Sounds like many of you playing the semantic game of knocking down scare crows.
when feminists say that sex is a determined by society, they are right; but they aren´t right in assuming that is a bad thing — DiegoT
Yes but only because it is often defined as such in an awkward way. This principle is not uniform and some species can switch sexes (not just genders).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism
Male behaviours and female behaviours are strongly linked to hormonal levels. So if you take a disease like polycystic ovarian syndrome, this becomes quite clear.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pcos/symptoms-causes/syc-20353439
Think about this...
1 - these women are often hairy in places they should not be.
2 - they are usually fat.
3 - they often do not have the ability to have children
4 - they can lose hair in places that women do not usually lose hair (balding))
How much do these women feel like the women that they see on the cover of magazines? Do they feel like what society tells them a woman is? So for every sex-specific hormone, run a plot of the hormone levels for men and women and look at the two distributions. I would imagine that you will get two offset normal looking distributions with different parameters. For many of these very potent hormones, you will have overlap. Those areas of overlap are areas where you would expect disparities between how someone perceives themselves with respect to how society perceives their sex/gender.
So you know how in the DSM 5, everything became a "spectrum disorder". The exact same principles can apply to sexes and genders. They have finally realized (by "they", I mean the medical profession; psychiatry mostly) that they cannot box people in such silly ways.
Feminism: they can say all they want but they do not dictate biology. I do not think it is possible to defend the position that society does not dictate gender stereotypes.
As I already told Andrew, genes are part of the environment. The other members of your species are made up bags of genes. These bags of genes are part of your social environment. — Harry Hindu
I agree with this position. I believe that the best way to view what "life" is, is to view it as entities that can reproduce and protect genetic upgrades. "anti-life" would be viruses. Everything else is just one thing... "life". bacteria is life, humans are life.. the divisions do not make sense to me. It would be bizarre to not think of all life on the planet just being self protecting genetic code.
This is a great example of how both nature and nurture (the environment) have equal influence on what we are now. — Harry Hindu
This claim would require quite a fair bit of justification (with data) to support. You would first need to come up with a metric to measure the relative contributions to even begin to utter the words which you have here spoken. If you were to be able to defend this statement in a peer-reviewed manner, you would probably win a Nobel Prize.