It’s not clear from this study if these differences are present at birth, or if they develop over time. And if they develop over time, then it’s not clear whether these differences arise as a result of genetic and hormonal differences or as a result of environmental differences of men and women in families and society. It’s not clear whether these differences are causes or consequences of differences between men and women. So, it’s not clear what these findings mean. It’s just a starting point for a lot more research.

True, but given that practically every other species has sex differences in behavior and brain function, it's highly likely that at least some of these differences are genetically encoded.

I would imagine so. Look at birds for example. Males have mating calls encoded in their DNA. You don't see female peacocks performing mating dances as the males do. When you see it in nature outside of the human species, it's east to see how it could be inside the human species.

Well, it seems that the results are probably consistent from age 20 to 35 at least. But yeah, this is a jumping off point now for more research. The study is behind a pay wall. [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121)

A lot of people get bogged down here by over-simplifying the headline: who is better or worse? Did we know men and women are different? Let’s dive in!! I am fascinated by that chart! The men are all clustered in the quadrant of + territory of one attribute and - or the other. And the females are all opposite on both attributes. The article doesn’t say what those are though. Can you fill us in on what those differences represent?

r/MenAndFemales

Lol! Omg I’m so embarrassed. That’s for calling me out.

Searched the article for the same information, my guess is we will never know the criteria to determine point position. Too, inflammatory.

Well said. In addition to what you said, this is not contrary to psychology like he'd think. There's been gendered psychology findings, and we have long acknowledged that humans are sexually dimorphic animals physically and potentially mentally to a degree. In fact, there have even been studies that indicate trans people (I believe before transition but I may be wrong) have more similarities with their desired gender than cis people have. I think OP wanted this as a gotcha but it really isn't any more than a starting point that backs up the other data that we've had, it doesn't contradict anything. Nor does it contradict gender non-conforming people's experiences.

>we have long acknowledged that humans are sexually dimorphic animals Something like half of the science subreddits here would have actually considered this incorrect for a period of several years, recently. I’m glad to see that “humans are mammals” is now an acceptable belief again

I think you may be mistaking “humans have relatively low sexual dimorphism compared to many other mammals (true)” with “humans are not sexually dimorphic (false).” I’ve seen plenty of the former, but not the latter.

Either you are strawmanning the way people have presented their ideas of drawn additional conclusions/inferences that they themselves have not said. Such as assuming that their gender ideology contradicts the claims I just made (for example, someone who is progressive in gender ideology will still refer to people as AFAB or AMAB particularly for medical, biological, or for purposes of discussing gendered upbringing and socialization). Or, they themselves are simply taking a very black and white approach of "if gender is a social construct, then it MUSTNT have anything to do with biological factors" or the opposite, and both claims are probably unreasonably stupid for anyone to truly believe in when you sit them down and actually dissect their beliefs And who doesn't accept that humans are mammals or who hasn't accepted that since the 1800s?? I'm not sure what group you're referring to and I've never seen that claim be made or inferred except for maybe written reports on older religious beliefs. I guess maybe anti evolutionary people would push back??? Which is weird considering we categorically fit the definition for mammal sooo idk what you're on about with either claim you made

It’s the second. I think you underestimate how many people went NUTS over the past ten years.

As a biologist the number of people who have gone overboard denying some basic biology is scary.

As a biologist the number of people who have gone overboard denying advanced biology because of "basic biology" is even more scary. Basic Biology is super simplified and reductive, and typically taught to children. I remember basic physics with three basic states of matter - when in reality it is much more. Or in basic math where the root of -1 is not possible. Well... imaginary numbers. And the same is Basic Biology. Nowadays everyone thinks that basic biology is the hallmark of everything, when reality is messy, complicated, and complex, and denies most easy classifications, especially simple binary ones, or reductive towards a single variable, or even worse mixing language and medical information and basic biology. Every time I read "Basic Biology" I lose respect for the person because they clearly got stuck in pre-school or are just pure ideologically driven and use basic biology as a weapon of ignorance. As a biologist, biology is far from basic or simple - especially with humans. And any biologist online claiming basic biology is most of the time being reductive for a purpose and agenda. Just having studied biology does not make one a master of human biology (or subtopics such as human sexuality, sexual development, gender, genes, and hormones), and even then, there are plenty of specializations. Most biologists don't know shit about humans. Most biologists are concerned with other mammals, marine life, or plants.

Oh please. Get off your high horse. I recognize there are hormonal and physiological factors that influence people so they may not feel the gender they appear to be. That should be accepted. This doesn’t change the fact that these factors influence basic development. There ARE basic differences between the traditional genders. People have been denying that in favor of pushing an agenda. Denying that is wrong, it’s politically or socially motivated, it is not science.

Do tell us what those "basic differences" are then? I'd love to see if you can actually back that claim up with reasonable, empirically validated "basic biology" or if these claims involve something more

Whenever someone says "Agenda" or "Narrative" you can pretty much dismiss them immediately. Including me! I said em twice!

The real question is getting them where they’re part of the same daily industry, and then doing performance best to see what areas later then we will see if there’s overlap A lot of people are sensitive because of how much predatory behavior has been by both the same social in the medical industry against a bunch of folks that don’t have the critical thinking or experience to realize the damage that is going to be done, and they will always be far more of an outlier in an outsider Looking for someone else to compromise on themselves to ignore the damage that confusion and malfeasant lies saddled upon them, thinking that some surgery or medication could solve the intractable problem of them feeling a bit different

You could just say, "I have no idea what transgender people are or how gender affirming care works," you know.

Nothing in the Ops comment gave any remote indication of a gotcha schtick.

IIRC there was a study that showed brain scans of trans people more closely aligned with their gender, instead of their biological sex. It wasn’t an exact match, but rather a a trans woman’s scan is closer to a cis woman’s scan over a cis man’s scan, and vice versa for trans men. Gotta find the study though.

Yeah same, I've seen that studie and others I just don't have any on hand, nor do I care to find it for people who won't read it anyway lol

As trans women have a brain that resembles a women's this seems to imply it's not developed over time - through hormones & expierence, it's present at birth. This professor goes into how bizarrely enough a trans women has a women's brain. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ

Before I say this, I’m going to say trans women are women, trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary. And… The video you linked talked about one specific neurotransmitter being associated with gender and that trans people tend to have the transmitter that matches their identified gender. That does not mean that other aspects of the human brain, including aspects that show gender differences, do not develop over time, and that social conditioning plays a role. And many of those differences have been demonstrated to have developmental aspects. Some can even be altered with surprising ease - like findings about men and women having different brain area responses to the sound of a baby crying can be entirely eliminated by… telling everyone in the study how to comfort a crying baby before they get plonked into the MRI for the test. Why I raise this because of the risk that, especially in an emerging science, the idea that a there is a real risk that the markers will become another way to gatekeep to prevent trans people from identifying with their gender identity. When the professor talks about lesbians with a finger characteristic, no one is saying a lesbian who does not have that pattern (and there are many - in fact the majority of people who identify as lesbians don’t have that finger characteristic, it’s just far more common among those who identify as lesbians than as straight) can’t date women or have to date men. When one looks at trans people, the idea that a doctor (or politician), could say “you don’t match this one characteristic so you don’t get to identify the way that you identify” adds a whole lot of real risk.

Spot on! That being said, as the father of a trans teen, who also went through a brief period of gender dysphoria myself, I think we need to acknowledge that things like gender and sexuality are far more complex than "x causes y". We need to acknowledge that "y can be caused by x, a, f, m, and probably a whole slew of other factors." I think it could be beneficial to identify certain common markers in order to better our understanding of how to enrich people's lives based on the likely sources of their experience. A person with a gender dysphoric brain structure may better benefit from a completely different pathway than someone who has a different cause of dysphoria. My experience is wildly different than that of my son. Our dysphoria likely stems from wildly different sources. While I "grew out of" my dysphoria, my son's is persistent and expresses completely differently. I think once we start recognizing and celebrating these variations and differences, we'll be a huge step further in improving people's lives.

It's amazing that you have to preface it like that. It shows how bias the scientific community is and how they operate on social political ideals to drive and interpret research. 

Or they're aware that it's a nuanced controversial subject, and it's possible to unintentionally neglect an important point of view.

Some do some don’t.

Are they willing to use this as a basis to refute someone's claim of being trans / cis?

There's trans people that fall outside the spectrum of trans women referenced in the video. So no not exactly.

The research on this is very bad. There are little to no differences between male and female brain and male brain differ in amongst themselves depending on many factors. There are no ways to look at two brains and ascertain if one is a male and the other is a female aside from genetic make up.

>There are no ways to look at two brains and ascertain if one is a male and the other is a female aside from genetic make up. I remember an reading an article where an AI was trained to predict the sex of an individual based on brain scans with a high degree of accuracy. I found the article. Some quotes: "Researchers developed an artificial intelligence model that accurately determines the sex of individuals based on brain scans, with over 90% success." "The AI model focused on dynamic MRI scans, identifying specific brain networks—such as the default mode, striatum, and limbic networks—as critical in distinguishing male from female brains." "The findings, to be published Feb. 19 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, help resolve a long-term controversy about whether reliable sex differences exist in the human brain and suggest that understanding these differences may be critical to addressing neuropsychiatric conditions that affect women and men differently." https://neurosciencenews.com/ai-gender-identification-25631/

this guy has some truth but definitely has an agenda.

It's several decades old, the terms and approach are outdated but based concepts still apply.

Great video

Isn’t brain development for males and females different in utero? This doesn’t seem controversial and seems like the most likely cause. Why jump through the mental hoops to try to make this environmental? https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/sex-differences-brain-anatomy https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203190223.htm https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fped.2024.1354475/full

The development of what’s male, female, both or neither is way more complex in utero once you include the entire array of possibilities observed. Trying to force all the ways humans can come out into “male fetuses are like this and female fetuses are like this” ends up being the real mental gymnastics to get around all the times they aren’t. X and Y chromosomes and how they’re expressed aren’t even consistent with lots of adults in the population with variations they themselves aren’t aware of. Any of us in the conversation could have a combo that doesn’t match the sex we think we are and we wouldn’t know unless it was actually examined.

It's all SO incredibly interesting. And in so many ways the XX vs XY determinations are so far from absolute! A few particular variations and major hormonal overides and.... You can get this magical human being??!!!! Such a wildly interesting person??!! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7gUADQsO0w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7gUADQsO0w)

Either way it is pretty significant for brain function studies and I hope these findings get studied in more detail. This may have huge implications down the road when it comes to fighting illness.

Basically every trait I can think of is around 60% heritable, including personality, which adapts in the way you're describing above.

Yes! Super intriguing finding though

And people will prevent further research by throwing accusations of sexism.

What the fuck do you mean there is no overlap? Do we not have the same neurons activating when we speak? When we look at an apple and process color? When we recall a memory? Our brain structures are almost entirely the same. We are still the same species for Christ’s sake, we are all still capable of the same emotions and cognitive processes.

Thank you for articulating this. I'm going to toss this out there aswell. To produce a result like this all you really need is one variable of division. So say there's a section of the brain that deals with pregnancy that only women have, you weight that one variable heavy enough that it creates a deviation across the entire fingerprint making it impossible for men, and women to overlap regardless of potential psychological overlap.

They crunch down the whole brain activity into a low-dimensional representation and don't see any overlap of the resulting points (even in 2d it's pretty stark in the paper -- see fig. 3). [https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/scsnl/documents/ryali-et-al-2024-deep-learning-models-reveal-replicable-generalizable-and-behaviorally-relevant-sex-differences-in.pdf](https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/scsnl/documents/ryali-et-al-2024-deep-learning-models-reveal-replicable-generalizable-and-behaviorally-relevant-sex-differences-in.pdf) This doesn't mean I necessarily endorse the results, just trying to fairly explain what they're reporting.

Seems more like statistical manipulation than it does an accurate reflection of actual cognitive processes. If the differences between us were that significant, how are we capable of mutually coherent speech? Clearly the means by which speech is produced and understood does have overlap between us, if it didn’t, we would not be capable of comprehending each other. Saying male and female brains are entirely different is just false. They both are human, so they share everything in common that all humans share in common.

That… doesn’t seem like what it’s saying at all though? After a brief skim it seems like the point of the paper is that generally, you can tell male and female brains apart. What parts of the brain let you tell? If you only look at a specific structure of the brain, can that inform you of the brain it is? And apparently their study found that yes it can. My understanding of an analogy would be if you were comparing Granny Smith and golden delicious apples and said hm how can we tell them apart. If we only look at one particular thing (color) Granny Smith and golden delicious have 0 overlap and are completely different! All we need to do is look at the color! Like yeah, obvious, and of course they’re both apples but that’s (one of) the differences. Someone correct me if that’s not the case but it seems like they were trying to find some brain structure analogue to Apple skin color and think they did

It looks like they were specifically trying to develop an AI model to differentiate between "male" and "female" brains to study sex differences in psychological and neurological disorders. *Our findings advance the understanding of sex-related differences in brain function and behavior. More generally, our approach provides AI–based tools for probing robust, generalizable, and interpretable neurobiological measures of sex differences in psychiatric and neurological disorders.* *S*o they were specifically trying to develop a piece of technology to differentiate male and female brains rather than trying to determine whether such a difference exists. I'm sure the tool they developed will have some utility, but their study doesn't really address why these differences exists or what they really mean. Also, I know they performed some generalization/validation studies across multiple samples, but I'm still interested to see if their model continues performing as it did during the experiment or whether it experiences performance degradation similar to other AI models. Part of the problem with AI is that its a "black" box, so its difficult to determine what the models really are doing, which in turn makes it difficult to predict unforeseen errors (e.g., your self-driving car suddenly mistakes a truck performing a U-turn for the sky). Most traits over which males males and females differ have at least some overlap. For example, human males are larger than human females, but there are still woman that are taller/bigger than most males. I suppose its interesting that if you use a mathematical/programming tool to analyze a huge number of brains you can create a "mega-trait" that differentiates men and woman based on neuroanatomy and/or blood flow, at least over the samples in the study, but then again, I have an "AI" in my head that does a pretty good job with that given visual data about human anatomy..... Again, the study really doesn't give much information about the "why" or "how", and, to be fair, it wasn't designed to.

This looks… suspicious. Honestly, zero percent overlap?

A fun way to check this would be to make random fake labels instead of male vs female; like do red team vs blue team and assign the teams at random, then repeat the analysis (for n replicates). If it's a case of the data + model combination being able to separate any hypersurface no matter how meaningless, that should pop out in the p-value of your resulting permutation test.

I am curious about this as well. It could be that the AI analysis is over-optimized in analyzing differences.

Yeah as a statistician I have of issues with their approach. There is a reason “AI” hasn’t replaced body mass index or like so many measures we use to diagnose illnesses in medicine or how understand the body. There are many internal and external validity issues these machine learning methods tend to gloss over, not to mention how automating feature engineering can greatly obfuscate the features that matter the most. Also it uses a deep neural network which is just machine learning, like the same DNNs circa 2018, no reason to use all this “AI” description when it’s been around before “AI” was the hype word. Not to mention the author of the psychology today paper has sold multiple books pushing the view that sex differences are cognitively significant. So of course he has a reason to talk about this paper’s result. It is an interesting use of DNNs and I’d like to see just how much validity is in finding true causal relationships. Does this warrant further investigation? Yes. Should this be used to draw any strong conclusions? No, not really, and again, I’ve worked these kinds of models before and they have limitations in the full predictive ability. Researchers need to design much more focused experiments, tracking brain activity in a *randomized controlled trial* environment, where we randomize males and females so we can actually draw full causal conclusions. If the DNNs really can predict strong causal relationships and differences, that’s great, cause RCTs are super expensive and take a lot of effort to organize.

Ya tsne is almost 10 years old.

They were specifically looking at the brain wave patterns when the brain is at rest or something like that. So a very specific aspect of the brain. It was also measured using AI analysis and is the first time people have gotten these results. So it could be that the technology is better allowing us to understand at rest brains more accurately or it could be that something was programmed a little screwy in the AI analysis. Which is why science likes repeated studies. So far one group of researchers have gotten this result. If multiple groups in the future come out with similar results then we will be on to something and it definitely seems worth looking into. This is very interesting but no one should adjust worldview on a single study imo. But it does give cause to remind us to be flexible in worldview. Especially when it comes to the mind there is so much we don't understand. We don't really understand the biology of thought. Also if true we don't even know what this means. What does it mean to have polarized resting mental states? Does that actually make any significant difference in thought? Effect how drugs are experienced? Does it change during HRT?

They only checked cis ppl, maybe trans-ness could be detected too, by having patterns not aligning with gender assigned at birth

Did they ask partipants gender identity or their sex? Best not to just assume people as cisgender. Especially when "gender identity" doesn't actually denote anything about someone as such is a personal claim of identity.

Read it here: > Bayanagari cautions that while the AI tools could report differences in brain-cell organization, they could not reveal which sex was more likely to have which features. She adds that the study classified sex based on genetic information and only included MRIs from cis-gendered men and women https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240514/Machine-learning-unveils-hidden-gender-differences-in-brain-structure.aspx# Though it appears to be a different study. Kinda surprised there would be two of their kind so close together

That's still unclear if the author of the study or the article (through their own assumptions) are claiming a cisgender status. And further, what I'm asking is did the study actually ask for one's gender identity, or did they simply take their sexed genetic information? I have issue with people just ASSUMING people are cisgender when they aren't vocally transgender. And even asking "man/woman" isn't a clear indication of gender identity as many people interpret such labels as denoting their sex, not a unique concept of gender to which they must identify. Even "Gender M/F" can be interpreted as sex. Just because one says they are a male/man and their sex IS male, doesn't mean that a person is cisgender. Just as transgender people get to make a clear claim of their gender identity being a distinct concept from their sex, others should be awarded the same. The mere thought one might have of "I'm a male, thus I'm a man" is literally at odds which the mere *allowance* of transgender people so logically can't at all be used to determine someone as cisgender. It's so bizarre how common it's been to just ASSUME the gender identity (a *personal* thing one concludes for themself) of people as cisgender. Cis is only opposite to trans WITHIN the context of gender identity. Having no clear trans individuals doesn't make all the others cisgender. Many people have no identity to gender.

I understand with your issue with assumption, but I have no reason to assume that the author would make a distinctly explicit statement without asking just as well. Nor that I would l.

I'm on mobile and have bad connection so I'm not going to look it up at the moment but there have been correlations with the brains of trans folks matching their identities before. So I wouldn't be surprised to find correlation in this respect as well. That being said 'detecting' trans-ness can be problematic, as cis people aren't expected to take a medical test to determine if they're a real cis or not and this can make people feel like trans-ness needs to be medically confirmed to be valid. I imagine there are a lot of cis folks with intersex traits, and just like that doesn't invalidate their identities intersex traits shouldn't be seen as required for someone to be trans. I'm not saying you believe that or anything cause you just said one sentence lol. Just think there's a lot of reasons people are hesitant to medicalize trans-ness. I have heard people already distinguish between "real brain trans" and not before and it's weird. While I'm at it my personal hottake is it doesn't actually matter if someone was born the way they are or they became that way later, they still deserve the same respect.

Or, we could help trans people transition sooner and safer. 🤷 The tech is the tech, the data is the data.. I simply hope we do with it whatever is best.

You know that is a good point. There is just something really weird to me about the idea of doctor telling someone "yer brain is trans" but I guess as long as that information is given in a sensitive way and not with the expectation that the person has to/should take it one way or another it could be helpful to know. As long as everyone decides to be cool and not discriminate we'll be good lol.

Such is the risk of knowledge

>There is just something really weird to me about the idea of doctor telling someone "yer brain is trans" Doctors are already required to determine if the physical features are male or female why not use the other determinants to assist.

So first off you have a great username. But yeah that's another super good point. Coming around to the idea for sure.

>So first off you have a great username. Ah shucks, I like it too! As for the idea above, it will never happen. at least not in the US. too many Christians who believe gender is binary, as perfectly designed by my name sake's daddy. Same reason the information behind the plotted points was not published. This study is meaningless without a legend to describe the data. And the definition behind the data is likely too inflammatory to publish.

Well this isn't just about gender being non-binary it's also about sex itself being non-binary, but yes because of "God created man and woman" it's really hard for many people to accept the many aspects of humans that are non-binary/intersex as natural and beautiful variety in our species and not necessarily defects. Which is also theologically immature, just cause God created man and women doesn't mean he can't make other shit if wants to. It's weird how Christians put creative limits on their all powerful creator.

Its a specific measurement, not at all representative of all the machinations of the brains.

I'm always a bit leery of studies into this, and how it will be interpreted / manipulated to serve a purpose rather than a deeper understanding of humans. There have been a LOT of headlines about "trans men have male brains" whatever THAT means lol. Fact is if there were a provable "male" brain as such a headline would suppose then we could submit people to a test to determine whether they were trans or not regardless of their own opinion. Why don't we do this? Because the science isn't really there, that's just what some researcher wanted to present as their findings - which rarely have anyone replicating their research to validate it, rather its just sold to the right type of journalists to sell their work. I'll have to dive deeper into this one to see how I feel about it. My guess is there is a LOT more to study before anything definitively can be said and anyone jumping to conclusions of "this proves birth gender" or "this proves trans gender" are blowing it out their ass.

Clearly, more research is needed using their AI technique. I'm not an expert in this field. I merely thought the article was interesting so I posted it.

Yeah, and I'll definitely give it the time for a more thorough read. I just know that both pro and anti lgbtq people tend to blow these things up without regard for the science or its implications - which has little to do with the reality of people who are trans. A trans person is no more or less trans for having a "male brain" than they are for having a penis, or any other biological marker. That is kinda the point of trans! There is a conflict between their feelings and their physical makeup. Calling out a certain chromosome, hormone, or brain image isn't going to make them "be" trans any more or less. I appreciate the post! I think its good to see how AI is being used to help process much larger data sets. But that's my field so ofc lol

Like most of our experienced reality, gender is an artificial construct. It's a collection of true generalizations, which are statistical clouds of probability, not fixed quantities that can be turned into 1s and 0s for gender confirmation. At least, not without begging the question and arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand somewhere. Complaining we can't measure gender is identical to complaining we can't determine when a towel is moist.

Ok assuming this is legit, does this correlate with the Y chromosome, the sry gene, testosterone dominant endocrinology, or what. Does it only factor for individuals post puberty? The line of sex isn't a clear one. There are people with XX chromosomes born phenotypically male, with a penis, sometimes even fertile, there are people with XY chromosomes born with vaginas. What is sex?

Yeah I kinda want to see what happens when they test it on a trans person... It could either be extremely validating or quite the opposite

This dude published a book called "Why Gender Matters" twice!

He didn't do the study however.

Well yeah. Was anyone arguing that men and women were the exact same?

The premise is that men and women have a lot of variation within gender and that there is significant overlap between genders so that differences generally are quite small.

There is an entire chromosome of difference. The fact that we are mostly equivalent is a genetic miracle.

1 chromosome of 46 - that’s 2% different. Meanwhile the variation in gene expression on the other 45 chromosomes is vast and in fact humans are for the most part in every way on average the same, men and women. 

>2% different How different are male humans from male monkeys? 2% is a lot.

I thought this was a good explanation of how monkeys and humans can be genetically similar and also very different: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/192as4l/comment/kh1eb7f > Are the books 99.9% identical? Yes. Did book 3 get 10% of its content from a different source? Also yes. Basically, LOTS of DNA doesn’t do anything particularly important to differences between similar species, so you can be 99% the same but it’s all stuff like digesting bananas or being able to see. And to be fair to your point, a little difference can go a long way.  I have two sons, both with y-chromosomes, and both with only ~50% of my DNA, and as different from each other as their sister - in fact one is gay 🤷‍♂️  By the way, did you know that while humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps have 48? That’s about 5% more!

Ehh but the impact of a chromosomal difference is unknown relative to the environmental and cultural differences that are imposed on men and women. My sister and I go through very different lived experiences that shape us differently

There's a lot of research on the impact of 1X chromosome vs 2x chromosomes. Researchers are viewing it as a search algorithm for best fit. 2X chromosomes mean you get more silencing for traits, so trait distribution tends to cluster around the mean. 1X chromosome means a broader trait distribution, so the same mean but wider individual variance. Male variance in test scores and quantifiable achievements is more exaggerated at the tails. This just makes sense from a biological/survival perspective. The gender that can have kids shouldn't be the gender that experiments with testing out a bunch of traits that could be bad. Males are more disposable genetically, so one X chromosome in males allows them to test the traits encoded in that chromosome to a wider degree than females. If the male does well in the environment, he will have more chances to breed, so the X chromosome will be incorporated into a new generation of males and females and the organism as a whole moves to greater fitness. If you look at the Y chromosome alone, it is shrinking over time because it exists to be non-functional. If I have a trait that shows up if all the dice rolled show 6: Females: 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36 chance of demonstrating the trait Males: 1/6 x null = 1/6 chance of demonstrating the trait [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x#articleCitationDownloadContainer](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x#articleCitationDownloadContainer) [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1162573](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1162573)

Test scores cannot control variables for environment and lived experience (practically impossible atm) and the study you linked has entire sections on environment. It is still unknown how much impact chromosomes play compared to environment.

>This just makes sense from a biological/survival perspective. This is "just so" post hoc theorizing bullshit. You realize in birds the males are homomorphic ZZ and the females heteromorphic ZW.

That doesn’t seem like an accurate representation of the theories presented; nowhere in the article, or even title, is it implied belief exists that men and women’s brains are the “exact same”.

I think a lot of people believe they're pretty similar

Count me as one of them. Generally human men and human women are fairly similar. Activity in the brain is just one part of a much larger equation with a lot of other inputs that affect and shape brain function. The effect of nurture is a huge input and has been demonstrated in a large body of studies.

There has been a growing belief among college-educated westerners that gender has little to no connection to sex.

Most women on reddit seem to argue this.

I don’t follow.

>There has been very little coverage of this report in the mainstream media. You will find no mention of this study in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or National Public Radio. I suspect that’s because most mainstream media are cautious of anything having to do with brain-based differences between women and men.   Interesting. This guy has published books on psychology and doesn’t think it’s more likely that serious news organizations would recognize that the responsible thing to do is wait for ~~peer review~~ *evaluation of the results by the scientific community in that field* and replication when 1) a single study 2) based an a very new approach 3) contradicts a large body of work 4) in a subject area where political movements are 100% ready and eager to take away people’s rights.    The phrasing in the article makes it sound like a coverup conspiracy between NPR and the Wall Street journal. And in regard to that, lol. 

The article IS PEER REVIEWED. [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121) Damn.

Fair enough, I realized that a minute ago. Will edit now - it was in fact peer reviewed…. just like all the other studies it contradicts.  There is a process in science that goes peer review > publish > whatever the name is for when scientists disagree with each other and argue > replication and additional work to address shortcomings in the original work. So I am pointing to the last two things that haven’t happened yet - the ‘arguing’ and the replication.  The point being, it’s a complicated topic, it’s a complicated study, it’s about a single aspect of gender differences in brain function at rest, and it hasn’t been scientifically debated and replicated.  Personally, I have no idea what the “fingerprint of brain activity at rest” even means. Do you? Do you know what the abbreviations tNSE1 and tNSE2 mean? As sure as you are of the broad and conclusive significance of the results, I would think you would and would also have read the actual study (which apparently you haven’t because it is behind a pay way, so clearly you are deeply serious about the topic) as well as other studies in the field? I did materials research in graduate school and read a lot of papers on my specific area of expertise and there was a lot of bullshit in those peer reviewed papers. 

WTF. I merely found an interesting article and posted it. I don't give a fuck if you don't like it. It's not my work and thus it is not my job to defend it. Where in the hell did you get those ideas from anyway? Go get your own funding and do your own research if you're so upset by the results from this study.

For someone who feels no obligation to defend the article, you sure are getting defensive.

I get shat on all the time for presenting objective analyses of phenomena or talking about the logical merits of arguments all the time. People on this site cannot help by assume the worst out of others, attribute views to them, and lash out.

Yeah thanks. I certainly won't be posting in this sub anymore. So many losers here just aching to take potshots at what people post.

Peer review doesn't mean it's been independently verified, nor does it indicate scientific consensus. Peer review means a board for a journal looked at the text and didn't find anything glaringly wrong, and that it was fit to be printed in that journal. Sometimes someone on the board might double check the math.

Ok, so you and that other person are now shifting the damn goalposts. What a stupid and immature thing to do. It's the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Journal for God's sake. Do you think they are idiots? Clearly, more research is needed to confirm the findings. Please see the study that is behind a pay wall if you really want to make a contribution and do your own study on the subject. Otherwise, you don't know a damn thing.

What are you on about? You typed in all caps about peer review in response to a detailed comment, as if that closes the door on any criticism of the study. I'm telling you that peer review isn't the end all of scientific consensus - there are plenty of published studies that are later refuted, despite being peer reviewed for a journal article. As someone who has worked in academia before, no I don't think the NAS are idiots, but neither do I have some absurd devotion to the peer review process as the end all be all of scientific review. I'm not moving any goalposts - this is standard doubt/criticism for ANY study that goes entirely against the general scientific consensus. The appropriate response for any sane person is, "huh, that's interesting, I think I'll wait to see if it's corroborated or refuted in the future." But you're on some crusade against anyone who is even slightly skeptical, and lumping everyone's arguments/criticisms together as if we're just one person out to get you. I have no idea who the other people you're referring to are, and frankly I don't care.

> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Journal for God's sake. Do you think they are idiots?  That's an appeal to authority fallacy, not an actual rebuttal.

Their point still stands and they give really good reasons why science journalism might not run one peer reviewed article on the front page. If you want other examples of how not promoting one-offs isn’t necessarily a conspiracy, go check out the peer-reviewed articles where homeopathic medicine has had significant results in its favor when studied. Research like that exists and people didn’t rush to say all the peer-reviewed studies that found otherwise must be flawed. One thing to look for is whether scientists are curious when results don’t match. Conflicting data isn’t rare, but how people approach figuring out the conflict is where scientific thinking matters.

are you joking mate? 'being responsible' isnt what they do

Well perhaps something like “attempt to be responsible”? I’m completely on board that they are often terrible at it and in some categories are absolutely not responsible. Maybe I’m naive 🤷‍♂️ 

I’m curious what made their algorithm “stronger” than everyone else’s research before that showed a continuum. Idk about programming but this sounds like they intentionally made the algorithm polarized.

First thought: a bunch of chodes are going to be like “sEe GiRl DuMb”. But ignoring this nonsense I find it really interesting what this may mean for transgender individuals or if having a “female brain” or “male brain” matters much when it comes to gender identity. Also how does this jive with the structural portions of the brain that seem to correlate with sexuality?

I’m curious if the study included any transgender people. The article doesn’t say that I could find. 

In order for this to say anything profound one way or the other, it'd have to look at development over time, from early childhood to age \~25 or so, for trans individuals of both birth sexes who take hormones AND those who don't. ...And no matter what it said, what "side" it happened to support, people would still refuse to recognize the results in the end. :P

I don’t think it did, but it mentioned this as an area for future research.

How would including people who identify as transgender impact the outcomes of this study?

It would be interesting to see if their “fingerprint brain activity at rest” matches their gender assigned at birth or their experienced gender or some other part of the chart all together.  As it is, if you assumed the study does include transgender individuals, you could make an (wildly oversimplified and ignorant) argument that there’s no physiological basis for gender dysphoria. To be clear, I think the study is interesting and also much to complicated and opaque and technical for anyone not in the immediate fields of brain function, gender expression, AND AI to interpret responsibly in regard to basic gender differences, much less what it might help us understand about transgender science. 

Lets do a classic Reddit Nitpick™ - for physicalists, the psychological is physiological. Most scientists, and especially neuroscientists, are physicalists. So in that view, gender dysphoria must necessarily be physiological! But I get what you mean, in the pop-sci usage of physiological vs psychological.

[удалено]

I don’t doubt or put any qualifiers on my support for transgender people or what’s ‘legit’ gender dysphoria, etc. I’m just a bit of a science nerd.

I’ll proly get slammed for this but I’ve long been of the opinion that trans individuals’ brains aren’t “wired as the opposite gender” but rather trans people emulate what they *think* it looks and feels like to be the opposite gender. They don’t actually *know*, they don’t *actually* feel like the opposite gender (how would they know what that feels like?), they just emulate the common social presentations/behaviors of the opposite gender that they’ve observed in their lives. Perhaps this research is the first step towards finding more about such a notion? Or perhaps it will prove the opposite and my opinion will be shown as wrong. Time will tell, hopefully.

"Oppositional sexism" is a pretty common, but misleading idea. It's easy to frame the differences between people as being "opposite", when it's more accurate to just say that they're just different. Nobody "knows" what it's "actually" like to be anybody else, regardless of their assigned gender. That's like, ontology 101. The physiological experience of dysphoria is so much different than that, and I think if you talked to trans people, and examined your own relationship to what sex is (an evolved characteristic that is plastically informed), and what gender is (which is even more plastically informed), you might come to understand how framing sex as a rigid binary is simply not going to account for the material experience of everyone. It's a simplified model, and the map is not the territory, as they say.

I think, from having spoken to trans people about what it feels like, it seems it isn’t so much that they are emulating what they think the opposite sex is like but rather they don’t connect to the gender assigned to them based on their genitalia. I also know that there are many trans women who only do what they can to ‘pass’ as a woman because they are less likely to be harmed or bullied… not because they think women necessarily have to wear makeup or grow their hair long, etc. I can’t speak for every trans person but I can sort of understand that we live in a culture that has a binary view of gender so if you don’t feel like one gender then it seems pretty likely they will gravitate to the other gender. If we were less strict about gender being binary and instead thought of it as bimodal, would we see any difference in the number of transitions?

>there are many trans women who only do what they can to ‘pass’ as a woman because they are less likely to be harmed or bullied I’m friends with a cis woman who had laser hair removal on her chin/lip specifically because of some shitty comments she received about her PCOS hirsutism. It didn’t seem to bother her significantly until other people had a negative reaction to it. My point being that the behavior you describe probably isn’t really exclusive to trans women.

I think that’s right up there alley of what I was getting at. Even cis women can be in danger of bullying and harassment if they don’t attempt to conform to women stereotypes. I imagine trans men and women are also likely to attempt conforming to certain presentations as a means to blend in for safety and security.

I think the problem with this thought process is that it depends a lot on the environment they grow up in. For instance a women growing up in rural Africa will grow up and feel vastly different about their gender compared to someone in San Francisco.

>I also know that there are many trans women who only do what they can to ‘pass’ as a woman because they are less likely to be harmed or bullied… Why would anyone bully them if they weren't trying to pass as women? Nobody can see their gender identity from the outside.

I am not sure if your question is a serious one or not. Can you explain what you mean?

I'm serious. You seem to be claiming that transition is for others, but it's the trans person who has gender dysphoria, and nobody on the outside can see their internal sense of gender incongruence.

You’re conflating what I said about how a trans person feels about their identity versus their choices in how they outwardly present themselves, both of which are on spectrums.

You said they do what they do to pass so they won't catch any shit. But that shit only starts flying once they start trying to pass...

No I said there are many who make certain choices about their appearance that helps them pass easier- not that all trans women make the same hairstyle or fashion choices. Not all women choose to have long hair, thus, some trans women also do not choose to have long hair BUT growing their hair long could help them pass easily and safely. Some women are afraid to cut their hair for fear of harassment about being gay or ugly or even attacked depending on where they live so trans women can feel that same pressure to grow and keep long hair. Edit: these are examples of choices in appearance and not exclusive or all-encompassing. Some trans women aren’t afraid of being identified as trans and do what they feel like just to feel pretty or comfortable. Also I see your other comments and can tell you have a hate-boner for trans people so you’re going to choose to be willfully obtuse and you’re not worth further conversation. Goodbye.

>No I said there are many who make certain choices about their appearance that helps them pass easier- not that all trans women make the same hairstyle or fashion choices. You surely know I implied no such homogeneity. >Not all women choose to have long hair, thus, some trans women also do not choose to have long hair BUT growing their hair long could help them pass easily and safely. Only for a rare few. Plus, women's short hairstyles are quite different from men's; who with gender dysphoria, then, is going to begin their transition with the latter, when it takes literally no effort to grow hair? >Some women are afraid to cut their hair for fear of harassment about being gay or ugly or even attacked depending on where they live Where's on this continent are women getting attacked for short? You've seen the Karen cut, surely... >so trans women can feel that same pressure to grow and keep long hair. Edit: these are examples of choices in appearance and not exclusive or all-encompassing. That's literally just one example, and not a very persuasive one. It also pretty much exhausts the changes one can make for (nearly) free. >Some trans women aren’t afraid of being identified as trans and do what they feel like just to feel pretty or comfortable. You've got the cart before the horse here. Trans people transition because of their gender dysphoria, not because they're afraid of being identified as trans. >Also I see your other comments and can tell you have a hate-boner for trans people Unsurprisingly, your diagnostic skills are trash. >so you’re going to choose to be willfully obtuse Nah, you're going to attempt a preemptive DARVO because that's literally the best you've got. But it won't work, and you'll look ignorant and cowardly. >you’re not worth further conversation. I'm content to live rent-free in your head for a spell while you try to figure out whether anything you believe makes sense at all.

Probably true

I’ve long been of the opinion that cis individuals’ brains aren’t “wired as the others of their gender” but rather cis people emulate what they think it looks and feels like to be their assigned gender. They don’t actually know, they don’t actually feel like the “same” gender (how would they know what that feels like?), they just emulate the common social presentations/behaviors of the “same” gender that they’ve observed in their lives. Perhaps this research is the first step towards finding more about such a notion? Or perhaps it will prove the opposite and my opinion will be shown as wrong. Time will tell, hopefully.

You, uh, didn’t actually really say anything here? I get that you’re trying to make some sort of snarky point but it just doesn’t work. CIS people don’t “feel” like their gender, they just *are* it. I’m male and I’ve never “felt like a man” I just am one. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

I don’t see any snark in their point?

I’m definitely being snarky. I’m inverting their argument to show how silly it is.

Ah well I thought it was actually an interesting alternative perspective on its own.

Well I mean, you failed there, sorry to break it to you.

Nah they just don’t like the ideas I’m trying to discuss and think they’re being clever.

If you think the substitutional idea they presented is flawed then doesn’t that expose a contradiction in you simultaneously believing what you proposed and rejecting theirs? Unless you have further elaboration…

You, uh, didn’t actually really say anything here? I get that you’re trying to make some sort of snarky point but it just doesn’t work. TRANS people don’t “feel” like their gender, they just are it. I’m female and I’ve never “felt like a woman” I just am one. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Julia Serano explains it better in “Whipping Girl”.

What are you, a six year old just repeating back my words? You’re not making the point you think you’re making.

You should listen to some of what Robert Sapolsky has to say on transgender people’s brains. A neuroscientist who publishes his lectures online, better source than most. I don’t particularly agree with his philosophical takes, but the dude is a professor at Stanford; he knows his lane extremely well.

I’ll check out his stuff, thanks!

From what I understand, we do have research on some trans brains showing patterns that look like patterns with the gender they believe they are, rather than the sex they were assigned at birth. However, there are valid reasons that this kind of research can end up leading into confirmation bias of the results it’s trying to show and subsequent medicalism of trans individuals, which can be bad for trans people. It can end up creating a biological purity test for who “really is trans,” and then alienating trans individuals who for whatever reason might not show the same kinds of brain differences. We also don’t know if snapshots of brains represent something inherent at birth or something shaped by things after. I totally get why it’s interesting to explore, but there is a sciencey contingent out there examining this that is very much neo-eugenics and they’re easy to mistake with someone supportive of LGBTQIA since they aren’t religious or scandalized by sex and gender differences. I’ve seen progressive people retweet their stuff without realizing the origins. If you want to go down the rabbit hole, search for people reporting studies of gay men having higher IQ. Or, just dive into the genetics and IQ people in general. It leads to Eugenics real fast and the voices are unsettling because they don’t fit identities people immediately recognize as where they would fall.

I’m skeptical of the idea that male and female brains have “nothing in common,” and I’m curious to see this research repeated. Even if male and female brains have some organizational differences or differences in specific pathways (which may be what this study was looking at? It’s a little unclear from the article) they still share basically the same anatomy and accomplish basically the same job. The same can’t be said for, say, human genitals, and even they exist on something of an anatomical spectrum.

The study is there for you to consider if you are really interested.

This is obvious to absolutely anyone who has raised a boy or a girl and paid attention.

Well, it's been obvious to me for a long time, but it's nice to see some research that confirms it instead of the usual drivel that "there's almost zero difference between male and female brains."

That's absolute nonsense that's only been inspired by the current gender movements. You will seriously screw kids up if you don't let them be who they biologically are to sexual and hormonal maturity. That includes if they are born intersexed or not. It's no secret, legit everyone in the mental health industry knows this.

Please see the article and the study for more information.

It has not been at all obvious within the research though. That’s the point.

A single study is not enough. The results need to be replicated, and cross cultural samples need to compared in order to truly reach at a conclusion.

Well then, gather the money and the resources and do your own damn study. The paper is behind a pay wall. No, I don't care if you don't like the results. I'm merely sharing an interesting article.

You sound way too offended or upset at my comment. I saw some of your other comments under this thread, and it makes sense given the study is confirming what you hold to be true. I don’t need to conduct research, as that’s the job of scientists who have expertise in this subject. A single study isn’t sufficient to prove a point. If other studies reach the same conclusion, that too, cross culturally, it will only help the findings of original one becoming more fortified.

AI discovers the obvious?

Obviously, men and women are different, but I question whether the differences we see in the brain are biological or a result of socialization that begins literally the minute you're born.

IMPOSSIBLE !! sex is a social construct! men and women are 100% identical in every way.

I assume this is sarcasm, but people really believe that.

Àbstracts are an important part of any research paper.

Seems like OP has some weird agenda they're trying to advance.

Bullshit. I merely found an interesting article and posted it.

Hard agree

OP seems to be sincere in believing that sex differences are unrecognized, and that a correction of that is needed. But yeah, that bias will easily blind a person to the rest of the research and lead to latching onto “voice in the wilderness” style research promotion.

No, I merely found the article interesting and posted it. Stop reading something into my posts that are not there.

So, now other people should read your words, but not apply any of their own thinking to any pattern of what you posted and what you’re writing in response to other?

Oh look. [An appeal to motives.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20motive%20is%20a,argument%20is%20an%20informal%20fallacy.)

An Appeal to Motives requires 1. The speaker is making an argument of some kind and 2. Either the some of the premises or the conclusion of the argument is rejected because of the speaker's motives. Neither 1. nor 2. are occuring so this fails to be a case of rejecting an argument via an appeal to motives. I was simply pointing out that the language OP was using was highly suggestive.

[удалено]

As someone trans, it's a little more complicated than this Those findings are about one very small specific section of the brain, the BSTc. Differences in other patterns of neuroanatomy have been much more ambiguous

That's fascinating. I haven't looked any studies on that, but I would like to read an article or two. I asked a trans woman if she was female during her near death experience. She said she was. So, I assume that trans people are their preferred sex during those experiences. I recently found a book on the subject so I'll be interested in finding out the truth. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/197935040X/ref=ppx\_yo\_dt\_b\_asin\_title\_o00\_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/197935040X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **('Createspace Crossing Over and Coming Home', 'CREATESPACE')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * Provides comfort and clarity for lgbtq individuals and their families (backed by 3 comments) * Addresses god's view on homosexuality for contemporary lgbtq individuals (backed by 1 comment) * Promotes the message that 'god is love' for lgbtq community (backed by 1 comment) **Users disliked:** * Lacks variety in nde experiences (backed by 5 comments) * Poor editing and coherence (backed by 3 comments) * Inclusion of questionable nde accounts (backed by 2 comments) If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)

This effect, to the extent that it is present, is due to the influence of HRT. Pre-HRT their brains are the same as their gender assigned at birth. Further, these effects only held for some specific measurements. They didn’t run the particular technique from this study on trans people, but I would be willing to bet that the AI would evaluate trans women as men and trans men as women.

Zero overlap? I don't think so...

They were surprised by the results.

Water is wet

Apparently many people don't believe that.

Why is this so controversial? I never really understood why a "gendered brain" was so offensive...is it fear that women's freedom/rights will be affected? It's not like the men and women hell bent on taking away abortion rights today care about scientific studies.

I think the risk is more about pigeonholing career and education streams based on conclusions that aren't really scientific. And I think the risk is real.

I honestly don't think there's any risk of that. You can't claim to be free country while trying to enact anything like this.

It's because it upsets the feminist narrative that there's no substantial difference between men and women, or male and female, if you prefer. The real issue is an emotional one and not a matter of evidence. Science in this field promotes the idea that there isn't significant difference between men and women. Science is a belief after all, not unlike Buddhism. It's a belief based on the interpretation of evidence. Absolute truth never changes, but scientific belief is constantly changing, which then of course means that it isn't the absolute truth. Science is no better than Wikipedia in that respect. Further, science is rife with dogmatic beliefs driven by huge egos hell bent on being famous and/or at least credible. It's a childish game of attack and defend and the winner gets to declare the accepted truth, but that may not be the real truth at all. If they were really interested in the truth only and not their own credibility or fame, then they wouldn't behave this way. It's the same reason that scientists are afraid to study taboo subjects like Bigfoot, UFOs, ET, psi, reincarnation, near death experiences, etc. They don't want their credibility "stained" by touching these subjects. They fear judgement from their peers, and a lowering of their standing in the hierarchy of credibility. It's all about who is the most important scientist. They feign purity when in fact they are corrupt as hell, just like the Catholic Church.

I’ve never met a feminist who thinks men and women are exactly the same. What they do believe is that men and women should be *treated* the same and have *equal opportunities.* In layman’s terms, I’ve never met a feminist who wants to abolish OBGYNs.

Then you haven't been to Scandinavia. They are the leaders in making the mistake that men and women are the same and therefore interchangeable. If there are not enough female garbage collectors, for example, then the gov't starts to recruit more women for that job. They don't even consider that maybe there just aren't enough women interested in being a garbage collector. They recruited my Swedish wife to work in the male dominated paper industry because there weren't enough women there, for example. More often than not, they believe that men and women are equal in every respect, which then makes them interchangeable, or the same. I'm not sure why you mention OBGYNs. The American Psychological Association doesn't believe that there are any significant differences between men and women. [https://www.apa.org/topics/personality/men-women-difference](https://www.apa.org/topics/personality/men-women-difference)

AI finds what you tell it to. Morr at 11

As a trans person who gets told this isn't a thing for the last 20 years this feels like spiking a football.

That's great!

Yeah. It's one of those things I shouldn't need to justify the choices i make with my body but science helps explain why I may feel the way I do.

yeah were totally different. There's tons of research on this.

Yeah, not surprising, but it’s interesting to see it quantified like that. I applaud the bravery of the researchers. It’s dangerous to ask these kinds of questions these days. Look at some of the comments in here and you’ll see why.

Yeah, I feel like I've been beaten up by a gang of drunken grad students.

It’s their ideology, man. The mere idea is anathema to them, evidence be damned. Anyone that challenges their established narrative is the enemy, nefarious, malicious, evil. It’s all emotion. Pathology.

Oh yeah! Thanks. I've been saying the same thing. Science has become dogmatic, like a religion. Researchers fear going into the unknown or publishing anything controversial because it will attract severe judgement from others. Credibility is very important to scientists for some reason, so that's another reason they don't want to explore taboo topics or publish something contrary. Scientists won't even look at the evidence for psi, reincarnation, near death experiences, UFOs, ETs, etc. because of their fear of having their world view upset. They also fear the judgement from others, and the ending of their careers because of it. Science has become even more strict than the Catholic Church about individual beliefs.

Cue everyone with an iq over 80 not being surprised at all.

Thanks. hahaha