/lit/ - Literature

>>699793

> I would ask the science board, but they don't read books.

That is precisely why I avoid /sci/.

Sex is biologically determined. Gender is not.

Nature vs nuture? It's in a lot of psychology books my friend.

>>699798
Yeah, I'm looking for a book that argues that gender is also biologically determined, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE.

It's not 100% biological, and it's not 100% social. It's a little of both.

lol "everything is a social construction".

Yes, the fetus begins the womb as a genital-less blob of protoplasm until its parents unconsciously impose expectations on the poor child, thus coaxing it to develop either a penis and testes or a womb and ovaries.

>>699801
>psychology

He meant a SCIENCE book, not some pseudo-religious bullshit.

>>699801
Not really. You don't find many psychology books saying there are only two genders: feminine and masculine.

erm...
the whole definition of "gender" is that it is socially constructed.
and don't even get me started on IQ...

loves labor is lost on you here, you seem like you should get your overall education in shape before trying to outsmart your environment...

>>699793

Hey OP, I'm afraid the truth is that it's both genetics and the environment that determine stuff like IQ..last I heard it was about 50-50. The Bell Curve is an entertaining read, but a little outdated. You should be able to find something less dated if you start your search there.

>>699793
Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is the closest one I can think of. The Female Brain is a nice popular science book dealing with how sex determines behaviour. Considering how you're tired of 'faggots', however, you might not like what it has to say.

>>699816
CITATION NEEDED

Gender has to be partially genetic, because homosexuals have distinct facial characteristics and accents.

>>699823
look up "gender", you idiot.

gender and sex is not the same.

This disregard for society among the fans of hard sciences is staggering indeed.

>>699834
HA HA OH WOW
You are not even trying, Mr. Troll.

>>699836
I didn't ask for a dictionary. I asking for a book that argued that they ARE the same.

>>699847
You have to have definitions in order to argue.

>>699844

I was being genuine, but clearly you're one of those divas that hams up the act so much you've lost touch with your own inherent characteristics.

I'm asking for a book that argues that sex and gender are both biologically determined.

>>699847
You're looking for a book that ignores the distinction between sex and gender? So you want a book that ignores all scholarship and spews whatever the authors feels like, without regard for facts? Sounds like you really want to educate yourself.

>>699848
But I'm not the one arguing. It's up to the person arguing to define his terms. I know the definitons of 'gender' and 'sex'. I am looking for a book that says that gender is biological, not social.

Bloody hell. This is why I avoid /sci/.

>>699860
No, I am not looking for a book that ignores the difference between sex and gender. I'm looking for a book that argues that there is no significant difference between them.

>>699870
Honestly, the only place you're likely to find this is a conservative religious publisher. Look for their "science" and "sociology" and "psychology" sections in their catalogues and you'll find what you're looking for.

>>699875
I'm looking for a scholarly scientific, psychological, or sociological book that argues there is no difference between sex and gender. I doubt the only place where I can find it is through conservative book publisher. Why are you even bringing up politics? I just want a book that argues that gender is biological.

>>699875
This. Look for books written by people who convert gays - their whole platform is that biology determines everything, but sometimes people get confused and can be brought back to normalcy.

>>699891
Evangelical Christians believe biology determines everything?

>>699891

And they pray to God that they'll find a pill for that.

"You're not evil, my son, you just have an imbalance in your brain."

>>699889
No one brought up politics. I'm saying that the type of book you are looking for - one that disregards the accepted scholarly definition of sex - is not going to be published by an academic press or journal. The only people that write the kind of book you want publish with the publishers who agree with their viewpoint - typically, religious conservative print shops.

The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Much more for the nature than the nurture side of the argument.

>>699904
But you are bringing politics into this. You're assuming that the only people who would write such a book are politically motivated. I'm not looking for any politically motivated works of scholarship.

>>699896
The people running these courses (the well-known ones who publish books) have usually taken science courses and have some type of degree. They know what X and Y chromosomes are.

>>699889
They've been trying to explain. Quite nicely.
Now I will. Not nicely.
THERE'S NO SUCH FUCKING BOOK YOU BABYCOCKED GIMPFACE IGNORAMUS.
NO ONE will argue that gender is a biological construct BECAUSE IT ISN'T. Studies and tests done by sociologists, anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, etc FUCKING ET CETERA have confirmed that "feminine" and "masculine" characteristics, right down even to testosterone and estrogen levels at birth, can sometimes be completely fucking random, other times follow strange patterns, other times follow what we used to think of as "normal." In essence, "feminine" and "masculine" are a spectrum of polarity with truly no positive marker for "and girls go here" and "and boys go there." It simply does not exist. It's based upon social concepts.
Sex is biologically determined. Gender is not. END OF DISCUSSION. NO BOOK WITH CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS WILL ARGUE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING BECAUSE NO CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS SUPPORT THAT ARGUMENT.
faggot.

You know, forget it. Maybe I should just ask the science board. It seems there are too many hicks here who can't seem to read books they disagree with.

>>699911
I'm saying that your viewpoint has not been explored by scholars because in the scholarly world, gender is the socially constructed and non-biological, by definition. Scholarly presses won't publish an article that ignores that definition.

>>699920
That's nonsense. There are books about everything. I'm sure someone has argued gender is determined by biology, just as someone has argued that IQ is determined by biology. You don't have to get so angry over someone asking for a book recommendation. I just wanna read.

>>699948
I have a tip: Go to Wikipedia. Look at Gender page. Read first paragraph. Read references if you are still interested.

I could at least imagine a book with a thesis stating that what we THINK is gender is actually a component of sex and thus gender, as understood to be a socially formed concept, does not exist.

YHBT

>>699948
Yes. People have written things arguing it, I'm sure. Those someones are Christian "scientists." Enjoy their lovely reading material about why gender is hereditary, men are naturally masculine, women are naturally feminine, and evil forces corrupt them to make them do naughty things.

>>699981
How are you so sure? Have you read every single book published about gender?

Well, if you've read every book on gender, is there one that says gender is biological? I believe that was my question in the first post. I'm on Amazon right now and would like to know more about that one book that argues gender is biological.

>>699988
Jesus, obviously /lit/ has no idea how to answer your question, so just stop posting. Wikipedia has whole page dedicated to the "Biology of Gender" with plenty of references to published books. If you actually care about the answer to your question, check it out.

>>700014
I only found two books: one on altruism and sexual selection and another about differences in the brain. The latter one is too technical. .

>>700027
Looks like it's back to the "Scientists for Christ" catalog, then, eh?

>>700027
This is probably a sign that what you're looking for just isn't out there.

>>700032
How is not finding a book referenced in Wikipedia a sign a book isn't out there? The majority of the world's books are not referenced in Wikipedia. What does that mean?

>>700029
Why do you keep saying that only Christians would write a book about gender being biologically determined?

>>700043
You don't want a book about brains because it is too technical. So, you are looking for a pop-science book about a technical subject that has no relevance or interest for the majority of people. It's not going to happen.

your mom is a social construction

I once asked a few of my friends who study Human Sciences (interdisciplinary subject tracing connections between biology and sociology) about this. All of them said that social construction was enormously important and that nobody credible argues it isn't. Sorry, OP.

>>700051
Just a book that's actually about gender being biological would be fine. That doesn't seem like it's about gender. It seems more like it's about the differences between the brains of males and females. I haven't read the book though. There could be a chapter about gender being biological in there. But I want a whole book focusing on the subject.

Hey OP who are you trying to convince that they're not gay?

>>700058
Gender, as defined by everyone but a select group of very-technical biologists in very specific circumstances, is socially constructed. Get this through your head.

>>700056
Your student-friends think it's a social construction, thus there's nobody who thinks that it's NOT a social construction?

What were you trying to say here?

>>700027

Is this the one that's "too technical"? Because the article says it's a "popular market book", so it shouldn't be. And there's a quote that makes it seem like exactly what you want:

>There is no longer any excuse, save mental indolence, to believe that:

>'Many of the generally understood distinctions between the sexes in the more significant areas of role and temperament, not to mention status, have in fact essentially cultural rather than biological bases.'

lol OP is living in a false dichotomy. have fun with those headaches.

>>700063
I'm not looking for a book about gender by everyone who thinks gender is socially determined, though.

>>700065
I looked in the reference section of the article. There's a different book there about brain differences. I'm not looking for a book about male-female brain differences, though.

>>700073

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#Etymology_and_usage

>>700082
But it's Wikipedia.

>>700075

Why? Gender is, broadly, the behaviours we associate with men and women. Behaviours by and large have their origin in the brain. How could there be a book that simultaneously argues that gender is biological and ignores biology?

You are stupid.

>>700090

Jesus. Christ. Fuck.

I'm dead serious. You are stupid. As in, incapable of learning. You cannot take in information, process it, apply it, use it to solve problems, recall it for reasoning power, or anything that most people are capable of doing it. It is amazing to me that you can type, spell correctly, and not ruin your keyboard with drool.

>>700090
I'm looking for a book with the explicit thesis that gender is biological, not one that implies it and tries to hide it. I don't know why you think I want the book to ignore biology.

>>700102

The earlier quotation explicitly states exactly what you want.

>>700101
Because I asked for a book? You're all over-reacting. One would think I asked for a book saying evolution is true on an intelligent design board.

>>700064

All I'm saying is that I've previously asked a sub-set of people whose course demands them to be knowledgeable about this kind of thing. None of them were able to recommend me any books like the kind you asked for.

Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're missing something, maybe they're brainwashed by academia, but them's the breaks.

This thread is practically a lesson in how to troll. Too bad that OP is probably serious, though.

Anyway, I wonder if it will be twice as long in the morning.

>>700108
You asked the equivalent of "I want a book talking about Intelligent Design, but I want it published by a reputable scientific establishment."

>>700105
But is the whole book about gender being biological or not? You're not really helping. It just seems to ASSUME it's true.

>>700115
Research the book yourself and find out. It has its own fucking Wikipedia page, and Amazon summary, reviews, everything, through the wonders of the internet. Do your own homework.

>>700114
I don't think saying 'everything is biological' is quite the same as saying 'God created the universe.'

>>700121
Why are you recommending me a book you haven't read?

ITT: OP hopelessly attempts to find something to back up his rebellious need to contradict people, no matter how stupid his argument.

>>700115

It states outright that it is biological. Of course I don't know whether or not they repeat themselves over and over so you can feel comfortable that they are not trying to trick you and slip in some arguments for nurture, but it's just over 200 pages so I imagine that it won't take you too long to find out.

Seriously, they explicitly state exactly what you want. Just read it.

>>700140
But have you read it?

troll because it is painfully obvious to any of us who can think that our extremely complex thoughts, biological funtions, as well as our actions in life are caused by and/or influenced by myriad factors some of which we cannot imagine at this point, most of which we can measure with science

now go eat a bag of dicks

unintentional troll is unintentionally awesome.

I have not laughed this hard at a /lit/ thread in quite awhile.

i say, archive this mofo for future linking.

Looking for a book that specifically backs up your point of view? bravo anon.

I was just asking for a book. You didn't have to call me a retard for wanting to read a book. You guys need to relax.

>>700174
Agreed, definitely needs to be archived.

>>700181
Actually, I don't think there's such a thing as gender. At least, I'm skeptical. I'm just a little tired of encountering, 'this and this are social constructs. Everyone who disagrees is an essentialist.'

>>700189
Your complete lack of understanding was at first somewhat annoying.
Your continual lack of understanding, and then pathetic attempts at explaining, also did not deserve you being called retarded.
The entirety of this thread, however, has made it obvious, that you sir, are retarded.

>>700181

It's better than him having the opinion without anything to back it up, at least.

>>700202
Based on this thread, he doesn't have anything to back it up.

>>699793
Enjoy your confirmation bias. Most psychologists worth anything have said it's a combination of both nature and nurture.

I bought you something, OP. It reminded me of you.

>>700208

which is why he wants the book in the first place.

lol
>>>/sci/996349

>>700209
But how much is it both nature and nuture? Is it 70% nature and 30% nuture?

>>700218
Here we go again.

>>700218
You will never redeem yourself Stagolee. But thanks.

I would like to read a book that says gender is 80% nature and 20% nuture. It doesn't have to be a book now. It could be anything. At least a concise paragraph.

>>700219

it varies.

>>700230
How?

>>/sci/996532
>It doesn't even have to be a book now. It can be anything, like an article.
lol

Now let's preserve this thread for the generations to come. Go to http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/main.php?mode=submit

>>>/sci/996532
>It doesn't even have to be a book now. It can be anything, like an article.
lol

Now let's preserve this thread for the generations to come. Go to http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/main.php?mode=submit

It can even be a videotaped lecture on Youtube. Anything.

It doesn't need to be a book, you can just SAY it.

So basically OP got into an argument with somebody and now he needs sources to back his shit up.

It could just be some scratches made in shit with a twig. Anything. I'm begging here!

>>700263
THIS

Oh my god it's now an across-board event. This is glorious.

People requested that this be archived, right?

>>700263
I just like reading different viewpoints. Seemingly, you guys don't like reading different books. I don't think you have any right to oppose or support any other view, though. I'm surprised that there are so many people here who don't even know what they're arguing AGAINST.

OP here. At this point I'm willing to accept smoke signals. Did any Indians ever make smoke signals about this?

>>700277
No, because this thread really isn't that good. If the flyting thread didn't get archived, this thing really doesn't deserve it.

>>700277
Two people have.

>>700289
That was a better thread. That's bullshit it didn't get archived.

>>700285
Not smoke signals, OP, but almost as good. Here's some scapulimancy on the subject. You'll need to interpret, though...

>>700298
/lit/ us just too small and doesn't care to use proxies.

>>700306
Getting all 8 of us here together at one time is tough.

go ask /new/ faggot

>>700314
One of us should just get a 4chanarchive gold account.

BUMP
IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS THREAD, READ IT
IT'S AN EDUCATION

the reason you won't find a book like that is, because even though there are some comprehensive psychological studies about sex differences in a variety of mental tasks, they are never done on individuals who have not had enough time to become enculturated. Such individuals are more or less newborns.