Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gender Dichotomy is a Fairy Tale We Have Been Telling Ourselves to Sleep at Night
(Can't seem to let this one go)
“Sex is the most pervasive method of categorizing people. We are more likely to categorize people based on gender than race.”
These are the first words of a new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, “Men and Women Are From Earth: Examining the Latent Structure of Gender,” headed by Bobbi J. Carothers and Harry T. Reis, a couple of lads from Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Rochester who aimed to provide empirical evidence that sex and gender are not the same thing.
Awesome. Can we dispense with all the nonsense that people don’t notice I’m a girl, first, before they assessed my qualifications? Scientifically, that’s the FIRST thing they notice, even before they notice my race.
To quote the study (and I’m gonna–I’m gonna quote a lot from this study):
The idea of consistently and inflexibly gender-typed individuals is [under dispute]. That is, there are not two distinct genders, but instead there are linear gradations of variables associated with sex, such as masculinity or intimacy, all of which are continuous.
The study makes no bones about men and women being anatomically and physiologically different. Besides the unlikely prospect of my developing a beard at puberty, I am also more likely to take a pass on helping a friend move his refrigerator, based on the high biological likelihood that my upper arm circumference was unable to generate as much muscle mass as his.
These are the first words of a new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, “Men and Women Are From Earth: Examining the Latent Structure of Gender,” headed by Bobbi J. Carothers and Harry T. Reis, a couple of lads from Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Rochester who aimed to provide empirical evidence that sex and gender are not the same thing.
Awesome. Can we dispense with all the nonsense that people don’t notice I’m a girl, first, before they assessed my qualifications? Scientifically, that’s the FIRST thing they notice, even before they notice my race.
To quote the study (and I’m gonna–I’m gonna quote a lot from this study):
The idea of consistently and inflexibly gender-typed individuals is [under dispute]. That is, there are not two distinct genders, but instead there are linear gradations of variables associated with sex, such as masculinity or intimacy, all of which are continuous.
The study makes no bones about men and women being anatomically and physiologically different. Besides the unlikely prospect of my developing a beard at puberty, I am also more likely to take a pass on helping a friend move his refrigerator, based on the high biological likelihood that my upper arm circumference was unable to generate as much muscle mass as his.
http://www.themarysue.com/gender-dichotomy-study/
I will repost the PDF address embedded in the article, it's really interesting reading for those who like this kind of thing. (I do, on occasion)
Men and Women Are From Earth:
Examining the Latent Structure of Gender
Bobbi J. Carothers
Washington University in St. Louis
Harry T. Reis
University of Rochester
Taxometric methods enable determination of whether the latent structure of a construct is dimensional or
taxonic (nonarbitrary categories). Although sex as a biological category is taxonic, psychological gender
differences have not been examined in this way. The taxometric methods of mean above minus below
a cut, maximum eigenvalue, and latent mode were used to investigate whether gender is taxonic or
dimensional. Behavioral measures of stereotyped hobbies and physiological characteristics (physical
strength, anthropometric measurements) were examined for validation purposes, and were taxonic by sex.
Psychological indicators included sexuality and mating (sexual attitudes and behaviors, mate selectivity,
sociosexual orientation), interpersonal orientation (empathy, relational-interdependent self-construal),
gender-related dispositions (masculinity, femininity, care orientation, unmitigated communion, fear of
success, science inclination, Big Five personality), and intimacy (intimacy prototypes and stages, social
provisions, intimacy with best friend). Constructs were with few exceptions dimensional, speaking to
Spence’s (1993) gender identity theory. Average differences between men and women are not under
dispute, but the dimensionality of gender indicates that these differences are inappropriate for diagnosing
gender-typical psychological variables on the basis of sex.
Keywords: gender, taxometric, latent structure, personality, sex differences
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/people/reis_harry/assets/pdf/CarothersReis_2012.pdf
More generally, Zahn-Waxler and Polanichka (2004) reviewed
several theoretical models positing qualitative differences in the
expression and etiology of antisocial behavior in boys and girls.
Another example is the “tend-and-befriend model,” which proposes
that men’s and women’s responses to stress are fundamentally
different (Taylor et al., 2000), linking these behaviors to the
influence of oxytocin. Indeed, the fact that researchers sometimes
analyze data from men and women separately (Kashy & Kenny,
2000), and the insistence by some editors and reviewers that
researchers routinely analyze their data for gender differences (see
Baumeister, 1988; Eagly, 1987; and McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze,
1986, for varied positions in this debate), implies belief in at least
the possibility that men’s and women’s behavior may be categorically
distinct.
If, as mentioned above, most scholars are skeptical about the
general idea that in terms of social behavior men and women
represent natural kinds, why does categorical thinking persist? One
reason, we propose, is that no existing research has examined
explicitly the distinction between categorical and dimensional
models. As described in the next section, documentation of gender
differences in and of themselves is insufficient to conclusively
establish that gender differences are dimensional, or whether they
might be taxonic. The research described in this article was designed
to provide such evidence.
several theoretical models positing qualitative differences in the
expression and etiology of antisocial behavior in boys and girls.
Another example is the “tend-and-befriend model,” which proposes
that men’s and women’s responses to stress are fundamentally
different (Taylor et al., 2000), linking these behaviors to the
influence of oxytocin. Indeed, the fact that researchers sometimes
analyze data from men and women separately (Kashy & Kenny,
2000), and the insistence by some editors and reviewers that
researchers routinely analyze their data for gender differences (see
Baumeister, 1988; Eagly, 1987; and McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze,
1986, for varied positions in this debate), implies belief in at least
the possibility that men’s and women’s behavior may be categorically
distinct.
If, as mentioned above, most scholars are skeptical about the
general idea that in terms of social behavior men and women
represent natural kinds, why does categorical thinking persist? One
reason, we propose, is that no existing research has examined
explicitly the distinction between categorical and dimensional
models. As described in the next section, documentation of gender
differences in and of themselves is insufficient to conclusively
establish that gender differences are dimensional, or whether they
might be taxonic. The research described in this article was designed
to provide such evidence.
Conclusion
For some time, there has been a striking difference in the way
that most scholars and the lay public conceptualize sex differences.
Whereas most researchers, with a few noteworthy exceptions, have
conceived of psychological sex differences as dimensional constructs,
laypersons were more likely to view these differences as
fundamentally taxonic. We conducted our analyses with the goal
of making explicit the mathematical properties that follow from
these distinctive positions and then testing their relevance for a
diverse set of measures. In all instances the dimensional approach
prevailed. At least with regard to the measures we examined,
therefore, it can be concluded that they unambiguously represent
exemplars of the same underlying attributes rather than qualitatively
distinct categories of human characteristics.
For some time, there has been a striking difference in the way
that most scholars and the lay public conceptualize sex differences.
Whereas most researchers, with a few noteworthy exceptions, have
conceived of psychological sex differences as dimensional constructs,
laypersons were more likely to view these differences as
fundamentally taxonic. We conducted our analyses with the goal
of making explicit the mathematical properties that follow from
these distinctive positions and then testing their relevance for a
diverse set of measures. In all instances the dimensional approach
prevailed. At least with regard to the measures we examined,
therefore, it can be concluded that they unambiguously represent
exemplars of the same underlying attributes rather than qualitatively
distinct categories of human characteristics.
Ha.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
