> I also didn't label or judge anyone -- disagreement with your perspective isn't sexist.

> "Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things."

> "Girls sweat the details."

Upon re-reading, you might notice that you did, in fact, both label and judge.

> I don't know why, but girls and boys tend to gravitate towards different types of play. And they do so very young. That's just a fact.

That fact is a very controversial _opinion_ that is on the way out of mainstream thought. Certainly, it isn't a fact in the "tested and proven" sense of the word.

I am amazed by the degree of vitriol that comes out when people observe that there are differing tendencies between boys and girls. I am amazed by the tendency of social scientists to ascribe everything about that to social construction. Observations like these do not mean that a particular human being will be a certain way. They do not mean that one group is better or worse than another.

I think the vitriol arises from the stranglehold progressives have on the use of "science" in public discourse. The only allow "science" to be used is used to demonstrate that women are in some sense more oppressed or less fortunate than men, or that women are more capable or good than men.

There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and argumentation. In one direction, it is ok to use "science" and even "biology". In the other, it is only ok to use sociology or feminist theory.

With all due respect, I suggest you take a minute and read what I said instead of what you're filtering.

I assume that you're deeming "Girls sweat the details" as a dismissive statement. It is not. Middle school girls demand perfection among peers. I remember vividly the hell my sister went through when she did something with her eyebrows that didn't pass muster. One circle of people she was essentially forced to spend time with basically ostracized her.

Anecdotal? Yes. But that isn't an atypical story.

Your first comment:

> Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things. The male power dynamic is powerful/weak. Girls sweat the details.

You clarify latter you are "offering an observation & opinion on a topic of controversy." but there was no way to tell that from the original comment.

A reasonable number of people would read your first comment as a strong held believe perhaps even nearing towards stated as fact. In some the perceived strength of this statement would help them reaffirm their similar believes through the a bandwagon like effect.

Conscience or otherwise, to counter act this effect many seem to respond with counteracting strong statement.

> I assume that you're deeming "Girls sweat the details" as a dismissive statement.

I would think it is more likely the "wired" part of your statement which many would interrupt as meaning genetically or inherently and elimianting/diminishing the involvement of social/cultural momentum.

I would again say that you can think whatever you want, but don't accuse and label me as something that I am not because I disagree with you.

Again to address that particular issue, there is expert opinion supporting that boys are in fact wired differently:

http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisingboys/aggression.html

From the article:

Jane Katch, author of Under Deadman's Skin: Discovering the Meaning of Children's Violent Play. "And that's a problem for a lot of boys. Some boys in my class need to move a lot. I call them 'high energy boys.' These boys simply can't sit still as long as most of the girls. They don't have the fine motor skills girls do, so many will make big constructions like block towers, while girls will work on smaller, more delicate pictures."

> I would again say that you can think whatever you want, but don't accuse and label me as something that I am not because I disagree with you.

I was not contesting anything along these lines.

In addition nilved was relatively careful by labeling you comment, "Your comment is sexist and pseudoscientific.", not you.

> boys are in fact wired differently

I did not see anyone disagreeing with that.

What I saw people trigger off of was stating what that difference was "we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things." without presenting reasonable evidence.

> http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisingboys/aggression.html From the article: ...

You article is not a rigorous study or experiment, it is weak evidence, too weak to substantially sway reasonable opinion by itself.

As someone who works with kids (ages 7-18), I'll comment from my own experience. There isn't a lot of difference. I can't deny there some mild tendency of boys and girls acting differently in the ways described above. BUT, in a "free" environment (which is where I work) that difference is so small that I really can't say whether it's caused by latent external expectations of society and the parts thereof that still haven't caught on to the huge importance of emancipation and compassion, instead of by some intrinsic factor of the biology of the kids themselves.

That said, I can't really scientifically/rationally 100% dismiss it either.

HOWEVER, there is one really important takeaway from this, which is separate from whether it's biological or not. There may be a tendency, but it is vastly overshadowed by differences in character between individuals, which do exist, and it's important to be mindful and aware of those. If left to their own devices without too much external pressure, I see "girly" boys and "boyish" girls (ranging from minor personality traits and interests to wearing different clothes, make-up, hairstyles, jewelry). Everyone is all over the spectrum, really. And that's beautiful.

In my line of work (teaching kids computer and technology stuff), there is a group of (mostly older) women working actively to focus on girls' interest for technology. Which is a noble cause, of course. And they're doing great work ... if it was last century, when this seemed like a good idea in emancipation/feminism. They don't get it if I comment on this, think I am on the wrong side of this battle. But by focusing purely on girls, trying to show them there is also "cool stuff for girls" to do in technology, they are so doin' it wrong .. What about the "girly boys" that would love to take part in activities like this? They got left behind. What about the "boyish girls" that think this stuff is boring and would rather build a action-packed videogame or learn about XSS and SQL-injections ..

So yeah, my point is, biological tendencies or not, they are (in my anecdotal experience) vastly overshadowed by individual personality characteristics.

> That fact is a very controversial _opinion_ that is on the way out of mainstream thought. Certainly, it isn't a fact in the "tested and proven" sense of the word.

Did you read the article he linked? These differences have been demonstrated in independent studies. And contrary to what you might read on Tumblr, the knowledge that there are observable differences between boys and girls is still very much in the mainstream.