All people are different, and we should learn to get to know each person individually and adapt accordingly. Our brains need shortcuts (we can't give every single raindrop a different name, and we can't have a different gender for each person) so we often put people in groups that might be ill-fitting.
The point is to keep trying — keep reading, keep learning — and most importantly pay attention to individuals when they happen in our lives.
But I do think some broad conclusions can be drawn. As this article argues quite convincingly, having a perfectly gender-neutral society might actually be oppressive to most people. (I'm not implying anything about public policy, but rather about consciousness raising, like what feminists do.)
The link you sent me btw is unavailable in my country! I get the msg: "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
Of course we always want truth apart from subjective experience. I looked up more research by Udry. He wrote a paper, Biological Limits of Gender Construction in 2000, to which you may not have access. In it he writes about the influence of androgens on prenatal gender determination. The article is well written and even persuasive--then he offers a table that purports to show feminine and masculine role preferences. I found the table laughable. In one section, for example, labeled "Home", there is an entry:
In another section labeled "Feminine interests", there's an entry:
I think of the battery of tests I took when I was in my early twenties, to try to help me decide on a career path (I was in transition). The results were as laughable as Udry's table. I had both "male" and "female" preferences. Whatever that meant, it was useless to me as an individual.
The discussion of gender roles seems to be hampered by reference points that are socially derived--certainly Udry's are. Of course we can't assign everyone individual genders. But why bother? There's so much variability. When considering individuals, disregard gender. It will save a lot of time and lead to a more equitable outcome, for everyone--I think :)
Such subjectivity is exactly the reason why I like to cross-reference results in humans with results in other animals. Do hormones affect behavior, for instance? Do they affect cognition? It seems quite clear that they do, in humans and other animals alike. Just a couple weeks ago a book came out, by a female adjunct professor at Columbia University and lecturer at Yale University, called "Aroused: The History of Hormones and How They Control Just About Everything"
It's in the nature of science and academic research that those parts of Udry's research that are weak, will be challenged by other scientists, some female. I make it a point to read as many articles by women as I can when I prepare these posts. This is not always evident in the references because the first names are not given in full, but if you check you'll see that often the majority of the articles I read are by women. It's exactly to avoid sexist bias.
Oh dear--I have another book to read :) Actually looking forward to this one. As for initials before names concealing gender: how about agmoore? There is a reason my name is gender neutral. When I started writing (before Steemit), I decided to neutralize whatever preconceptions a reader might have about gender.
As for your articles--they are exhaustively researched, and persuasive enough to send me reading further. That's about the best endorsement any writer can get.
Indeed it is! Thanks!
I assumed you're a guy btw and now I'm unsure why!