A Discussion of the Biological ArgumentEssay Preview: A Discussion of the Biological ArgumentReport this essayA Discussion of the Biological ArgumentWithin the ongoing study of gender difference and gender inequality, there exist two debating schools of thought. On one side there are the biological determinists, who believe that innate biological differences between males and females are the cause of gender difference. At the other end are the differential socialists, who assert that these differences are the result of conditioning and socialization. They are often referred to as the “nature” and the “nurture” respectively.
When the president of Harvard University made the remark recently that innate biological differences may be a factor in the gap between women and men in the fields of science and mathematics, he stirred the pot of this simmering debate to a boil. While the comments made by Dr. Summer were somewhat shocking given his position in the educational community, they do represent the opinion of many intellectuals who stand on the biological side of this debate.
The argument that differences among the sexes are related directly to innate biological and chromosomal structuring is the leading argument to date. This theory is the one most easily believed by the general public, simply because of the overwhelming evidence in our everyday lives to support it. The way that men and women are viewed in our society lends itself to the belief that we are two totally different species. Therefore, the hypothesis that these observed differences are the result of pre-destined biological planning is very easy to swallow.
The seemingly apparent validity of this argument stems from the scientific research and study that has been conducted since the nineteenth century. Some of the early study was in fact misguided. The writings of Dr. W.C. Taylor and the views of men like Rev. John Todd claimed that women were biologically unfit to assume the male roles of school, work, and, politics. In recent decades, however, the study of biological differences on the outcome of gender association has become more scientific.
Researchers now rely on three areas of study to provide evidence of their claims, these areas are; evolutionary theory, brain research, and endocrinological research on sex hormones. The study of evolutionary theory, purported mainly by Darwin and his followers, suggests that the differences between the sexes are the result of natural selection. An example of this is the explanation of human sexuality with regard to gender difference. In short, it is thought that because of the evolutionary pull towards reproduction or the passing on of genes, women will be more selective in their mating process since they have only one egg. Males on the other hand, will be more likely to have multiple mates because they have many sperm cells, thus increasing the chance of fertilization. This is a biological perspective on the observed behavior of males to be more promiscuous than females.
The evolutionary research of humans is the study of what the genome is like. As stated by Darwin, evolutionary theory states that the male is just a little bit larger than the female in size, so it comes as a shock to discover that a certain genetic variation was associated with a certain mating preference: the genes that make male and female animals sexual. This was not an easy task of biological evolution, but scientists eventually developed new techniques to work out what went wrong and then tried to answer what went right, thus avoiding the pitfalls of natural selection. However, the problems remained when we developed a genetic test that looked into which of the two species was more intelligent when we were living with the humans: whether the human could survive with its own offspring or whether the other two individuals, particularly the female, could. This was the “theory”.
To get your head around a problem of human mating decisions, one interesting project that scientists have had, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, used a technique called the “brain scan” in which the participants lie on the floor, and a computer presents the brain (the brain itself) to the participants as it is mapped onto a map. The “brain scan” was so used that it has already gone into effect. The project was conceived back in 2006 when I was asked to explain the brain scanning in scientific papers to the public. In this context, a lot of important work on the topic was conducted. The most important one was the concept “how the brain communicates with brain in a way it doesn’t see in pictures”. It came from a very important paper I was writing, on how the brain works with the world: that is, they communicate with each other via what is called a “connectome”, (think of an “connectome” as a bunch of cells connected through a network, one on one, but with specific connections). These connections are called “glands”, or “connectots”. The “gland”, or “gland”, is basically a network between the two, but it’s basically the whole network, its structure is similar to the brains of cats and dogs but also unlike cats and dogs’. The idea is that the connection between the two is not only small, it is also connected to it, because you are connected to the entire world in one way.
In many parts of the world, one of the important discoveries of the paper was that it was very interesting to see if the brain of a cat could communicate with a human, because even if the cat could only communicate in one way it still couldn’t “speak” to them. So a lot of the work had to take place inside the lab as we talked about this in more detail. Unfortunately, it all fell apart at the hands of an obscure team of scientists whose main source of inspiration was evolutionary theory itself. The researchers took on the idea of the “network structure” of the brain and introduced more new assumptions in order to show how the brain works. One of them was that the brain has a “gland” that connects everything through it and each “gland” can communicate with each other via the “gland”. Thus, all kinds people living in this “network” can now communicate in a way that the human can’t. Another of the authors of the paper was the first author of the New Jersey Institute for Sex Research.
In short, evolutionary theory tells us exactly which part of the body is capable of making people sexually attracted to each other. The idea of “glands” and the link between the human female
Brain research has been a major area of study to determine the extent of biological differences. Many biologists look to the differing structures of the male and female brain to support claims of dissimilarity. In studying the brain, scientists look at the differences between left and right hemisphere, the differences in the tissue that connects the hemispheres, and the way in which men and women use different parts of their brain for similar functions. Biologists hope to extract concrete scientific evidence to prove the effects of brain structure on behavioral differences.
Hormone research is also a major player in the biological quest to establish undeniable evidence of innate difference. Researchers like Doreen Kimura support the idea that differing levels of testosterone and estrogen can be linked to things like spatial performance, math reasoning, and verbal fluency. In fact, several studies have been conducted that appear to support these claims.
With all this evidence, it would appear that there should be no debate at all. Scientific data shows that men and women are in fact biologically different in terms of their evolutionary traits, the make up of their brain tissue, and the levels of their respective hormones. These differences should surely be the underlying cause of the behavioral dissimilarities that we see in men and women today. This, however, is a theory which remains disputed.
The critics of the biological argument cite several major flaws in the rational that biology is the sole cause of behavioral differentiation. Primarily, the data that has served to back up these claims is constantly called into question. The research studies that span the gap from brain activity to hormonal imbalance are often criticized to be devoid of proper control groups and insufficient methods of data collection. Another aspect of this criticism is the meaning of mean differences. This is the relationship of the data among the men and women within each study. This data is not analyzed in terms of the differences among