"We are so far from equal world". I would say we never been as close and the world is not meant to be equal. Human Nature is not meant to be equal it doesn't operate like that. So the ambition of women like Jordan-Young are drifting off from reality. I'm sorry i wish life was a fairytail we could rewrite but it isn't. I'm introvert. I wish i wasn't. But i'm not expecting all the extraverts to rollover and step aside. I deal with it.
I agree with you, it would be good to see some reviews of 'failed' research. An overview in a particular field would be useful. You're not really 'proving a negative' just by publishing 'no correlation found' results. If lots of studies find no correlation though, that's interesting, and a shame we'd never hear about it.
So according to her, the validity of homosexuality studies is questionable, because they didn't conform some sociologists' claims that inconsistency (feeling gay one day and straight the next) is an essential trait of homosexuality (what??)? Well, it's pretty well known among actual scientists that sociology has serious problems with its own claims, research and methodology. So, no.
The problem was with filtering out subjects that don't fit your criteria, and then saying "look the criteria holds true!". Selective sampling was the issue, she then tied it to natural heterogoneity suggesting we study the full variety of humans, not just those that fit what we're looking for. That's how I saw it anyway.
Rebecca Jordan Young is a actual scientist. Look what Robert Sapolsky said about her Testosterone book : "This subtle, important book forces rethinking not just about one particular hormone but about the way the scientific process is embedded in social context.”-Robert M. Sapolsky, author of Behave
@@Nic-xr8sd She is not. Science is fundamnetally the pursuit of truth. It starts by questioning and follows the evidence wherever it leads. Gender studies is not a scientific discipline but an activist one - it's not motivated by the search for truth but the search for a specific outcome. It starts with the conclusions and produces the "science" to back them up. This is the sort of "scientist" RJY is.
Yes the book is a good read. However, in the book and in this video, her explanations of the existence of transgender individuals is sub par regarding her criticisms of the brain organization research. Although in fareness, I suppose this could be due to the relatively fewer studies that have been done on the brain's of transgender populations.
It's hilarious how Jordan-Young's entire dichotomy rests on animal studies. Does she realize most scientists don't care what animal studies report in relation to humans? They're different. LeVay openly writes about how Ram's easily had their genetic/hormonal traits shifted thanks to human domestication. She hasn't debunked a thing. And her whole point about brain differences? Monkeys express gender preferences for toys very early. Females opt for plush toys and male opt for cars. Notice how she won't actually debate a real scientist? She hasn't proven or disproven anything. The physiological differences between gays and straights is simply too obvious to discredit. She clearly has a pretty shoddy gaydar since there absolutely are facial difference (on average) between gays and straights, yet she jumps at the chance to try and discredit it and call it a mess. Brain scans say otherwise. And yes Jordan-Young, there is evidence to say these are innate differences not socialised. In the real world, we know men and women are different. It's almost like Jordan-Young is the head of the gender studies department, and not the actual science department. Lol.
She's a liar. The concept of "hardwiring" is not on it's way out scientifically. There does seem to be quite a large coterie of academics who can't stand the idea of there being differences between male and female brains though! Decades of animal research has shown that there's an "organizational" phase during prenatal development, during which hardwired differences between male and female brains arise, that affect adult social and sexual behaviour. As with other aspects of sexual development, whether you get the male version or the female version depends on whether there are high or low levels of androgens present at the time. In many of the experiments, they produced intersexed animals, which probably accounts for the seeming reversability of sexual behaviour she talks about around 8 minutes into the video. For anyone who's interested in knowing more about the animal research into hormonal influences on sexually dimorphic brain development, I recommend this paper: "Effects of prenatal androgens on rhesus monkeys: A model system to explore the organizational hypothesis in primates", Horm Behav. 2009 May; 55(5): 633-645. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146061/?tool=pubmed
@@Nic-xr8sd That's not true. Well it is true for mice and rats, where testosterone in the developing foetus gets converted into estradiol in brain tissue, and it's the estradiol that drives brain masculinisation (mostly, with androgens playing a secondary role). For a long time scientists assumed the same applied to human beings too, but it doesn't. In humans and other primates, it's teestosterone and a hormone derived from it, dihydrotestosterone or DHT, that drive brain masculinisation, and estradiol doesn't seem to play any role in brain masculinisation at all. It's one example showing the pitfalls of extrapolating animal research to human beings. See this paper: "The role of androgen receptors in the masculinization of brain and behavior: what we've learned from the testicular feminization mutation" PMID: 18374335 PMCID: PMC2706155 DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.01.013
@@Nic-xr8sd The synthetic estrogen was a drug called diethylstilbestrol (DES). It's one of the most powerful manmade estrogens ever developed, and was given to millions of pregnant women from the 1940s through to the 1980s as a treatment for preventing miscarriages. I belong to a number of facebook groups for people whose mothers were given it during pregnancy, and have talked online to numerous people who were prenatally exposed to it. There might sometimes be masculinising effects on genetic females, but the overwhelming effect is to cause physical and psychological feminisation in genetic males. Clinically, the physical effects (which occur in people who had heavy exposure during the first trimester) look a lot like Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. The psychological effects (associated with second and third trimester exposure) are variable, but often include a strong inner sense of being a woman. DES was most extensively used in the US, and their medical industry have all closed ranks to cover up what happened. A number of us have been trying to get the story into the news, but no MSM outlets seem to want to touch it. Perhaps because it sounds too outlandish, or maybe because of the financial clout the pharma industry has, and the dependence of most MSM on them for advertising revenue.
@@Nic-xr8sd As for the animal research showing that androgens convert to estrogens in the brain, that was all done on rats and mice. That is indeed what happens in rodents, however not in primates. In primates, brain masculinisation is driven through the direct action of androgens on androgen receptors, e.g. see "Effects of prenatal androgens on rhesus monkeys: A model system to explore the organizational hypothesis in primates", Horm Behav. 2009 May; 55(5): 633-645. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.03.015 PMCID: PMC3146061 "Studies over the last 50 years have verified that prenatal androgens have permanent effects in rhesus monkeys on the neural circuits that underlie sexually dimorphic behaviors. These behaviors include both sexual and social behaviors, all of which are also influenced by social experience. Many juvenile behaviors such as play and mounting are masculinized, and aspects of adult sexual behavior are both masculinized (e.g. approaches, sex contacts, and mounts) and defeminized (e.g. sexual solicits). Different behavioral endpoints have different periods of maximal susceptibility to the organizing actions of prenatal androgens. Aromatization is not important, as both testosterone and dihydrotestosterone are equally effective in rhesus monkeys. " Why did DES produce physicfal and psychological feminisation in the genetic males who were exposed to it? It's a powerful chemical castration agent, that was for many years used to chemically castrate sex offenders and prostate cancer patients. It's really good at shutting down testosterone production in men. In a developing foetus, if testosterone isn't produced, any development that takes place while the testosterone isn't there goes down the female pathway instead of the male one.
You showed me this paper.. but in what condition were those animals during that study?? We don't know this. This is what RJY is trying to talking about during this video.
Excellent presentation and yet sad for having such a small number of views. I wish I could hear more of her insights. Thank you for posting this.
Thank you for speaking up and doing the work.
Excellent, have this book, great resource, thankyou for this talk also.
"We are so far from equal world". I would say we never been as close and the world is not meant to be equal. Human Nature is not meant to be equal it doesn't operate like that. So the ambition of women like Jordan-Young are drifting off from reality. I'm sorry i wish life was a fairytail we could rewrite but it isn't. I'm introvert. I wish i wasn't. But i'm not expecting all the extraverts to rollover and step aside. I deal with it.
absolutely incredible talk, thank you so much
Proving a negative should be harder to publish. It could be interesting though to have a few journals that specialize in negative results though.
I agree with you, it would be good to see some reviews of 'failed' research. An overview in a particular field would be useful. You're not really 'proving a negative' just by publishing 'no correlation found' results. If lots of studies find no correlation though, that's interesting, and a shame we'd never hear about it.
Points: 14:29 - 27:12
So according to her, the validity of homosexuality studies is questionable, because they didn't conform some sociologists' claims that inconsistency (feeling gay one day and straight the next) is an essential trait of homosexuality (what??)? Well, it's pretty well known among actual scientists that sociology has serious problems with its own claims, research and methodology. So, no.
The problem was with filtering out subjects that don't fit your criteria, and then saying "look the criteria holds true!". Selective sampling was the issue, she then tied it to natural heterogoneity suggesting we study the full variety of humans, not just those that fit what we're looking for. That's how I saw it anyway.
Rebecca Jordan Young is a actual scientist. Look what Robert Sapolsky said about her Testosterone book : "This subtle, important book forces rethinking not just about one particular hormone but about the way the scientific process is embedded in social context.”-Robert M. Sapolsky, author of Behave
@@Nic-xr8sd She is not. Science is fundamnetally the pursuit of truth. It starts by questioning and follows the evidence wherever it leads. Gender studies is not a scientific discipline but an activist one - it's not motivated by the search for truth but the search for a specific outcome. It starts with the conclusions and produces the "science" to back them up. This is the sort of "scientist" RJY is.
@@Eerielai Well, what about Robert Sapolsky then?? He is agree with her works as you can see, and he is a actual scientist..
Yes the book is a good read. However, in the book and in this video, her explanations of the existence of transgender individuals is sub par regarding her criticisms of the brain organization research. Although in fareness, I suppose this could be due to the relatively fewer studies that have been done on the brain's of transgender populations.
It's hilarious how Jordan-Young's entire dichotomy rests on animal studies. Does she realize most scientists don't care what animal studies report in relation to humans? They're different. LeVay openly writes about how Ram's easily had their genetic/hormonal traits shifted thanks to human domestication. She hasn't debunked a thing. And her whole point about brain differences? Monkeys express gender preferences for toys very early. Females opt for plush toys and male opt for cars. Notice how she won't actually debate a real scientist? She hasn't proven or disproven anything. The physiological differences between gays and straights is simply too obvious to discredit. She clearly has a pretty shoddy gaydar since there absolutely are facial difference (on average) between gays and straights, yet she jumps at the chance to try and discredit it and call it a mess. Brain scans say otherwise. And yes Jordan-Young, there is evidence to say these are innate differences not socialised. In the real world, we know men and women are different. It's almost like Jordan-Young is the head of the gender studies department, and not the actual science department. Lol.
Oh okay. It makes sense now. You suck off Pinker (who we actually laugh at)
Youre even pushing the crappy vervet monkey studies. Yikes
@@thomasrunyon2631 "who we laugh at" - because you can't muster a real argument, judging by your responses. Cringe.
She's a liar. The concept of "hardwiring" is not on it's way out scientifically. There does seem to be quite a large coterie of academics who can't stand the idea of there being differences between male and female brains though!
Decades of animal research has shown that there's an "organizational" phase during prenatal development, during which hardwired differences between male and female brains arise, that affect adult social and sexual behaviour. As with other aspects of sexual development, whether you get the male version or the female version depends on whether there are high or low levels of androgens present at the time. In many of the experiments, they produced intersexed animals, which probably accounts for the seeming reversability of sexual behaviour she talks about around 8 minutes into the video.
For anyone who's interested in knowing more about the animal research into hormonal influences on sexually dimorphic brain development, I recommend this paper:
"Effects of prenatal androgens on rhesus monkeys: A model system to explore the organizational hypothesis in primates", Horm Behav. 2009 May; 55(5): 633-645.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146061/?tool=pubmed
lmao this commenter follows Blair White
@@Nic-xr8sd That's not true. Well it is true for mice and rats, where testosterone in the developing foetus gets converted into estradiol in brain tissue, and it's the estradiol that drives brain masculinisation (mostly, with androgens playing a secondary role). For a long time scientists assumed the same applied to human beings too, but it doesn't. In humans and other primates, it's teestosterone and a hormone derived from it, dihydrotestosterone or DHT, that drive brain masculinisation, and estradiol doesn't seem to play any role in brain masculinisation at all. It's one example showing the pitfalls of extrapolating animal research to human beings.
See this paper:
"The role of androgen receptors in the masculinization of brain and behavior: what we've learned from the testicular feminization mutation"
PMID: 18374335 PMCID: PMC2706155 DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.01.013
@@Nic-xr8sd The synthetic estrogen was a drug called diethylstilbestrol (DES). It's one of the most powerful manmade estrogens ever developed, and was given to millions of pregnant women from the 1940s through to the 1980s as a treatment for preventing miscarriages. I belong to a number of facebook groups for people whose mothers were given it during pregnancy, and have talked online to numerous people who were prenatally exposed to it. There might sometimes be masculinising effects on genetic females, but the overwhelming effect is to cause physical and psychological feminisation in genetic males. Clinically, the physical effects (which occur in people who had heavy exposure during the first trimester) look a lot like Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. The psychological effects (associated with second and third trimester exposure) are variable, but often include a strong inner sense of being a woman. DES was most extensively used in the US, and their medical industry have all closed ranks to cover up what happened. A number of us have been trying to get the story into the news, but no MSM outlets seem to want to touch it. Perhaps because it sounds too outlandish, or maybe because of the financial clout the pharma industry has, and the dependence of most MSM on them for advertising revenue.
@@Nic-xr8sd As for the animal research showing that androgens convert to estrogens in the brain, that was all done on rats and mice. That is indeed what happens in rodents, however not in primates. In primates, brain masculinisation is driven through the direct action of androgens on androgen receptors, e.g. see "Effects of prenatal androgens on rhesus monkeys: A model system to explore the organizational hypothesis in primates", Horm Behav. 2009 May; 55(5): 633-645.
doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.03.015 PMCID: PMC3146061
"Studies over the last 50 years have verified that prenatal androgens have permanent effects in rhesus monkeys on the neural circuits that underlie sexually dimorphic behaviors. These behaviors include both sexual and social behaviors, all of which are also influenced by social experience. Many juvenile behaviors such as play and mounting are masculinized, and aspects of adult sexual behavior are both masculinized (e.g. approaches, sex contacts, and mounts) and defeminized (e.g. sexual solicits). Different behavioral endpoints have different periods of maximal susceptibility to the organizing actions of prenatal androgens. Aromatization is not important, as both testosterone and dihydrotestosterone are equally effective in rhesus monkeys. "
Why did DES produce physicfal and psychological feminisation in the genetic males who were exposed to it? It's a powerful chemical castration agent, that was for many years used to chemically castrate sex offenders and prostate cancer patients. It's really good at shutting down testosterone production in men. In a developing foetus, if testosterone isn't produced, any development that takes place while the testosterone isn't there goes down the female pathway instead of the male one.
You showed me this paper.. but in what condition were those animals during that study?? We don't know this. This is what RJY is trying to talking about during this video.