A boy from a poor neighborhood will have more in common with a girl from a poor neighborhood that another boy from a rich neighborhood.
How many kid from poor urban area love horses? Compare that to kids from rich urban area? What about sailing? Ask a kid from a poor neighborhood his dream job. Surely, it's the same as your no? something between astronaut, archelogist, scientist. Except it is not. Because cultural environment mold children more than any biological difference.
Those aren't intrinsic properties. Those are the opposite of intrinsic properties. I'm not disagreeing that nurture has a greater impact than nature. The point is that if you remove nurture, sex (when thought of as a single variable, which is typical) is going to have an outsized influence compared to other intrinsic characteristics.
A man with a small penis and a man with a big penis will still have much more similar sexual experiences than either of them would with a woman. This in turn will influence the way they view the world, which snowballs onwards and onwards.
On average, the brain chemistry of two men will be more similar than the brain chemistry of two women, as hormones have a large impact on this and any two men will (on average) have more similar hormone levels than they would with a woman.
Is this really surprising? Men and women have fundamentally different chromosomes, always. Not so with two random men or two random women.
Okay, i get your point, i did not understand it at first.
I totally agree, if there is one biological attribute that can have an impact, it is gender. The other differences are so small compared to gender they don't matter. What i was saying is that gender doesn't have that much of an impact, or at least less of an impact than what society expect from your gender.
Exactly, but I'm referring to a specific phenomenon I've seen, where people have this (to me) flawed idea that if we reduce societal influence, we will end up with industries that are naturally 50/50 men to women. e.g. if you stop telling men to be engineers and women to be teachers, you'll end up with 50/50 engineering and teaching.
I'm suggesting that the opposite is true, because when you remove societal influence you end up lending more and more weight to the intrinsic characteristics, of which I would argue sex/gender is the strongest.
I also want to clarify here that I don't mean to imply that once societal influence is reduced, currently male-dominated industries will remain that way (and likewise for female-dominated) – it very well could be that the reason we have many male engineers is purely from societal influence, and that once reduced the "true" male-leaning industries would emerge. But the idea that any industry would end up 50/50 once you got to perfect egalitarianism with no societal influence is not very internally consistent. You would end up with industries where purely being a man (not people telling you should do it as a man) is advantageous and so they become male-leaning and likewise with women. And that is OK. It's better than OK, it's excellent. A world where you go into the industry you want to go into (not the one you're told to go into) sounds ideal.
A boy from a poor neighborhood will have more in common with a girl from a poor neighborhood that another boy from a rich neighborhood.
How many kid from poor urban area love horses? Compare that to kids from rich urban area? What about sailing? Ask a kid from a poor neighborhood his dream job. Surely, it's the same as your no? something between astronaut, archelogist, scientist. Except it is not. Because cultural environment mold children more than any biological difference.