7
8

Brain plasticity (huffingtonpost.co.uk)

veronalady が 投稿

全 8 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]a1c3e5g7i9Exploratory researcher kid 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'm not sure as to how this is relevant, but it is very interesting to read.

[–]GenderCriticalDad 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Not an expert, so shoot me down if this is crap, what follows is heavily influenced by my recent reading of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions_of_Gender, but I may have misinterpreted it, so this is my opinion only:

The doctrine of Gender identity depends on separation of body, brain, mind and society.

The mind runs in the brain, which controls the body. Society exists outside of the body and brain and mind, interacting only with the mind thru culture and conscious communication.

The transgender doctrines tell us that gender dysphoria is caused by the (as yet unmapped) "gender sense" in the brain telling the mind it is one sex while the body is of the opposite sex. Gender Identity is an innate unchanging property of the brain and is not effected by the brain, body or society.

Brain plasticity blows all this out the water. Our brain changes in reaction to what goes on in our minds and bodies, Delusions of Gender shows how our brains and bodies are also changed by what we think and how we interact with society.

D of G details how tests that purportedly show sexed differences in mental abilities are effected by the subjects awareness of their own sex and the sex stereotypes associated with the skills that are being tested.

[–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]veronalady[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    There is enough bad science in the trans/genderist community, please let's not bring it into gender critical feminism. If you haven't read the entirety of a book, I don't think it's appropriate to comment on it unless you're qualifying your remarks on it with that caveat from the get go. Cordelia Fine has little to say about transgenderism in Delusions of Gender.

    Delusions of Gender is not a book on the philosophy of science. It's essentially an literature review of many different scientific studies written in layperson terms to serve an educational function for the general public. She offers up contextualized descriptions while applying scientific critical analysis of various studies so that readers can understand and think critically about how research is done and what conclusions are drawn.

    [–]a1c3e5g7i9Exploratory researcher kid 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'll make sure to read the whole book, as my experience with it is limited. I apologize for my being a bit quick to conclusions. Also, I think that what I saw to be a more philosophical take was partially a bias of sorts (seeing it b4 and then expecting to see it, thus creating it for myself type of deal.)

    [–]GenderCriticalDad 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I thought the book is very science based, I may have misinterpreted it.

    [–]a1c3e5g7i9Exploratory researcher kid -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I haven't read the full book, so I can't say 100%, but from what you describe it seems to be a philosophical look that uses science. It's definitely got science in it, but from what I can tell it's got a bit more of a philosophical like take on it. Thats just me tho, so interpret it how you want.

    [–]veronalady[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    There are a number of different competing explanations of transgenderism. Some people claim that it has to do with a "mismatch" between brain and body (aka "body map" problem). (Even though some transgender people are apparently fine with [a cosmetic change in sex organs only])). The problem is that this flies pretty strongly in the face of scientific evidence and understanding of neuroplasticity and cortical maps.

    Some other versions of brain sex assert that people are born with "male" and "female" brains. One wonders exactly how much of the brain, then, must either be damaged or absent at birth before we would start to expect people to be "agender."

    [–]a1c3e5g7i9Exploratory researcher kid 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The links you gave are interesting. The first one however is just a comment thread, so I fe I can't take it so to heart. Although it does seem to be pretty well thought out, and I trust it to be more likely right than wrong/off (but again, I can't know for certain). Definitely something to look into and do some research on.