Ability to get pregnant is not, even now, a difference between men and women.
I reject some combination of your usage of “is”, “difference” or “men and woman” as impractical. I suggest that whatever kind of wordplay is used to make this claim could be used to make all sorts of utterly absurd claims that MixedNuts would reject as pure silliness and yet which are less objectively absurd than the claim in question.
but that we should ignore the correlation with gender.
Ignore the correlation with gender. Of pregnancy. That seems impractical. If I plan on becoming a father then I am most certainly going to direct my courtship attention to those who appear to be women while attempting to achieve that goal. Because being aware of correlations is overwhelmingly useful to me.
The relevant subargument here is: “Male psychology is deeply affected by inability to ever be pregnant, which makes it essentially different from female psychology” is false, because men who can and do get pregnant don’t have extraordinarily un-male psychology, they’re just more or less regular dudes plus a bun in the oven.
“Male psychology is deeply affected by inability to ever be pregnant, which makes it essentially different from female psychology” is false
That argument I would object to. There are probably differences in average male and female psychologies which have a causal history related to the ability to become pregnant—even ‘creepiness’ instincts are probably somewhat related. But that isn’t the same thing as pregnancy directly meaning the female and male psychologies different through knowing about pregnancy.
Hm. So, I would object to the line you quote, but mostly because I don’t have a clue what “essentially different” means. On the other hand, something like “Differences in how men and women get pregnant, and knowledge of and experiences that depend on those differences, is a significant source of between-group variance in the behavior of men and women” doesn’t strike me as objectionable at all. I mean, it might turn out to be false, but it seems to me a plausible belief in advance of experimental confirmation/rejection.
I reject some combination of your usage of “is”, “difference” or “men and woman” as impractical. I suggest that whatever kind of wordplay is used to make this claim could be used to make all sorts of utterly absurd claims that MixedNuts would reject as pure silliness and yet which are less objectively absurd than the claim in question.
Ignore the correlation with gender. Of pregnancy. That seems impractical. If I plan on becoming a father then I am most certainly going to direct my courtship attention to those who appear to be women while attempting to achieve that goal. Because being aware of correlations is overwhelmingly useful to me.
The relevant subargument here is: “Male psychology is deeply affected by inability to ever be pregnant, which makes it essentially different from female psychology” is false, because men who can and do get pregnant don’t have extraordinarily un-male psychology, they’re just more or less regular dudes plus a bun in the oven.
That argument I would object to. There are probably differences in average male and female psychologies which have a causal history related to the ability to become pregnant—even ‘creepiness’ instincts are probably somewhat related. But that isn’t the same thing as pregnancy directly meaning the female and male psychologies different through knowing about pregnancy.
Hm.
So, I would object to the line you quote, but mostly because I don’t have a clue what “essentially different” means.
On the other hand, something like “Differences in how men and women get pregnant, and knowledge of and experiences that depend on those differences, is a significant source of between-group variance in the behavior of men and women” doesn’t strike me as objectionable at all. I mean, it might turn out to be false, but it seems to me a plausible belief in advance of experimental confirmation/rejection.
I’m not sure if we disagree on this.