KARL D. writes:

According to this article, a rather mannish looking female neuroscientist has declared that there is no difference between the male and female brain. Any differences are mere creations of social constructs. I guess we can all go home now since the issue has been settled. Yet if we take her argument to its logical conclusion, then wouldn’t that mean that homosexuals aren’t born that way, but created? And if so, doesn’t it follow that they must be abnormal?

Laura writes:

This is similar to a newspaper report on a scientist who has said the moon is made of cheese.

[Neuroscientist Gina Rippon] said: ‘You can’t pick up a brain and say “that’s a girl’s brain, or that’s a boy’s brain” in the same way you can with the skeleton. They look the same.

‘There is pretty compelling evidence that any differences are tiny and are the result of environment not biology.’

Can you imagine a neuroscientist putting two brains on a table, looking at them, and then saying, “That’s it. There are no differences between men and women,” and then being taken seriously by anyone but newspaper reporters? I’m sure Dr. Rippon did more than look, but she couldn’t have done much more.

Differences between male and female brains — for instance, male brains are larger and heavier — are well-documented. Brain function is affected by hormones. There is a great deal of evidence of cognitive differences too and these begin in infancy. But, sure, if you look at any one brain you can’t automatically tell if it’s male or female. So what? If you looked at the brains of two neuroscientists, one who had done her research and one who had not, you wouldn’t necessarily be able to see the massive differences either. But they would still be there.

— Comments —

Aditya B. writes:

How did this woman ever pass medical school? Is she actually as stupid as she sounds or is she deliberately misleading “the people” with the nonsense about minuscule differences being negligible? Is she complacent in the knowledge that a majority of the population doesn’t understand that the less than two percent difference in DNA is the difference between Man and Chimp proving that minute differences can have epic consequences?

Are we really this stupid?

OR; is this a sign of desperation? Is this cheap and embarrassing propaganda the result of anxieties arising out of a knowledge that perhaps “the people” don’t “buy” the “social construct” nonsense anymore (if they ever did)?

Laura writes:

I think both are true. She is really stupid and the propaganda is desperate — but not because people don’t buy it but because of its logic, which denies the obvious and science.

Please follow and like us: