Falsis: Evolutionary gender binary "theory"
"Evolutionary" psychology makes up many claims about gender binaries that make no evolutionary sense at all. In many cases, they do not even have the internal consistency that is needed to be a falsifiable hypothesis in the first place. One example of this is that they claim both that men become sexually aroused at the sight of anything they find attractive, and that men only become stimulated when they have desire while stimulation cause desire in women (i.e. the "men are lines, women are circles" claim). That is a blatant inconsistency that has no place in a scientific hypothesis. There are examples of this nonsense using false dilemma fallacies to immunize itself to criticism by falsely assuming that criticism of gender binaryism "must" support pharma's "female Viagra" hype.
- 1 Ignoring chemical resistance differences
- 2 Women appearing to lack logical thinking?
- 2.1 It need not be biological
- 2.2 Economy and false beliefs of grant investors
- 2.3 Wealth allows practicing of innate sex differences?
- 2.4 Psychiatry deterring women from open consistency
- 3 Vulnerable difference between mean and median mates
- 4 Alleged male wishful thinking about horny women
- 5 Inconsistent claims about brains
- 5.1 Complexity and orientations
- 5.2 Nutrients to the brain or to pregnancy?
- 5.3 Vestigial organs and evolution
- 5.4 Stopping assumptions about acting on fantasies
- 5.5 The claim that men are visual
- 5.6 The claim that men higher inner sex drive
- 6 The existence of science
- 7 Sociobiological infeasibility
- 7.1 Males being more willing to have sex
- 7.2 Incompatibility of pickier females and monogamy
- 7.3 Evolutionary uselessness of pickiness at high rape frequencies
- 7.4 Alleged female sex disgust as rape protection
- 7.5 The man: provider or guard? Or not?
- 7.6 The claim of more gender-specific males
- 7.7 In what animals do castrated males stop mating?
- 7.8 Gender roles and the origin of language
- 7.9 Claims that women evolved bisexuality to attract men
- 7.10 Spatial ability
- 8 Guilt versus shame claims
- 9 Technical problem solving, dominance and testosterone
- 10 "True" transsexuality or "cultural" gender dysphoria?
- 11 Equalized and reversed gender statistics
- 12 Evolutionary problems with mother's curse models
- 13 Extreme male brain, Asperger?
- 14 Chimps have more testosterone than bonobos
- 15 Measuring a chosen finger, ignoring everything else
Ignoring chemical resistance differences
It is often falsely claimed that differences in brain structure "prove" that male and female brains are "wired" to behave in different ways. That claim ignores the possibility that the differences may be resistance adaptations to different chemical environments in the body. Just as animals in environments with different types of pollution evolve physiological differences that make them resistant to the different chemicals in their environments, male brains may have evolved to function at optimal connectivity in an environment of male hormones while female brains may have evolved to function with optimum connectivity with female hormones in the environment.
In this model, the apparent differences are simply replacements of mechanisms that are good mediators of connectivity in one environment and bad at connecting in the other. It is similar to building different machines to do the same work at different temperatures, magnetic fields and pressures. It has nothing to do with the different mechanisms having different local functions specific to different types of behaviors.
This model, however, is falsified by the many fully sapient intersex individuals.
Women appearing to lack logical thinking?
It need not be biological
It is sometimes claimed that just because women often appear to think metaphorically and illogically, it must be biological. Often times, false dilemmas are used by claiming that anyone who does not support so-called "evolutionary" psychology's claim that statistical data today equals evolutionary history "must" support a straw man "gender feminist" theory of subconscious discrimination structures. However, apart from the fallacies in such an assumption, there are also concrete counter-examples.
Economy and false beliefs of grant investors
If an investor believes that something would be a bad investment, even if that is a false belief, the investor becomes less likely to do said investment. For example, if someone who decides how to give research grants or the best university spots, which is really an investment that may pay off in the form of better future research, believe that women are "not good at thinking scientifically", that investor is unlikely to invest in female scientists or female science students. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that skews the statistical data towards showing that "women cannot do science very well", even though the cause is a false belief on the side of the investors. And yet the systematic flaws in the statistical methods and ways of inferring in ways that declare falsifiability "obsolete", which is the methods that experimental psychologists generally use, allows this to pass as "evidence" that women are biologically useless for science.
In the case of grant investors who believe that there is a gender continuum but that women are still statistically bad at doing science, there may be body type discrimination that favors masculine-looking women and discriminates against women who look feminine. This may explain the study that said that 95% of female mathematicians wear A cups. Again, it is a completely conscious false belief that affect investments in an economical interest way.
This can explain the contrast between the high numbers of women at the highest levels of computer science in the past and the low percentage there today as a result of psychology establishing its hold over grants at a later, more recent point. It is noteworthy that, while traditional and conservative discrimination of women in society was worse in the past, psychology have given the sexist pseudoscience a greater appearance of being "scientific" in recent times, increasing the discrimination effect on the aspects intellectual work that require monetary investment that are alleged to be such where "men are more competent".
Detectable equality test application writing style
It have been claimed that applications to university and research positions written with different names and genders by people who test discrimination do not show any discrimination. The writing style, including the choice of words, by people who write bogus applications to check for discrimination is likely to differ from that of people who apply with the intention to get the positions however. Given how much sexist "evolutionary" psychologists are griping about alleged "leftist hostility" towards them (in ways that would be considered "paranoid" if the same standards were applied to "evolutionary" psychologists as to other people), those who choose whom to give the positions to are likely to have read many pseudo-applications that checked for discrimination and real applications for controls.
That makes it possible for them to give "non-discriminatory" responses specifically to the bogus applications while discriminating in the case of real applications.
Wealth allows practicing of innate sex differences?
Evolutionary incompatibility with poor prehistory
It is claimed in some articles that the higher percentage of women at high levels of science/tech performance in "less developed" countries and lower percentage in the West is due to wealth allowing people to choose work more freely and to practice "innate sex differences" in career preference. However, since wealthy economies did not exist in the Paleolithic, that claim begs the question of how such a sex difference could have biologically evolved at a time when significant wealth did not exist and people commonly had to shift work. Indeed, the higher carnivore threat in the Paleolithic compared to today makes even current hunter-gatherers an inaccurate model for our African ancestors, among which it would have been collective suicide if half the group was left out of the group's defense against large carnivores all for having too little testosterone.
Psychiatry deterring women from open consistency
Psychology and psychiatry spreads many views on sex differences. There are numerous examples of psychiatry pathologizing and even involuntarily committing women who think of the full implications of these claims. For example, one woman who had listened to psychiatry's claims of men being more violent and less empathic due to testosterone and then lost much blood in a car accident requested that the doctors should give her only female donor blood, as she feared that the testosterone in male donor blood would take over her brain and make her a violent criminal. Psychiatry deemed her "psychotic" and locked her up, forcing pills into her. Another woman, a mother, had listened to psychiatry's claim that the ability to recognize unappealing sex acts as sexual at all was unique to women and the result of an evolutionary adaptation to rape preparedness and that men could recognize acts as sexual if and only if they were sexually interested in them. As a result, she drew the conclusion from the fact that policemen could investigate sex crimes, which requires the ability to recognize the crimes as sexual in nature, that all male police officers were pedophiles. She tried to protect her child from any proximity to the police, and when psychiatry found out they took the mother away.
In both of the cases mentioned above, and certainly in many other cases as well, the conclusions that these women were deemed "insane" for were merely conclusions that followed logically from psychiatry's claims. False conclusions can follow logically from premises, as long as the premises themselves are false. In any logical thinking, initial belief in the false conclusions that follow from a premise is a necessary step towards the realization that the premise is false. To take precautions informed by the transitional false belief is not an obstacle, as the history of science shows. Despite this, psychiatry falsely assumes that such transitional precautions "cannot be transitional" but "must" be permanent and due to "biological flaws" in the brain.
In a society where psychiatry expects people to take claims about sex differences for granted, claims that if consistently applied causes women who think consistently to fear alleged male characteristics in ways that psychiatry arbitrarily classifies as "insane", it is no surprise that women are forced to deny their ability to think consistently. The threat of psychiatric diagnosis and involuntary commitment... and the women who are caught thinking rationally are generally brain destroyed by psychiatry's forced pills.
Vulnerable difference between mean and median mates
The mathematical impossibility of one sex having a greater number of partners on average in heterosexual relationships than the other, as outlined in "The myth, the math and the sex" is said to have been debunked by a distinction between median and mean. That is, a factor structure in which the individual in the middle of the scale has a number that is different from the number given by adding the numbers that all members in the set have and dividing by the member count.
While it is mathematically possible for such factor structures to exist, they become more dependent on a small number of extreme members the greater the difference between median and mean is. That makes the distinction between mean and median more vulnerable to the loss of a small number of members of a population the bigger the difference between the mean and the median is. And the vast differences between median and mean that it would take to account for the officially reported differences between men and women in the number of temporary sexual relations would be so vulnerable to the loss of a very small portion of the female population (the "promiscuous exceptions") that it would be impossible to maintain such large differences between mean and median over long periods of time and in all places in anything like what psychologists would call a "cultural universal" way.
And yes, if a sexual relationship between a man and a woman is temporary, it is temporary for them both. There is no such thing as a sexual relationship between two people that is temporary for one participant and long term to the other. It is therefore not possible to count a heterosexual encounter as a temporary sexual relation for only the man and not for the woman. It is time to start looking for reporting, sampling or volunteer biases or falsehoods in polls that can explain a false appearance of men having more loose sexual relationships than women instead of taking the polls face value and trying to "explain" them.
Alleged male wishful thinking about horny women
Incompatible with testosterone lowering female fertility
It is often claimed by gender binary psychologists that men have higher sex drive than women due to higher levels of testosterone and that there is a "persistent myth" that women are as horny as men caused by men having "wishful thinking" about women being as horny as men. However, the gender binary believers also claim that individual "exceptions" to the "rule" that women have lower sex drive than men are caused by some women having higher levels of testosterone that make them more horny. They also claim that women with higher levels of testosterone are less fertile than other women. This adds up to the psychologists claiming that hornier women are less fertile than other women.
What the psychologists ignore is that if more horny women were less fertile, evolution would have wired men to prefer women with minimal sex drive who had to be persuaded to have sex. And with such a preference, there would have been no mechanism in men that could possibly cause wishful thinking about women being hornier than they were, but rather the opposite!
Why would jealous men want women to be horny?
The claim in psychology about men having wishful thoughts about horny women becomes an even more absurd claim when it is combined with the claim that humans evolved in monogamous couples that were kept that way by male sexual jealousy. Of course a jealous man who wanted his female mate to have sex with him only, even when he was elsewhere located, would not want her to be horny. He (or his genes) would want her to only deal with sex with him for his sake, paid with food and protection and not for physical pleasure. Would such a man ever wish women to be horny? No, of course not!
Inconsistent claims about brains
Complexity and orientations
So-called "evolutionary" psychology also claims that men are shallow, superficial and hardwired to be sexually attracted to a particular gender from before birth, while they claim that women are complex, value personality over looks and plastic. Some of them also claim that homosexual men have feminine brains caused by hormonal feminization before birth. That is an inconsistency that is not compatible with being scientific. A gradual scale of masculinity and femininity of brains, by definition, would preclude the gender binary assumed in the former claims. If homosexual men's brains were feminine, that would be incompatible with them being "masculinely" shallow and non-plastic.
Even if there was somehow an essentialist simplicity that made all male brains simple, that could somehow persist even if they were feminized, would that really allow a female mate recognition system evolved for "complex" brains to take root in a "simple" brain and make a male homosexual? Computer science says that different programming languages are incompatible, something written in one programming language cannot be read in another programming language. While translation could make it possible for an advanced computer to read a program written for a simpler computer, a program written for an advanced computer certainly cannot be read by a simpler computer, not even with translation! So if male brains and female brains were fundamentally different, which they would be if the "complex females, simple males" claim were correct, that would make any recognition system evolved for the more "complex" gender's brain non-functional in the "simpler" gender's brain. So the claim of male brains and female brains being fundamentally different in the "complex females and simple males" way is incompatible with the claim that even a very slight feminization even before birth could make a male homosexual. It would be like trying to read instructions written in Jenkins in a computer that only work with Python, or to try to make a monolingual Chinese read instructions written in Finnish.
There are some "evolutionary" psychologists who say that homosexual men are hypermasculine or extremely masculine. However, they also claim that women with gay male relatives are more fertile than other women, a combination that runs afoul of the notion that there is a compromise between genes for masculine men and genes for fertile women in evolution (such as women with very masculine male relatives being more masculinized themselves). Another problem with the hypermasculine gay man hypothesis, or any hypothesis that says that mate recognition in gay men is unrelated to mate recognition in heterosexual women, is that it demands a specifically gay male mate recognition to have evolved without any selective pressure imposed by reproductive success. Kin selection or group selection on a non-reproducing "caste" only require the non-procreators to not procreate, it does not impose any evolutionary pressure for them to mate with very specific preferences of characteristics. It is also possible that cultural factors may create a volunteering bias among gay men in which the most masculine individuals are more likely to allow themselves to be studied due to cultural shaming of feminine men in the gay male community.
Also, when combined with the use of "born that way" as if it was important for homosexual rights (are they going to claim that speaking a particular language is morally wrong because it is not innate?!), the gender binary about plastic women becomes dangerously lesbophobic. If you claim that gay men have the right to be gay *because* they are born that way, at the same time as you are claiming that lesbians are not born that way, you are effectively promoting lesbophobia. Given that attempts to "convert" homosexuals much more often include rape ("corrective" rape as it is called) against lesbians than against gay men, it is also absurd that the same person can think both that gay men are more victimized than lesbians AND that sex crimes are worse than other crimes or forms of oppression.
Some of the claims about male sexuality that are alleged by psychologists to create "understanding" for gay men may in fact cause new forms of homophobia against homosexual men as well. For example, the same psychological models that claim men to be sexually hardwired in an "uniquely male" way also claims that men are inhuman penis machines and that gay men sleep around all over the place due to "not being limited by women's lower sex drive". That enforces stereotypes against homosexual men as carriers of sexually transmitted diseases. That is, homophobic laws against gay male blood donors are caused by sex difference psychologists that are supposed to help gay rights! Belief in pletysmography may also cause new types of prejudice towards bisexual men, by claiming that "real men are either homosexual or straight". For women, this leads to bigotry both against lesbians and against heterosexual women, creating a stringent cultural binormativity for women. For both sexes, it all means loss of respect for individuality.
Bias hide sexual arousal non-concordance in men
One important error source that practice of measuring erection by pletysmography ignores, the non-representative nature of volunteers to studies, can account for the discrepancy between pletysmographic studies appearing to show that women become physically "ready" faster than men, and that most heterosexual couples report the opposite. The studies in labs appear to show that sexual arousal concordance varies much among women while men appear to be very overrepresented on the high sexual arousal concordance side. It can be explained by men generally being more aware of their erections than women are of the blood flow in their vaginas and that sexual arousal nonconcordance in males is therefore more likely to result in an unwillingness to be part of pletysmographic studies (out of fear of being mistaken for perverse) than sexual arousal nonconcordance in females. Higher degrees of cultural shaming of "inappropriate" arousal for men than for women is also a likely factor influencing volunteering bias. That effectively cuts mid to high levels of male arousal nonconcordance out of the volunteer group, while women of all levels of arousal concordance volunteer to the studies. Higher male sexual arousal non concordance than pletysmography reports may simply be present in the average to high potency segments of the male population so such men do not volunteer to pletysmographic studies that involve pornography, while men who are less potent than average men have sufficiently concordant arousal to dare volunteer. Empirically, research on volunteering bias in erotica research appears to show no bias in female volunteers, but male volunteers are more likely to have erectile dysfunction and yet less ashamed of their sexualities than other men, as if most men do not volunteer due to something more shameful than erectile dysfunction (such as belief that one is "subconsciously perverse" and/or fear that others may believe one to be a pervert).
Belief in pletysmography and its "preparedness hypothesis" may cause straight couples to skip proper foreplay out of a belief that "it is not important for avoiding vaginal injury anyway", the women being brain washed by psychologists to falsely believe that the pain is a mental illusion and that they should accept penetration without sufficient foreplay to "save the relationship" with the man. And the result is damage to the vagina.
More abstraction effect on sexual arousal?
Incompatible with less connective brains
Psychologists claim that women's brains are more connective while men's brains have more isolated parts. However, psychologists also claim that abstract concepts of gender identity such as consciously thinking of whether a person is a masculine woman or a feminine man is more likely to influence sexual arousal in men than in women by being a turn-off if the person is assigned to the non-preferred category. At a biological level, the two clams are incompatible. For abstract thought to influence "basic" emotions, the brain must be highly connective. Less connectivity in the brain makes such influence weaker, not stronger as psychology's combination of claims imply.
Some psychologists claim that women's erotical plasticity is higher than that of men "because women have lower sex drive than men". Apart from the fundamental errors in the claim that low drive equals high plasticity, the psychologists go as far as to claim that "lower sex drive for women" means a lower frequency of sex desire in women than in men. They say that when feeling desire for sex, women feel it as intensely as men, just less frequently.
What does even plasticity during desire have to do with the frequency of desire? The frequency that is, not the intensity. The psychologists give no explanation of that at all.
Erotic plasticity and non-Paleolithic fetishes
Psychologists claim both that women are more erotically plastic than men, the men having barely any erotic plasticity at all, and that nearly all fetishists are men. How does that apply to fetishes for phenomena that did not exist in the Paleolithic era? For example, while clothes in one form or another existed in the Paleolithic, many specific types of clothes that exist today did not exist in the Stone Age. The hypothesis that men are almost completely hardwired in their sexuality predicts that it should be extremely uncommon for men, but more common for the (according to that hypothesis) more sexually plastic women, to acquire fetishes for phenomena that were nonexistent in the Paleolithic.
Nutrients to the brain or to pregnancy?
So-called "evolutionary" psychology states that women are pickier in their choice of mates and less likely to act on "perverse" sexual impulses due to more inhibition mechanisms in the brain. It is also said that women are equally capable as men to feel anger but that there are still biological differences that make women better at repressing their anger than men. However, if there was such a biological hardwiring, it would be a terrible waste of nutrients. It is much evolutionarily cheaper to simply lack such impulses. While big brains may, if they generate effective results, pay for their nutrient costs, there would be no evolutionary use for an arrangement with one set of mechanisms that generate impulses that are never acted on and another mechanism to suppress them. In the case of impulses that have important functions when present to a low extent but become harmful when present to a higher extent, evolution selects for the thriftier solution of a low extent of the impulse itself, as opposed to the more expensive solution of suppressing its extent. The latter means that statements on the lines of "there are degrees, it is not black and white" cannot nullify the validity of the evolutionary argument against hardwired and complex repression of impulses. This applies not only to gender, it is an universal principle.
Saying that "evolution is not perfect" cannot change the fact that evolutionary "mistakes" are corrected over time. For example, if short-term evolution have initially selected for a mechanism that, to a slight extent, suppresses an impulse, that would not be a "lock-in" that could in any way prevent evolution from eliminating the "offending" impulse itself. Even if the second mutation does not eliminate the suppression mechanism and its nutrient consumption, it does eliminate a nutrient-consuming impulse that is not acted on anyway. That is, the second mutation simply saves nutrients. And with no "bad" impulse to suppress, a third mutation can eliminate the suppression mechanism and its nutrient consumption. Such would be the long term evolutionary trend. "Mistakes" would not build over time or generate big brains of wasteful mechanisms!
This evolutionary selection against pointless waste of nutrients is, due to the nutrient costs of pregnancy, especially rampant in women. No matter if a nutrient conflict between mother and fetus results in miscarriage or starvation of the mother, evolution will favor genes that avoid such a conflict over nutrients above those genetic alleles that cause it. This does not mean that women are actually "stupid", it merely means that they would have been if the kind of specialization that is assumed by psychology's "arguments" were correct. The notion that both men and women have an evolutionary use for being at a particular threshold of connective brain function to achieve an intelligence that appears at an emergent threshold can explain why fetal competition on nutrients have not atrophied women's brains, but it is a different worldview than the gender binary model that is debunked here. If men appear less capable of behavioral modification than women, it may be due to self-fulfilling cultural prophecies, apparent correlation does not "prove" an actual biological link any more than ethnic differences in crime rate "proves" hereditary differences in criminality between ethnic groups.
Non-pregnant women must save nutrients
It could be argued that since it is non-pregnant women who can get impregnated, sexual selection and its application on female sexual inhibition is in no nutrient conflict with pregnancy. However, that claim ignores the fact that women save nutrients in their bodies for future pregnancies when not pregnant. For example, female curves are made of fat and an adaptation to the fact that different ways to store fat differ in their health effects. Women with curvy hips have a lower risk of miscarriage, which is explainable by the fact that a major store of fat is required to prepare for sudden increases in fetal nutrient consumption during pregnancy combined with the fact that stomach obesity is very unhealthy while other ways of storing extra fat on the body are much healthier. Womanly curves are an adaptation to store more fat without facing the health drawbacks of a fat belly. With this importance of women's store for the future goes that conflict over nutrients between pregnancy and other mechanisms in the woman have evolutionary significance even when the woman is not pregnant.
It is sometimes claimed that feminine curves are a result of wide hips being required to give birth to big-brained babies, but that claim ignore the fact that fat make most women's hips appear significantly wider than the size of the pelvic bone can account for. Critics of the fashion industry often state that the anorectic adult women who are idealized by the modern fashion industry have "the body of a 10 year old" (though they usually have the long legs and silicone breasts that white ethnocentric psychiatrists claim to be the hallmarks of sexual maturity, out of ignorance of the evolutionary history in which Western characteristics are more recent than any brain mechanism shared globally), which reflects the fact that the pelvic bone itself is not very big in women. Not surprisingly, such skinny women, with no significant width difference between hips and waist, often face miscarriage. Yet the most fertile women, whose waist is 70% of the hips, are not shown by X-rays to have any larger pelvis bones. The pelvis bone of Australopithecus sediba, a hominid that had the same brain size as chimpanzees but walked upright, cannot be distinguished from a Homo sapiens pelvis bone. It thus comes as no surprise that the most successful predictions of childbirth are made by when the fetus consumes too much nutrients to stay in the womb, not by when the head is so big no larger heads can be born.
It have been claimed that women evolved fatty deposits on the hips to appear better at giving birth to big-headed infants and thus appear more attractive to men. Apart from the absurdity of that claim coming from the same people who say that women, not men, are the picky sex, it would not even be an evolutionarily stable strategy or ESS. It would lead to women with small pelvic bones using their fat deposits to sexually attract men with hereditarily large heads, killing both the woman and the infant.
Why is alcohol not a testosterone substitute?
When the traditional view that men have higher libido than women because of higher testosterone levels was challenged by the discovery that women reach orgasm as fast as men during masturbation or lesbian sex, just not during most heterosexual intercourse which can be explained by most men being ignorant of clitoris, psychologists made up an ad hoc model. They claimed that while the physical arousal, which must build to a certain level to reach orgasm, could compensate the difference in testosterone between men and women by factors such as estrogen also stimulating sexual arousal or a lower hormone threshold for feedback between brain and erectile tissues in women caused by more nerve endings in the clitoris sensitive to blood filling, testosterone was unique in that it also removed mental inhibitions against sex. However, apart from the fact that such an arrangement would waste nutrients unnecessarily (in childbearing females who need the nutrients badly to the fetus instead) and therefore be selected against by evolution, there is also the fact that many things can remove inhibitions, such as alcohol. If various other hormonal and sensory factors can replace all (real or alleged) effects of testosterone on sex drive except the disinhibition part, that part could easily be replaced by alcohol which is known to degrade inhibitions. So why does not alcohol work as a testo substitute in the libido treatment of people with severe testosterone deficit?
It is, however, possible that the men who volunteer to sex research, in this case on reaching orgasm, are slower to orgasm than average men as a result of those with only "appropriate" fantasies who are willing to be sex researched being slower to reach orgasm than men with a wider range of sexual fantasies. Women of a greater diversity may feel free to volunteer due to less cultural denial of women's ability to separate fantasy from reality compared to the severe denial in culture of men's ability to keep sexual fantasy and sexual practice apart.
If it is claimed that female physical sexual arousal is necessary as a rape preparedness precaution to avoid damage, that hypothesis cannot explain why evolution selected for many nerve endings in the clitoris that are sensitive to being engorged with blood. The walls of the vagina could be lubricated and expanded in preparation for a penis even if the clitoris had not evolved to throb. And given that many men ignore stimulating the clitoris anyway (and why would rapists be better at it than other men?), it is extremely unlikely that a sensitive clitoris would help preparedness of the vagina at all. Instead, selection for simple solutions that save nutrients for the fetus would select for a less sensitive clitoris that does not throb so much as a physical way to decrease female libido without the need for more mental inhibitions in the woman's brain that would consume nutrients which the fetus needs better (if evolution selected for lower sex drive in women at all, that is).
Vestigial organs and evolution
It is an extremely bizarre inconsistency that the same people who claim that women's sexuality is inherently more complex than men's sexuality also often claim that the clitoris is an evolutionary side effect of the penis and that the female orgasm is an evolutionary byproduct of the male orgasm. Since when does evolution make a vestigial organ and its role more functionally complex than the selected homolog?
It have sometimes been claimed that women evolved a long, slow way to orgasm to find men who were more caring. However, given that the same psychologists claim that men's brains are composed of discrete parts with specialized functions, they cannot fulfill the scientific requirement for consistency when they suddenly claim a link between a man's sexual attraction to an adult woman and his provider care for an infant with no sign of sexual maturity.
All sexes recognize unappealing acts as sex acts
Psychology sometimes claim that women evolved the ability to recognize sexual acts that they are uninterested in as sexual, and a physiological response to them, in preparedness for being raped. Those psychologists (effectively) claim that only women can recognize an act as sexual without having any desire to take part in it, while the only acts that men can recognize as sexual are the ones they are actually interested in. One serious issue with that model is that it would pathologize all of the many men who file charges about or simply dislike bestialists, child molesters, defilers of the dead and other sex offenders, as well as classify the many heterosexual men who think the same laws against sex in public places should apply to gay men as to heterosexuals and/or lesbians as homosexual or bisexual. Is it not much simpler to realize that men, just like women, can be aware of the sexual nature of an act without being sexually interested in it?
Given the existence of vestigial organs across the sexes such as male nipples, there is no reason to assume that "normal" men should lack physiological responses to sex acts that they are uninterested in even if those responses originally evolved as rape preparedness in women. See also the mismeasure of sex. The fact that all brain characteristics that show statistical sex differences also show high degrees of overlap between the sexes in all brain structures (which the detailed text does acknowledge in the different articles even if the short summaries are depicted as a debate between "totally sex different brains" and "no sex difference in the brain at all") do have relevance in this context.
Stopping assumptions about acting on fantasies
One important implication of this criticism of gender binary claims about brain complexity is that it is wrong to assume that men are less capable of keeping sexual fantasies purely imaginary than women. Discrimination on the lines of "you are a woman, so I trust that your fantasy that it would be bad to act on in real life is purely a fantasy and that you will not do it for real" and "you are a man, so I assume that you are a risk of acting on your fantasy in real life and causing harm" must stop! People who are told that they have "genes for criminality" cheat more often in experiments with money than those who are told that they do not have any such genes, even if the "gene tests results" were made up by a random lottery and no genes were tested at all. Cultural norms that assume men to be sexually impulsive may well be self-fulfilling prophecies that are part of masculinity norms. Even women who dress out as men as part of social experiments report that they face cultural norms against talking about what they feel, norms they did not face when they were perceived as women. The sexual part of that problem may be due to social assumptions that arousal equals desire for men but not for women. Of course the problem with assuming impulsivity and violence in men is also likely to take the form of assuming danger of non-sexual forms of violence too, which may also contribute to the cultural problems to men talking about their feelings.
There is no contradiction between this criticism of psychology's demonization of men, and the criticism of psychology's de facto lesbophobic implications above. The assumption that women lack category specificity and that acceptable female sexuality is based on low libido also discriminates against and sometimes even demonizes women who want to have much sex and women who masturbate often (possibly causing many women to lie about having fewer sexual partners and masturbating less frequently than they do on polls). The entire question "what sex is the most discriminated?" is misframed. The truth is that psychological assumptions form general terror structures that terrorize everyone in different ways. Linear power structures do not exist. There are many examples of tyranny and persecution that can be explained by putative necessity but not by structural discrimination on pecking orders.
And of course the assumption of two separate systems for avoiding harmful sex behaviors, one for men and one for women, leads to allegations of transsexuals having neither system and is therefore transphobic.
The claim that specificity manage libido in men
Incompatible with non-criminal horny women
Psychiatry sometimes claims that "normal" men evolved more category-specific sexuality than women to manage their supposedly higher sex drive and keep them from destructive sexual behaviors. However, if that was the case, women who are individual exceptions to the "rule" that women have lower libido than men would in most if not all cases be sex offenders due to their in the context of that model assumed lack of "masculine" category specificity to manage it. So, why is this not the case? The psychologists cannot explain why women who do display supposedly "masculine" behaviors such as masturbating every day and voluntarily having sex with strangers typically do not sexually abuse animals, children and dead people as they claim that men without "category specificity" would do! This reductio ad absurdum is based on the notion that different individual brains can have one or two non-sex typical characteristics without general masculinization or general feminization.
In the case of the other sex difference model for the brain, that brains are masculinized or feminized on a strictly linear scale, the model predicts that men with lower category specificity should also have lower libido due to "feminization" and therefore not be more likely to commit sexual crimes than other men at all. Rather less likely to do it, closer to the female risk level.
The claim that men are visual
Incompatible with blind men's sexual feelings
One commonly recurring claim in psychology is that men's sexuality is visual, that men need visual stimulation to get turned on. However, if that was the case, blind men would be asexual. The claim is therefore incapable of explaining the fact that blind men also have sexual emotions. Another reason to stop measuring dicks.
So much for the arbitrary distinction between visual media and verbal media.
Non-visual sexuality and unconscious abuse
There is no visual difference between a conscious person and an unconscious person, though there is a behavioral difference. If men were visual and programmed to inevitably fuck anything they found visually sexually attractive, all men would be molesting unconscious people sexually. So why is that not the case? Why are there lots of men who visit bars full of heavily drunk and unconscious people without raping anyone?
The claim that men higher inner sex drive
Incompatible with men needing more visual stimuli
Psychologists both claim that men have higher sex drive than women, and that men need visual stimulation to get turned on more than women do. However, the claim that people with higher sex drives need visual (or any other external) stimuli to get horny more than those with lower sex drive do contradicts itself. A higher sex drive would make it easier, not more difficult, to get satisfied with no external stimuli at all.
Claims about specificity of external stimulation
Psychologists often both claim that men are more horny than women and that men have a more specific need for their preferred sex. That is at the same time as they claim that men are less picky about mates. What a contradiction of claims! Do they not know that most inmates, including "heterosexual" inmates, have homosexual sex in prison (not only sex offenders, but other criminals as well)? Or do they think that people with lower sex drive are more likely to be desperate enough for something like that?
The existence of science
Gender binary psychology claims that men's brains are hardwired bundles of specialized mechanisms. That means that if gender binary psychology was correct, men would be unable to do science. It would, theoretically, be possible to claim that all science is done by women and that men only take credit for it. However, it would be extremely hard and against Occam's razor to contrive that to 100% (while many men have certainly taken credit for science done by women, it would be extremely difficult to explain ALL science done in men's names as "stolen" from women).
Also, since psychological gender binary "theory" claims that women are "too complex to be rational" (based on their claim that complexity comes from functions that only interact to form intertwined results, not from unitary functions generating a dazzling variety of results as is required for the scientific method to work), binary gender psychology effectively claims that women cannot do science. So they claim that neither men nor women can do science, that men are obsessed with status and lack objectivity while women lack the equally important ability to draw many diverse conclusions from a few simple axioms. In other words, they claim (effectively) that science cannot exist unless it is done by aliens.
See also evolution and the existence of science.
Males being more willing to have sex
Males turning females off
Many gender binary claims by "evolutionary" psychology makes no sense from a sociobiological standpoint of different reproductive strategies. For example, the claim that men are hardwired to have sex given any chance while women are more picky could at first appear to make evolutionary sense in the cost of pregnancy versus sperm, were it not for the fact that the psychologists also claim that heterosexual men are hardwired to hit on all women while women are hardwired to find such behavior a turn-off. Evolution would NEVER select for a behavior in males that turn females off! Ever heard of male birds that evolved songs that make females go away from them?
Incompatibility of pickier females and monogamy
When mathematical calculations, "The myth, the math and the sex" showed that it is mathematically impossible for one sex to have more heterosexual intercourse on average than the other, there was an objection that it is mathematically possible for the median to be different from the mean. However, such a distinction would inevitably require non-monogamous shifts of partner. Monogamy is therefore evolutionarily incompatible with one sex being more picky than the other no matter if you count the mean or the median.
Evolutionary uselessness of pickiness at high rape frequencies
The rape preparedness "theory" of female vaginal response assumes a high rape rate in the past. That would have left females with very few, if any, evolutionarily historical opportunities to de facto practice mate selection. Her scarce opportunity to sometimes avoid a "bad" mate would be evolutionarily feather-light against the many rapists with "bad" genes that she could not avoid. That would have diminished any genetic benefits of choosing mates with better genes to near zero, which in turn would have made it impossible for such a severely diminished advantage to pay for the nutrient costs of a complex mate selection system in the brain.
Alleged female sex disgust as rape protection
Incompatibility with male refractory period
"Evolutionary" psychologists claim that there is a biological reason why more women than men report on polls that they feel disgusted by hearing their neighbours having sex. The "evolutionary" psychologists claim that women evolved such a disgust response to avoid being raped by the man having sex. However, him having sex with another woman will result in him ejaculating in another woman. And if men always had refractory periods, which is what "evolutionary" psychology claims, that would make him a total absence of risk of raping a bystanding woman. A man not currently having sex would, on the other hand, be theoretically capable of raping her. Therefore any selection for avoiding being raped in women would select against such sexual disgust.
If men are said to have exclusive sexual orientations, that would mean that a man having sex with another man would be no risk at all of raping a woman. Therefore no evolutionary selection at all for women feeling disgusted by gay male sex.
The man: provider or guard? Or not?
It is claimed by many so-called "evolutionary" psychologists that pair-bonding between men and women evolved to have the men go out and hunt and guard the woman and children. However, all living beings are too large to be in quantum mechanical superposition so no living organism can be in two places at once. Therefore it is not possible that a man could be both at home guarding his wife and kids and be out hunting at the same time. At any time he went out hunting, he would leave his family unguarded. If the "repair" claim is that the man guarded the children while the woman foraged for vegetables to cook, it implies that men spent more time with the kids than women did which is incompatible with the claim that evolution selected for women being more caring than men. And if the "hypothesis repair" is that the children were guarded by a few adults (who may be male or female) while most adults in the group were out hunting and gathering (as is the arrangement among most modern hunter-gatherers though "evolutionary" psychologists often claim apparent monogamy as putative "evidence" that it cannot have been that way in prehistoric times), the nutrition of the children of the guards imply a "socialist" economy that would have made pair-bonds unnecessary for childrearing in the first place.
No optimal foraging based sex labor division
It have often been claimed that the observation of men hunting and women gathering in most modern hunter-gatherer societies "proves" (the fallacy of assuming only one possible explanation of an apparent observation) that the women provided a reliable source of calories while the men hunted for food that contained rarer essential nutrients in prehistoric times. Since calories can be stored in the body in the form of fat while there are lethal nutrient deficit diseases that are unrelated to calory count, which often force living organisms in general and big-brained humans in particular to forage in ways that are not optimal from a calory point of view, it is not true that calories are the nutrients for which a reliable and uninterrupted supply is most necessary. While none of these nutrients are needed as often as water, nor are calories. There are essential nutrients in which deficit will kill you in approximately the same time as calory deprivation.
This means that couples in which one riskfully hunted essential nutrients while the other foraged calories at low risk never was an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) for reducing the risk of the infant or child dying. The father dying and the mother only having empty calories to provide would kill the child as much as the mother being attacked while hunting would, unless there was a greater sharing of labor which would make couple-based labor division between the sexes redundant anyway.
While there are examples of vegan athletes who are not stopped by nutrient deficit from being strong and even vegan scientists who are not malnourished in the brain and prevented from thinking scientifically today, these vegans must eat a combination of plants that were scattered on different continents and impossible to combine in the Paleolithic. Many of these plants come from different parts of Eurasia and were spread at the time of invention of agriculture. In Paleolithic Africa, a vegan with a Homo sapiens brain would have died from lack of essential nutrients. And the "evolutionary" psychologists make the blatantly false claim that growing children could survive on that diet! So a reliable supply of edible plants was not good enough to survive there at that time. In the cradle of humanity, replaceable hunters were required. Family structures in which the death of the man meant that the family needed to subsist on a vego diet could not exist, especially not if the men were "wired" to take stupid risks.
Carnivores, don't sacrifice defenders at hunting
In the Paleolithic, the global Paleolithic as opposed to merely low technology tribes surviving, there were many more large wild carnivores around than there are in the areas with remaining hunter-gatherers today. That exposed the hunter-gatherers who lived at the time when all of our ancestors were hunter-gatherers to a threat from carnivores unlike anything faced by any tribe alive today. This is confirmed by the high prevalence of deadly bites from large carnivores on the remains of Paleolithic humans. That means that a labor division in which a particular fraction of the population (for example, the men) doing both the defending from large carnivores and also risking their life at being out hunting would have been selected against for its sacrifice of important defenders. The small group sizes in the Paleolithic play a role in this.
This effect would be especially strong if meat was not absolutely essential for survival. And since it is about decimation of the total adult male count in a group, its application is not restricted to scenarios of monogamous couples being somehow necessary to feed and defend the offspring. It applies to "men as hunters and defenders from carnivores" sex labor division scenarios generally.
The claim of more gender-specific males
Incompatibility with pickier females
It is sometimes claimed both that women evolved to be pickier about sex partners than men due to pregnancy being much more costly than delivering a dose of semen, and that men evolved to be more gender specific than women in their choice of mate. It is also often claimed that women's sexuality is based more on attachment to a particular partner than men's sexuality. However, assuming that the delivery of a dose of sperm is so cheap men can afford being non-picky about partners, there would be no need to evolve any kind of sex specificity about it; all men would evolutionarily afford being bisexual or pansexual. There are also many homosexual and bisexual men who concentrate on their work together and do not have sex all day, so the claim that a putative specifically male gender specificity evolved to allow men to concentrate on hunting together is plain nonsense.
If it is said that women get more attached to their partner than men, that would make the genetic risk of getting too attached to a partner of the same sex and not procreate at all more selected against in women than in men. The claim that women's sexuality is more plastic than men's sexuality, the claim that women evolutionarily need to be more sexually picky than men and the claim that plasticity is vulnerability to evolutionarily bad behaviors (the latter claim is circulated in Steven Pinker's "The blank slate") is a combination of claims in which not all three can be true. If plasticity makes one vulnerable to something evolutionarily bad, that would entail the most selection against plasticity in the beings that are most evolutionarily reliant on pickiness and not the other way around.
The claim that men are attracted to the characteristics of the mate while women are attracted to the attached situation is also incompatible with the claim that women had to be pickier than men in choosing a mate with good genes. The characteristics of the mate indicate genetics, while a situation of attachment arise and disappear without changing the genes in any way. The official account of sex differences ignore evolution and assume a spurious negative correlation between evolutionarily needing to value good genes and valuing good genes.
Incompatible female erotic plasticity claims
It is often claimed by the same psychologists that women are more sexually plastic than men for biological reasons, that women evolved to be more selective in mate selection than men, and that plasticity increases the risk of being manipulated into behaviors that benefit others but are harmful to oneself. However, a greater need to be selective about mates would select for greater resistance to manipulation into destructive sexual behaviors. And if plasticity meant vulnerability to manipulation, that would select against plasticity.
In what animals do castrated males stop mating?
Spayed females stop mating in the same species
It is often claimed that since males of many animal species stop mating if they are castrated, and humans are animals, human males should lose their sex drive if castrated too. However, in the same animal species in which castrated males stop copulating, females that have had their ovaries removed stop copulating too. So the claim that castration removes male sex drive but ovaridectomy does not remove female sex drive have no zoological basis.
No human world record rape preparedness selection
Debunk unique human female sexual complexity
It have been claimed that women evolved a complex sexuality due to rape preparedness enforcing an evolutionary need for genital arousal by unappealing sexual stimuli, which in turn caused women's brains to evolve an unique distinction between sexual arousal and sexual desire. The claim boils down to the severe physical damage that a penis can cause to an unaroused vagina. However, human penises are not world record holders in the ability to damage female vaginas, there are many nonhuman animals in which the males have penises that can damage an unprepared vagina of the same species much more severely than any human male's rape of a dry human female vagina.
This means that the hypothesis of rape preparedness selecting for female complexity of sexuality predicts that some nonhuman animal females should have evolved greater complexity of sexual behavior than human females. As some domestic animals that are often castrated and spayed and shown to have the same desexualization effect of female spaying as of male castration also have spiny male penises that beat human penises in damage potential, the hypothesis is debunked. As if the huge individual overlaps of average sex differences in human brains were not enough evidence in itself.
Gender roles and the origin of language
It have been claimed that a labor division between the sexes in which the men hunted and the women did not caused the evolution of language. Apart from the anthropological evidence that some tribes such as the Waorani have hunting strategies in which husband and wife hunt together and the archaeological evidence that male-specificity of hunting damage neither marks a monophyletic clade of hominins nor correspond to a specific anatomical or cultural stage of human evolution, the claim does not even start to explain why such specialization would require language. Many insect societies have multiple castes with different tasks, without verbal language. Why would a division between hunting men and gathering women require language?
Claims that women evolved bisexuality to attract men
A psychologist named Menelaos Apostolou have claimed that the evolutionary reason why about 20% of women report that they have been sexually attracted to another woman is because some straight-ish women evolved light bisexuality to attract men. He claimed that men thought that women who are sexually attracted to other women are less likely to cheat with other men, and therefore more suitable for "monogamous" relationships. However, if a woman is showing sexual attraction to another woman, it may mean either that she is bisexual, that she is sexually fluid, or that she is purely lesbian. A man would have nothing to "get" sexually from a pure lesbian, while a bisexual woman would hold no guarantee against her cheating anyway and a sexually fluid woman would hardly be currently interested in men when flirting with another woman and would be no guarantee against her showing interest in other men at a later point.
Is it even possible that it could have evolved as a risk reduction of women cheating with other men on a gradualist scale? If psychologists are going to keep with their tradition of assuming that prejudices are based in how brains biologically process information, that prejudices evolved, then Apostolou's claim contradicts its own premise when the claim comes to monogamy. There is a common prejudice that claims that bisexual women are more promiscuous than other women. If that prejudice had a long evolutionary history, which evolutionary psychology claims that prejudices do have, that would have made female bisexuality a turn-off for men who wanted a monogamous relationship.
If the claim is "modified" to saying that some women evolved bisexuality to attract men who wanted an "easy" woman but not a serious relationship, that would contradict evolutionary psychology's premise that human females evolutionarily needed stable relationships to raise their children and pass on their genes.
Many psychologists claim that men have better spatial ability than women and that there is a biological cause thereof. Sometimes they claim that such a difference evolved because men had to travel further from home on the hunt and to follow and react to rapid animal movements while women gathered plants closer to home. However, many environments including the African savanna on which humanity supposedly evolved have much of their plant life in the form of grass and other things that humans cannot eat. This makes it necessary to travel further distances to find edible plants than to find prey animals such as grazing animals, not shorter.
No matter who hunted, men and women alike could always be killed by human-eating predators. In that case, they all had to react fast to the movement of the carnivores. If men were indeed armed more often than women due to hunting more often, that would have taught carnivores to eat women more often than men when eating humans (less risk to be killed by an unarmed human than by an armed person). That would in turn have created greater, not lesser, selection for fast spatial ability in women than in men. And when distance weapons were invented, there is no reason to assume that they were used ONLY by women, though women may well have used them too. Why would men stick to only using close combat weapons?
It is sometimes claimed that sexual selection evolved men to find their way by an internal map while women find their way with land marks. What evidence is there for that? Are there any women who only date men who find their way with internal maps or who think men who find their ways by landmarks are a turn-off? And even if a small number of women said that it was true for them, they would be too few to have such an evolutionary impact.
Guilt versus shame claims
By the standard definition, guilt means feeling bad about separate actions and a preparedness to change behavior for the future, while shame refers to feeling bad as a person for the actions. It is sometimes claimed that men are more receptive to guilt while women are more receptive to shame. That, however, is incompatible with the claims that women are more behaviorally modifiable than men. The ability to take criticism as aimed specifically at actions (as opposed to personal attacks) enhances behavioral modifiability, it does not suppress it. There simply cannot be a factor structure in which taking criticism constructively correlates negatively with behavior modification ability.
This applies regardless of what the distribution is said to be. The same would apply if all gender difference claims were reversed. The debunkal is also not restricted to sex differences: the impossibility of a negative correlation between behavior plasticity and taking criticism constructively would apply equally to claims of changes of the brain with age, claims of ethnic differences, or whatever. It also applies to human evolution and animal-human differences.
Just look at the contradiction between the claim that laying down the law does not work for women, and the claim that men commit more crime than women. Since laws are very detailed, failure to change one's behavior in very detailed ways would result in more, not less, crime. Feeling generally bad gives plain no clue to specific changes of behavior that could avoid re-offense. Nor does it give any clues to what as of yet unrealized plans one should avoid realizing.
Technical problem solving, dominance and testosterone
It is sometimes claim that both dominant behavior and technical problem solving ability are linked to testosterone. However, that amounts to a claim that socially dominant individuals are better at solving technical problems, which makes no evolutionary sense. It is the low rank individuals that have the greatest need to solve problems.
It is sometimes claimed that low-ranked individuals would not be able to procreate and therefore not able to pass on their genes, and that they would therefore have no impact on evolution. There are, however, multiple fatal flaws in that claim. One is the fact that in many groups, including most of our primate relatives, most high-rank individuals began their lives at much lower ranks and needed to be able to solve problems. Since evolution could not "see" which individuals would go up in rank, a general usefulness of problem solving is imposed for low-rank individuals.
In the case of groups dominated by one gender, the denial of low-rank reproduction fails fundamentally. Given that both sexes are needed to reproduce, solving problems to survive cannot be evolutionarily impactless for the non-dominant sex! Any attempts to handwave it away by reference to gradualization of "masculinity" and "femininity" of individual brains miss the point that it is the low-rank sex that has the greatest need to solve problems to survive. This is empirically confirmed by the fact that females do the most innovative problem solving in male-dominated chimpanzee groups, while males to the most innovative problem solving in female-dominated meerkat groups. Since the lowest ranks most often encounter problems that require extraordinary problem solving, evolution cannot predispose the lowest rank sex to be less capable of higher order creativity than the higher rank sex. So the principle applies not only to "ordinary" creativity, but also and especially to "exceptional" creativity.
The principle of non-reproducing individuals being selectable by kin selection also debunks the claim that the survival of low-rank individuals would "lack evolutionary impact": they could aid their relatives. Transitional forms towards eusocial insects even show that sterile workers began as non-reproduction of low ranks in a hierarchy! How can psychologists who promote biological models of homosexuality that assume kin selection on non-reproductive individuals deny the evolutionary impact of non-procreators when it comes to low ranks?!
In many animal groups, including most of our close relatives among the primates, individuals in the middle of the pecking order frequently reproduce. It is not that only the alpha pair have offspring. These mid-ranks have a much greater evolutionary need to solve problems than ever the absolute tops. Even if the mid ranks are temporarily too malnourished to reproduce during famine, their survival has relevance for their ability to reproduce after the temporary famine ends. The absolute top ranks very rarely, if ever, need to solve any problems themselves. They can take water, food, shelter and so on from anyone in their group. If a disaster is so severe the top ranks need to solve problems in a "high order" creative way to survive, there is little if any hope for low or even mid ranks surviving. And if only the top ranks survive the disaster, how fat is the chance of their long term survival and reproduction being compatible with an evolutionary context of depending on a social group? For beings that depend on social groups, cases of the top ranks needing to solve "higher order" problems would be a case of evolutionary impactlessness if anything! Even their relatives, that they could otherwise have helped, would be dead.
Physical strength and Homo erectus
It have sometimes been said that since men were stronger and therefore better at making tools, men evolved superior problem solving. However, that hypothesis cannot explain why the something Homo sapiens are physically weaker than our ancestors Homo erectus or Homo ergaster. If the claim that high physical strength is required to make advanced tools was correct, more advanced tools could not have evolved hand in hand with a decrease in musclepower.
High order problem solving takes admitting error
Apart from the effects on survival, is there even a possibility that advanced problem solving could be positively linked to "general" dominant behavior on a brain mechanism level? As shown by the fact that repeating the same mistake over and over again and never admitting that it is a mistake stops problem solving, the answer to that question is no. A brain that considered the act of admitting a mistake to be unbearable humiliation would only repeat the same unfunctional "solution" over and over again, never to actually solve the problem. A brain that willingly admits mistakes, on the other hand, is able to learn from its mistakes and to come up with solutions that actually work.
This importance of admitting errors applies not only to "simple" problem solving, but also to high order problem solving. In fact, it becomes more important with harder problems for which dumb luck can no longer work.
"True" transsexuality or "cultural" gender dysphoria?
Contradictions in the distinction
Some psychiatrists claim that while there are some people born with penises who suddenly display transsexuality during adolescence, all transsexuals born with vaginas display it during early childhood (before age 5). Those psychiatrists also claim that it is due to young female brains developing connectivity faster than young male brains. That is, the psychiatrists claim on one hand that "true" transsexuality is about brain sex not matching genital sex, and on the other hand they also claim that it is genital sex that determine the rate at which brain connectivity develops. That means that the criteria used by psychiatry to divide people who identify as trans into one category that they consider "true" transsexuals and one that they consider "victims of a cultural contagion" contradict the premise of their own hypothesis.
It is also a contradiction that they claim that the psychiatrists claim that it is especially autism spectrum diagnosed people born with vaginas who get "culturally contaminated" due to them feeling closer to boys due to not being interested in "stereotypical female" toys such as dolls, at the same time as the psychiatrists claim that true trans people born with vaginas show the earliest signs in the form of - rejecting such stereotypical "feminine" toys! Given that psychiatry also say that autistic spectrum "disorders" are characterized by being less susceptible to social influences, it is also a contradiction that they claim that autistic girls are more likely to be culturally influenced than non-autistic "masculine" girls who also reject dolls.
The psychiatrists also ignore the possibility that mainstream psychology's stereotypes about male and female sexuality may cause "late" (adolescent or young adult) onset of gender dysphoria simply by people discovering that their individual sexuality does not fit the bill of psychology's claims about how the sexuality of their sex is supposed to work. People who take psychology's claims about sexuality for gospel may think there is something wrong with them for not fitting the stereotypes. Since psychology have been making stereotypes about male sexuality for a long time but only recently started to create a stereotyped image of female sexuality (officially marketed as "creating understanding for sex differences" but in fact creating more binary norms and pathologization of individuality), the intermediate decades being dominated by "we know how male sexuality works but female sexuality is still largely unknown" claims from psychologists, the hypothesis can explain why onset of gender dysphoria in teenagers with no prior gender dysphoria as small children have been documented in people with penises for a long time but only recently in people with vaginas. This hypothesis can also explain the overrepresentation of people who trust psychology in the trans community, and falsifiably predicts that the overrepresentation should be strongest among those with late onset of gender dysphoria. The hypothesis also predicts an underrepresentation of "binary" transsexuality but also an overrepresentation of embracing "cis man with feminine characteristics" or "cis woman with masculine characteristics" identities in people who question psychology.
Cultural stigma of men talking about feelings
Implications for detransitioning?
The claim that the existence of many female to male transsexuals who choose to detransition into women again "proves" that they are somehow more "cultural" than male to female transsexuals ignore the possibility that different treatment of people perceived as different sexes in society may influence satisfaction rates. In her book "Self-Made Man", lesbian Norah Vincent wrote about her social experiment as dressing out as a man and using a male name (Ned) for a year and a half, and remarked that the cultural taboos against men talking about feelings that she faced when she was perceived as a man were worse than the sexual harassment that she faced when she was perceived as a woman. The fact that even a lesbian thought so is telling, as a lesbian have an even greater reason to hate being sexually harassed by men than a straight woman have. She did not ever want to use hormone replacement therapy or surgery or to change her legal gender, she intended it as a temporary social experiment and not as a transition all along, but the heavy social norms that she faced when perceived as a man is likely to hit those who intend to truly transition too. And it is likely to significantly lower their satisfaction over their transitions.
Empirical observations such as the severity of masculinity norms in this case are not invalidated by theoretical goofs by the author, such as the negative views on transsexuality that she expressed before the experiment and the evolutionary psychology views that she expressed in the book itself. No matter an observer's theoretical background, observations can falsify hypotheses, just as Tycho Brahe's observations led to the refutation of Geocentrism though Tycho Brahe was a geocentrist himself.
In her later book "Voluntary Madness", she even wrote that she became depressed by the severity of masculinity norms during her social experiment and that she tried psychiatry. She wrote that psychiatry's over-reliance on drugs and lists of diagnostic critieria, and lack of respect for the subjective reports of the people seeking help, was a serious problem. This is made even more relevant as psychiatry over-relies on drugs and measurement of involuntary responses and ignore subjective reports even more for men than for women.
Importantly, as Norah Vincent reported that her main problem when perceived as a man was cultural norms imposed by men (not misandry from women), it has nothing to do with any claims that "women are systematically oppressing men". Instead, it is about male-on-male oppression. This agrees with the observation in Swedish courts that male judges give men longer sentences than women for the same crimes while female judges give female criminals longer sentences than male criminals who committed the same crimes. It is time to realize that psychological claims about sex differences oppress individuality for us all, and stop infighting between one "feminist" camp and one "men's rights" camp along a line of what particular applications of oppression there is. Stop the pointless continuous war and start recognizing that the problems faced by men and the problems faced by women are symptoms of the same underlying oppression of us all caused by belief in psychology. The 1984 style continuous war between one "feminist" movement and one "men's rights" movement is just a distraction from the important task of criticizing all claims of sex differences in the brain no matter what sex they claim to be "better" or "worse" on specific items. We must criticize all items, not only the half that happens to agree with one side of a polarized identity politics debate.
Equalized and reversed gender statistics
Countries and cultures
There are examples of statistical sex differences that are eliminated or reversed in some cultures or countries. For example, in most places and cultures, much more men than women are convicted for murder. But in Botswana, women of the San people are as likely to be convicted for murder as men of the San people. While more men than women commit suicide in most countries, more women than men commit suicide in China. And while men masturbate more than women in most countries, women masturbate more than men in Australia. There are also many Asian countries in which women do better at math than men.
Since such equalizations and reversals are statistical in entire countries and cultures, they cannot be explained as random individual "noise". And while it would be possible to explain it as data being fallible, the fact that an entire country or culture is already a big data set from which the scaling up to the whole world provides very little additional data reliability mean that the same fallibility would also undermine the reliability of the "average global" statistics as well. Admitting that such data is fallible also opens the possibility that the data collected in other countries can also be wrong. For example, if Botswanan conviction statistics can be subject to massive institutional bias in the police, why would Swedish or U.S. conviction statistics be immune? After all, Botswana is the most educated, literate and administratively ordered country in sub-Saharan Africa, close to Western standards in so many ways.
Jurisdiction and with budget priority effects
There are also stark contrasts between jurisdictions that disprove any hypotheses of genetic differences between peoples or differences in cultural norms on the side of the offenders as the cause. For example, while San women are convicted for murder as often as San men in Botswana, San men are convicted for murder many times more often than San women in South Africa even though there is no genetic nor cultural line of division among the San people that corresponds to the Botswana/South Africa border. While there are different San tribes with different social norms and some average differences in genetics, the lines of division does not correspond to the line between jurisdictions. And yet it is at the jurisdiction line that the difference in conviction statistics goes. It can be explained by differences in self-fulfilling prophecies between the police jurisdictions however.
There are also examples of increased budgets prioritized to specific classes of crimes equalizing the gender gap on those crimes. For instance, when Sweden seriously made it a priority to catch IS terrorists, the percentage of women in the conviction statistics for terrorism in Sweden increased from less than 5% to more than 40%. That is exactly what the hypothesis that the sex difference in conviction statistics is largely due to self-fulfilling prophecies driven by limited budgets that force police to choose to investigate those they consider most likely criminal predicts. Abolition of psychological profiling may be a solution to the problem of criminals living under the radar due to being psychologically profiled as "unlikely to break the law". If the budget is not sufficient to investigate all serious crimes, random chance can be used instead of psychological profiling. Firing the forensic psychiatrists would also save money that could be used to investigate technical evidence instead, reducing the need to randomly ignore complaints due to budget constraints. It applies not only to gender but also to other psychological profiling factors.
As psychological profiling claims a variety of sex differences that do not unambiguously classify one sex as better or worse than the other, there is no reason to assume that psychological profiling unambiguously privilege one sex and discriminate against the other. For example, academia is known to discriminate against female scientists and there is discrimination against women in tech too. The budget hypothesis can explain that as a self-fulfilling prophecy caused by more grants being given to men out of a belief that men are more scientifically and technically competent than women, which causes a self-fulfilling prophecy in the statistics of achievement.
Evolutionary problems with mother's curse models
It have been claimed that an evolutionary model known as the mother's curse, mitochondrial defects that only harm sons and not daughters, can survive natural selection due to mitochondria only being passed on from mother to offspring which makes male reproductive success irrelevant for the reproduction of the mitochondria. One flaw in that model is the fact that the existence of a mitochondrial mutations that harms males would select against any male-specific vulnerability to it. For example, if there was something on the Y chromosome that made males vulnerable to the effects of a mitochondrial defect, any significant population percentage with that mitochondrial defect would select against vulnerable Y chromosomes and for resistant Y chromosomes.
It is claimed by some that the version of Leber hereditary optical neuropathy that is most common in French Canadians, the mitochondrial defect T14484C, survived by only harming the sons and not the daughters. The mutation have been tracked to one of the women who were sent from France to the then-French colony in Canada on the order of the French king to give French men moving to Canada marriage prospects. However, the colonization setting opens the possibility that the mutation's survival may be a plain case of the founder effect. Given that French Canadian culture is traditionally male provider based, owing in large part to its Catholic legacy, it is likely that men seek help for conditions that impair their ability to work much more often than women do, causing an underreporting of disabilities in women. This may account for the appearance of the condition affecting more men than women.
Speciation selects for sex similarity
One simple way for evolution to select against sex-specific vulnerabilities is to select for similarity, not difference, between the sexes. If a hereditary factor that is neutral or beneficial for one sex harms the other, there is selective pressure on the genetic factors of the other sex to eliminate its specific vulnerabilities. Since it only requires desensitization to factors that are present in the same population, the model predict that evolution should eliminate sex differences that cause vulnerability in different ways in different populations depending on the presence of something to be vulnerable to. This should build up to make populations incompatible, resulting in speciation.
There is empirical evidence that gametes producing both poisons and antidotes are barriers against hybridization between species, gametes that lack antidotes to each other's poisons kill each other before they have time for fertilization. There are also examples that take place after fertilization, for example the Neanderthal Y chromosome contained genes that coded for substances that made it incompatible with Homo sapiens development after fertilization, which explains why all Neanderthal Y chromosome haplogroups died out upon hybridization. And hybrid sterility often affect male and female hybrids differently, even between species where there is no sex difference in the prevalence of sterility in purebreds of either species. It is also possible for hormones and hormone receptors to be subject to sex similarity selection.
It is possible that this may explain why the time it takes for the risk of dying to double, Gompertz law, differs between species but not between the sexes in the same species.
Extreme male brain, Asperger?
How can Daniel Tammet be gay?
Simon Baron Cohen diagnosed Daniel Tammet, the known "savant" with numbers, as having Asperger's syndrome. Cohen consider Asperger to be due to an "extreme male brain", massively masculinized by hormones before birth. However, psychologists also claim that homosexuality in men is due to feminine brains that got less androgens in the womb. And Daniel Tammet is - gay! He is married to a man!
And he is not alone. There are many homosexual men who are diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome or High Functioning Autism.
Chimps have more testosterone than bonobos
Why do bonobos have more sex than chimps?
It is often said that testosterone is the reason why chimpanzees are more aggressive than bonobos, that chimpanzees have more testosterone than bonobos. However, bonobos have more sex than chimpanzees. If the psychologists think that men want more sex than women because men have more testosterone than women, how do they explain the fact that bonobos with their lower testosterone levels mate more often than the chimpanzees with their higher levels of testosterone?
Measuring a chosen finger, ignoring everything else
Sexist psychology claims to be able to measure how much testosterone a person got when he or she was a fetus by comparing the index finger to the ring finger, saying that a ring finger longer than the index finger says a "masculine" brain while equal length of the index and ring finger reveals a "feminine" brain. However, most people have two hands. This gives psychologists the possibility to "find" nonexistent evidence by choosing to record the hand that they deem representative of the person's personality. I have measured my own hands, I have a "masculine" left hand and a "feminine" right hand. Are the psychologists going to claim that people with such different measures had two separate bloodstreams as fetuses?
The psychologists also claim that hormones cause general masculinization or general feminization. How, then, can they claim that testosterone affects the brain and the ring fingers but "misses" the rest of the body? Just because the claim allows for a spectrum does not mean that it can explain the existence of "mosaic" characteristics far from the official general "masculine" versus general "feminine" graph "main series". There are female gang criminals, company bosses and so on with very feminine bodies far from what the general hormonal masculinization formula predicts. Women who orgasm more than twice a week are given much higher beauty scores by heterosexual men than women who orgasm less than once a month, contrary to the general masculinization predicted by the claim that women who want more sex with a partner and/or masturbate more behave that way because they are further towards masculinity on a linear scale. There are some very strong and athletic homosexual men, contrary to the claim of general feminization caused by hormones. This certainly has much more evidence value than easily twisted finger data.