Biology Versus Ideology
The subject of sexual differentiation has been a topic of fervent discussion, particularly in the realm of scientific inquiry. Recently, the once-venerable journal, Scientific American, presented the claim that prior to the late 18th century, Western science primarily acknowledged only the male form, relegating the female body to a secondary or inferior version of it. This perspective has been taken a step further by researchers Cara Ocobock and Sarah Lacy in their article for November’s issue. Their argument suggests that, at least theoretically, men and women could be functionally equivalent in terms of physical capabilities, if not for an overarching conspiracy designed to repress women's abilities.
Ocobock and Lacy introduce two plausible premises. First, they argue that the scientific study of sex differences has been negatively impacted by a lack of female participation as test subjects. There is some merit to this argument, and similar conclusions have been reached by other scholars in the field. Second, they assert that historical evidence points to the presence of female hunters in hunter-gatherer societies. While there's credible evidence to support this, it is not robust enough to establish it as a prevalent pattern rather than an exception.
Where the authors' arguments begin to falter is in the extrapolation of these premises. They posit that if women were indeed hunters, it suggests an equality not just in societal roles but also in physical capabilities. According to Ocobock and Lacy, this status quo was disrupted around 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture, which somehow enabled men to not only subjugate women but also to manipulate scientific understanding to their advantage.
The authors do concede that there are physiological differences between men and women, but they claim that the extent of these differences is negligible. However, a cursory glance at athletic records in various fields of physical performance shows a clear and consistent male advantage, undermining their claims of functional equivalence.
Ocobock and Lacy take this discourse into the realm of conspiracy theories, suggesting that the performance gap between male and female athletes is not due to biological factors but rather due to societal prejudices and the mechanisms of professional sports. While there are certainly societal factors that have restricted women's participation in the past, attributing current performance disparities solely to these factors defies empirical evidence.
Indeed, there was a time when women were categorically barred from athletic competition. The lifting of such restrictions has undoubtedly been a positive development for both athletics and society at large. Women have improved their performance rates at a faster pace than men, but this surge is better explained by increased participation rather than by closing any hypothetical physiological gap.
The reality is that sexual differences, which become prominent with the onset of puberty, are dictated by variances in hormonal levels, notably testosterone, leading to disparities in bone density, muscle mass, and other physiological traits. These differences may be unpalatable to some, but they are empirically evident and should not be casually dismissed.
The notion that men and women could be functionally equivalent if not for some grand conspiracy is a perspective that is more ideological than scientific. The true concern is the growing trend to erase or diminish the inherent differences between men and women, a sentiment that Ocobock and Lacy explicitly endorse in their article. Acknowledging these differences does not diminish the dignity or value of either sex; it simply reflects an objective reality. Ignoring or refuting this biological basis under the guise of social progress is not just intellectually dubious; it is antithetical to scientific inquiry.