@BewilderedPerson
You caught yourself in a terminology trap. Take the "L" and change your wording
"M/F behavioral differences" works better (see the end of this post). And the SSSM link I use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_social_science_model(You're on the Integrated Model side of the table)
It can easily be used to frame the discussion and reduces the risk of drama.
@tree
Your first link might be based on solid, but incomplete facts (we have to forgive journos for doing this sometimes).
The conclusions as stated don't hold up though.
The Guardian article is a puff piece based on 21st century popular ideology. The person who wrote the book (Gina Rippon) is sure to be a bit more serious. But the wikipedia article is mostly hot air: there's no data supporting her "views", and some clearly valid criticisms. Which, especially in the 2020's, is a very bad sign.
Note that this general area (everything regarding the "blank slate vs inherent traits" argument) has been highly politicized for decades. Skepticism is
necessary even with data and opinions you're predisposed to agree with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
The second one is a "hardware" ("wetware" if you prefer) comparison. It's based on many earlier studies (generally looking for different things) rather than a specific study aiming to prove or disprove a carefully defined hypothesis.
Studies like this are practical due to the low costs and large scale, and can be very useful.
But they're almost always limited because finer details in the carefully targeted individual studies have to be discarded. The result is more data but less "information granularity".
The article mentions physical size (essentially confirming that brain size correlates with skull size, which is hardly news) and some low-granularity results about electrical signals.in the brain.
Those are potentially interesting, but the issue with what you can learn from electrical signals is unresolvable.
Thought processes cannot be measured that way. It's
very difficult even if you know what the subject is thinking about. So the low-rez finding across many studies that the gross electrical processes are more or less the same for XY- and XX-humans is useful, but says nothing about e.g. the claims in the Guardian puff piece.
It would be strange to find really large differences in the physical functioning of a human brain too.
Everyone accepts that we're "programmable". We're
not controlled by our instincts: we speak, we analyze, we experiment, we learn, we adapt, we create tools.
But there are some easily measured differences in this domain that are due to interactions between body chemistry and brain capabilities. Such as the readily observed and easily testable sex-linked differences in bonding (with mates and with children). Most people think these are important and socially relevant XX/XY differences. But they're not dependent on gross differences in brain structure.
