If I understand you correctly, you seem to be focusing quite a bit on sexual preference as the definitive brain difference between men an women. But I don’t think anyone has actually disputed that. In fact, I think it’s a common feminist zinger to say that, “The only [mental] difference we’ve found between men and women is that men prefer sex with women and women prefer sex with men.”
So you’re not proving a controversial conclusion. You could just as well say that, “Men’s and women’s brains are obviously different, despite what feminists tell you—for example, women are more likely to believe they can get pregnant...” The real dispute is whether the statistical properties of e.g. intelligence differ between the sexes (be it in mean or variance).
A more definitive case for non-trivial differences would be to look at the anatomical differences in their reproductive systems, and infer which strategy, given this reproductive system, maximizes inclusive fitness. Then, you could easily demonstrate that what’s optimal for men is quite different from what is optimal for women, and then suggest that selection pressures will favor minds oriented around their respective, divergent strategies, and that such different mentalities can’t be neatly confined to only affecting mating because of the immodularity of mind.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be focusing quite a bit on sexual preference as the definitive brain difference between men an women. But I don’t think anyone has actually disputed that. In fact, I think it’s a common feminist zinger to say that, “The only [mental] difference we’ve found between men and women is that men prefer sex with women and women prefer sex with men.”
So you’re not proving a controversial conclusion. You could just as well say that, “Men’s and women’s brains are obviously different, despite what feminists tell you—for example, women are more likely to believe they can get pregnant...” The real dispute is whether the statistical properties of e.g. intelligence differ between the sexes (be it in mean or variance).
A more definitive case for non-trivial differences would be to look at the anatomical differences in their reproductive systems, and infer which strategy, given this reproductive system, maximizes inclusive fitness. Then, you could easily demonstrate that what’s optimal for men is quite different from what is optimal for women, and then suggest that selection pressures will favor minds oriented around their respective, divergent strategies, and that such different mentalities can’t be neatly confined to only affecting mating because of the immodularity of mind.