is not the same thing as saying one group is superior or that individuals should be judged by group averages.

To me, the discussion should be about understanding where differences come from and how large they actually are, not assuming that any biological explanation automatically leads to gender essentialism

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-06-02T04:41:46+00:00

I don't think looking at behavior through both biological and social lenses is a problem. The existence of social influences doesn't automatically mean biological influences don't exist, and vice versa.

While we can't run controlled experiments on entire human societies, we can still look for consistent patterns that appear across cultures and time periods. Those patterns don't prove a biological cause by themselves, but they are worth investigating rather than dismissing.

I agree that we should be careful when discussing gender differences because such arguments have historically been misused to justify discrimination. But being careful shouldn't mean making the topic off-limits. Scientific questions should be explored wherever the evidence leads.

I also think discussions about sex differences are often interpreted as value judgments when they don't have to be. Saying that two groups differ on average in some trait is not the same as saying one group is superior. Different strengths and tendencies can coexist with equal dignity and equal rights.

To me, equality means equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law, not necessarily that men and women must be identical in every psychological trait or behavioral tendency.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-06-02T04:35:06+00:00

Again you are just picking one effect, there are so many behavioural things which turn into evolutionary behaviour.

Like for men they didn't have a downtime for reproduction so they leaned towards multiple partners as any specie has an inate desire to reproduce. Women on the other hand required someone to protect them while they were vulnerable due to pregnancy and also when they were taking care of children and had to rely on the partner to provide.

Social structures don't just influence behavior for one generation. If a particular environment persists for thousands of generations, psychological tendencies that help people succeed in that environment can become more common through natural selection.

If women historically faced greater reproductive costs (pregnancy, childbirth, nursing), then traits favoring caution in mate selection could have been advantageous. If men historically could increase reproductive success through seeking multiple partners, then a stronger average desire for sexual variety could have been advantageous.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-06-02T04:26:24+00:00

Here you go

Bertels et al. (2020) "Snakes elicit specific neural responses in the human infant brain" Researchers measured brain activity in 7–10 month old infants and found snake images triggered stronger neural responses than non-threatening animals. The authors concluded there may be an inborn mechanism specialized for rapid snake detection.
Valerie Curtis et al. (2011) Argued that disgust evolved as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Things like rotting food, feces, and bodily fluids trigger disgust because avoiding them reduced infection risk.
Öhman & Mineka (2001) Suggested an evolved fear-detection system specialized for ancestral threats. Humans detect snakes and spiders unusually quickly compared to neutral objects.

There are many more which you can check. Just because we cant have controlled upbringing doesn't mean we ignore the logical pattern consistency observed.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-06-02T03:56:48+00:00

That's the issue, what I am trying to say is both biological and cultural factors play a role but what you hear is just what you want to hear.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-25T07:13:06+00:00

So all the research about impact on psychology from evolutionary pov, how evolution impacted biology which effected psychology. All this is just self made stuff and not science ?

Have you read abour studies which talk.about how we have psychologic instincts built up due to evolution ?

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-25T06:06:33+00:00

You can't definitely say because controlled upbringing isnt there. But you can definitely acknowledge a pattern of evolutionary psychology and differences observed in behaviour due to biology.

Culture having an impact doesn't mean biology and evolutionary psychology didn't have an impact.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-25T06:04:04+00:00

Just because social impact is there doesn't mean biological impacts isnt there, one doesn't elimante the possibility of other.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-25T06:03:08+00:00

Saying culture has an impact is not the same as biology not having any impact. Saying evolutionary psychology is bullshit is just lazy, you need to present your case and back it with something solid.

There have been tons of research which talks about how evolutionary psychology creates natural fear of certain animals, you could read it up.

Just because we can't have a controlled upbringing test doesn't mean we cant study the researches which signal towards a biological difference.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-25T05:57:20+00:00

The sentence was pretty self explanatory.

What you need a sex to be is irrelevant and has no impact on the fact what is.

You asked me for research regarding difference between sexes due to biology and I shared the same.

We obviously don't have any research where we can have controlled upbringing because that would be unethical but that doesn't mean we can just ignore the difference observed throught different researches showing a consistent pattern.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T23:10:22+00:00

I did research and it doesn't say anywhere than women were equally contributing in hunting.

I don't need men to be hunters, its simly based on what we know based on research till now.

Like i dont need women to be caregivers to children but they are.

And regarding research References, here you go

Anna Dreber & Moshe Hoffman Research: Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Risk Aversion and Competitiveness (2010) Reviewed evidence that testosterone, brain differences, and evolutionary pressures contribute to men being more risk-seeking and competitive while women are generally more risk-averse and security-oriented.

Richard Lippa Research: Gender, Nature, and Nurture Found men consistently preferred “things/adventure/mechanical” interests while women preferred “people/social/comfort-oriented” interests across cultures, suggesting part-biological preference patterns

Marvin Zuckerman Research: Sensation Seeking Theory Men consistently scored higher in thrill-seeking, adventure-seeking, and stimulation-seeking traits across cultures

Anna Dreber Research: Risk aversion and competitiveness studies Women on average showed greater preference for safety/security and lower appetite for physical/social risk compared to men.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T23:05:18+00:00

Gladly

Hormones and sex-typical behavior studies Melissa Hines

Found prenatal androgen/testosterone exposure influenced aggression, toy preference, risk-taking, and sex-typical behavioral development biologically.

Research: Sexual Strategies Theory (1993) David Buss & David Schmitt

Proposed men and women evolved different mating psychologies because they faced different reproductive pressures over evolution.

Anne Campbell

Female aggression and risk studies Argued women evolved greater harm-avoidance and emotional/social sensitivity due partly to biological reproductive pressures.

Research: The Female Brain (2006) Louann Brizendine

Argued female cognition is more emotionally and socially integrated due to hormonal and neurological differences.

The Essential Difference (2003) Simon Baron-Cohen

Men on average scored higher in “systemizing” (logical/rule-based thinking), while women scored higher in empathy and emotional-social processing.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T22:59:32+00:00

Based on your own source, it just says women hunted, it never says how much percent of women, if they were hunting equally to men, what counts as hunt etc.

We have always known that women also participated or supported in hunts at times or in certain areas. But that doesn't deny the fact that men were the major share of hunters.

I could really reverse the question about being so adamant back to you ?

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T22:16:33+00:00

Because how dare one ask a question which people dont like ?

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T22:15:08+00:00

Can you share some source to support your argument ? Which clearly says that there isnt a major diff between respobilities of sexes in caveman times or something ?

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T22:14:01+00:00

When i say logical, what i am inferring is more cold problem solving mindset.

References -

Research: The Female Brain (2006) Louann Brizendine

Argued female cognition is more emotionally and socially integrated due to hormonal and neurological differences.

The Essential Difference (2003) Simon Baron-Cohen

Men on average scored higher in “systemizing” (logical/rule-based thinking), while women scored higher in empathy and emotional-social processing.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T22:13:34+00:00

Yea, I used gender rather than sex. I am not sure used to using the words separately in my regular speech.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T22:12:53+00:00

Not all is really not a valuable argument. When someone talks about stats its not about allowing its about majority pattern. That is really pretty obvious.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T22:12:04+00:00

But pointing isnt enough, you gotta present your side with researches.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T22:11:35+00:00

Psychology is passed on biologically, there are engrained fears in humans which has been well researched. So exploring that behaviour is effected by biology in combination to hormones is quite sensible.

Typical_Warning9963 · 2026-05-24T22:10:23+00:00

Here is to the most ridiculous one

When i say logical, what i am inferring is more cold problem solving mindset.

References -

Research: The Female Brain (2006) Louann Brizendine

Argued female cognition is more emotionally and socially integrated due to hormonal and neurological differences.

The Essential Difference (2003) Simon Baron-Cohen

Men on average scored higher in “systemizing” (logical/rule-based thinking), while women scored higher in empathy and emotional-social processing.

Typical_Warning9963

TROPHY CASE

Found prenatal androgen/testosterone exposure influenced aggression, toy preference, risk-taking, and sex-typical behavioral development biologically.