An open letter to James Damore
I wasn’t going to write about this mess, but I simply can’t find a take that I like. And they say you should be the takes you want to see in the world, or something.
So this is for you, James Damore.
Here’s a secret: Liberal women occasionally do acknowledge, albeit quietly and between themselves, that sex differences are not entirely invented by society. (I mean, in a biological sense that should be obvious, right? Considering hormones, equipment, etc.)
But they will not say so — at least, not to you. Do you know why?
THEY DO NOT TRUST YOU.
They expect you to use any acknowledgement of biological sex differences as a weapon against them. And I don’t think I trust you, either, James.
That’s a bad sign, because while I am progressive, I am almost willing to accept the idea that male-typical brains are better at physical stuff, and that female-typical brains are better at comprehending nuanced social dynamics and the complexities of human organisation.
… do you see what I did there? I just described female-type traits in a way that made them sound valuable, and male-type traits in a way that made them sound primitive.
Now, let’s say we lived in a world where (1) public relations management was the highest-paid career track and (2) people actually acknowledged that effective communication is very difficult and requires a lot of practice, training and effort. And let’s say we both worked at the same public relations agency.
If I wrote a workplace memo arguing that men are naturally not inclined to become PR managers, you wouldn’t trust me, either.
That’s why it’s a damned shame that you were the one who started this shitstorm. The complex interactions between biological sex, personal identifications of gender and society are fascinating, and your note didn’t make them sound that way.
To start, let’s talk about what I meant by “female-type” and “male-type”, since there’s been a recent scientific debate about this. Last year, a study of brain function presented a “mosaic theory” of gender, and it was fairly controversial.
What’s interesting (and not covered by anyone, as far as I can tell) is that the data itself was not challenged. Rather, the interpretation of the data was. Here’s the challenge I thought was best.
I’ll take a stab at summarizing the findings:
Individuals have multiple brain functions, and they all fall somewhere on a spectrum between “maleness” and “femaleness”. The distribution of these characteristics are statistically correlated to biological sex. But there is significant variation between different people, and in the “maleness” or “femaleness” of different functions in a single individual. Because humans are adaptable, diverse, and very fucking cool.
So overall, if you looked at all of the functions of a person’s brain, you’d be able to predict his or her biological sex with a 69% to 77% rate of accuracy, according to this response. (What’s entertaining about the response that it is meant to be a rebuttal, but ultimately supports the researchers’ work. If the biological sex of 1/3 to 1/4 of the population cannot be discerned by looking at their brain scans, that’s a pretty powerful argument against making generalizations by biological sex.)
Here’s the thing: It should be perfectly OK to acknowledge the nuances of sex and gender differences! Policymakers and employers should not use this as a bludgeon, or as a reason to devalue women’s contributions.
But they have, and often still do. (In case you needed a reminder, the highest elected official in the United States has been recorded discussing his ability to treat women disrespectfully with no consequence.)
And, James, you tried to use a survey of 17,000 people as the basis for a statement that women are “neurotic.” And you ignored a later survey of 200,000 people that found personality differences in gender did indeed expand in countries with greater gender parity, but failed to verify the neurosis finding. (Unsurprisingly, findings of neurosis and stress level were more related to country resources and development than they were to gender).
Also, self-reported personality surveys are bunk. You should know this. If you want to have a conversation in good faith about the differences between male and female brains, let’s discuss the brain-scan research, not some dumb questionnaire.
…or, let’s say you really just want to challenge political dogma in the name of science. If so, why not take a look at autism research?
For example, here’s a nice piece from Scientific American about research on autism in girls:
Pelphrey is discovering that girls with autism are indeed different from other girls in how their brain analyzes social information. But they are not like boys with autism. Each girl’s brain instead looks like that of a typical boy of the same age, with reduced activity in regions normally associated with socializing. “They’re still reduced relative to typically developing girls,” Pelphrey says, but the brain-activity measures they show would not be considered “autistic” in a boy. “Everything we’re looking at, brain-wise, now seems to be following that pattern,” he adds. In short, the brain of a girl with autism may be more like the brain of a typical boy than that of a boy with autism.
Interesting stuff, right?
Oh, and a response would be most welcome, but maybe consider finding yourself a female editor first. You seem to lack the self-awareness to communicate effectively with people who are different from you.
