Are men really brain damaged at birth?

Brian zhil at
Sun Jul 1 11:49:56 EST 2001

"Dani" <danielle at> skrev i melding
news:B764BFF0.2864%danielle at
> >> Isn't that what I wrote?
> > Nope :)
> oh darn typos! :-)

It happens, not consequential for the discussion anyway.

> > Thank you for the link.
> > I read through it and as you say later there are some uncertainties of
> > corpus callosum, you more or less confirmed it (unintentionally) by also
> > saying that the female uses BOTH hemispheres (hence better communication
> > ,while males are using the hemispheres 'lateralized' (your words, not
> Actually, those aren't necessarily -my- opinions, mostly I'm just listing
> the reported findings of particular researchers. For example, Simon LeVay
> says dimorphism of the CC (corpus callosum) exists, which is why I
> referenced him for that section, but there's a lot of others who say it
> doesn't exist, so I cited a critique (Anne Fausto-Sterling). I myself
> have no idea, I can only say that it isn't yet known for certain because
> scientific community has reached no agreement on it. As far as the CC
> I don't think a conventional standardized technique for measuring it has
> ever been agreed upon, therefore making it quite difficult to compare one
> study with another.
> Moreover, that women are less lateralized than men (if they are in fact)
> not been definitely attributed to a putatively larger corpus callosum. It
> could be the result of something else... not likely but nonetheless
> possible. Really, the deeper I get into sex dimorphism, the more I realize
> that so little is known for certain about it. Virtually everything is
> theories built upon the foundation of other theories (though some of them
> have high probabilities of being true). I think it'll be some time before
> some of the murkiness begins to clear.

This uncertainty is a result of the PCism that have infected the western
As to the measuring, it shouldn't pose the biggest hurdle................
I think it's partly political reasons, nothing else.
And I won't expect the murkiness to clear anytime soon as they have a vested
interest in making the world of biology un-binary.
Shortly; it's divide and conquer........atomize a people and they're easy to

> > No more than 20% I'd say.
> > The rest is genetic.
> > Maybe that's enough to give the genders enough 'slack' so they won't
> > constricted ?
> Well, I guess my point is that the binary sex classification system works
> quite well for the majority, but it begins to break down when you really
> look carefully at the diversity that exists out there in the real world.
> Nature is rarely a nice neat binary proposition ;-)

Of course it isn't neat and tidy   :-o
But usually nature kills those that aren't neat and tidy either.
It is only recently that unfertile people can have children of their own
all their genetic defects.
Maybe gene-therapy will accomodate them, and so we will bypass the
whole problem.
Maybe I'm seen a little cruel, but it isn't my intention and I'm not cruel.
I'd love that everybody were born perfect - but as the world is like it
is, we have to make do with what we have right now.

> > In mind this person is a male, while an unfertile female externally.
> > Was this a trick-question ?   LOL ;)
> Yeah, sort of. Intended to (hopefully) demonstrate how difficult it can
> sometimes be to place a person definitely into the either/or dyadic
> male/female taxonomy. There are many intersex people who possess both
> ovaries and testes, not to mention ovo-testis. It can get complicated.

Well, your demonstration went quite successfully.
And I'm fully aware of the possibilities there is.

> > I read your webpage, and I realised that I unadvernantly might have
> > on somebodies toes.............if so I'm sorry.
> Well, my toes are okay :-) If you mean that I'm a trans-person, don't
> about it -- I don't have any particular ideology when it comes to this
> stuff, nothing that can get offended or insulted. I only stopped by this
> neuro forum for a little while so that I might learn something from you
> :-)

We all learn something, and I would be the first in the line to say that I'm
perfect and that I should learn more.
Anyway, I think you've given _me_ more knowledge than the other way.....


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list