Pomidor Quixote
Daily Stormer
March 7, 2019

Spoilers: this is just a rehash of the old “blank slate” nature versus nurture position that pretty much states that everything is a social construct and that humans can be made into whatever you want if you catch them early enough in their development.

Daily Mail:

In A bold new book, leading neuroscientist Gina Rippon shatters the myth that men’s and women’s brains are inherently different, challenging centuries of scientific thought and popular belief — from the idea that women have poor spatial awareness and are bad at maths, to the assumption men are not natural childcarers. Instead, she concludes that it is the world we live in that shapes and defines our brains and behaviours from birth, with both sexes still facing an avalanche of traditional expectations.

…

I’m an international researcher in the field of cognitive neuroscience, based at the Aston Brain Centre at Aston University in Birmingham.

My work involves using brain imaging techniques to investigate individual differences in the brain, in particular to understand conditions such as autism and dyslexia. But I’ve also been interested in the fascination scientists have long held in identifying differences between male and female brains.

While theories may have come and gone for over two centuries, until recently the basic message has been consistent: there are ‘essential’ differences between men’s and women’s brains, and these will determine their different capacities and places in society. Well, I believe this approach does everyone a disfavour, especially women and girls. It’s surely no coincidence that scientists, who historically were mostly men, favoured theories that supported male superiority.

The inferior nature of women’s brains has been used as the rationale for frequently proffered advice that the fairer sex should focus on their reproductive gifts and leave education, power, politics, science and any other business of the world to men.

While it’s no longer the case in many parts of the world that power and politics are thought of as only the preserve of men, research often ends up supporting the idea there are things that women just ‘don’t’, or ‘can’t’, do.

Are male and female brains as divergent as we’ve so often been led to believe? When my daughter was born, were there innate structural differences between her brain and those of the boys on the ward, or do differences develop because of the different way in which boys and girls are treated from birth?

Okay, I’m going to stop you right there, Gina. Have you considered that maybe the differences develop because… boys and girls continue to grow? Just like both boys and girls don’t have breasts when they’re toddlers but girls develop breasts later in life.

Babies are not completely developed and grown, so why assume that everything that happens in them after birth is due to how they’re treated?

Have you heard of “puberty”? This is a biological process in which massive amounts of hormones are released into the entire body. And boys and girls get very different combinations of these hormones.

Do you think boys will spontaneously develop breasts at puberty if they’re raised as girls and not injected with estrogen?

Do boys’ and girls’ brains start out the same? The general consensus is that at birth there are actually very few differences. Yet by the time children grow up, it’s clear boys and girls have very different ideas about what is — and isn’t — for them.

Yeah that’s called growing up, Gina. Pubic hair appears, breasts appear, and stuff like that. It’s not due to a conspiracy to materialize vaginas in gender-less humans by treating them as “women.”

It’s particularly striking that so many girls don’t see themselves in the world of science, technology, engineering and maths.

A UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2018 report shows that in the UK, little more than a third (38.6 per cent) of science researchers are female. In 2016, just 15 per cent of computer science and 17 per cent of engineering and technology first-year undergraduates were female.

Is this because girls have innately less aptitude in these areas? Or is it because of powerful social messages we are exposed to from an early age?

How’s “neither” for an answer? Girls are just not interested in that stuff, just as you’re not interested in eating your dog’s excrement.

What’s becoming ever clearer is that the brain is mouldable — that is, it changes depending on the environment we’re exposed to — throughout our lives, but this is particularly so at the very beginning. The environment a baby is born into is key.

Though what they see is fuzzy and they might not be able to hear much either, even newborn babies are tuned to pick up clues about what is — and is not appropriate — for them.

They appear to be tiny social sponges, quickly soaking up cultural information from the world around them. But before these little humans arrive, the world is already tucking them firmly into a pink or a blue box. It is clear from YouTube videos I’ve watched of parties where parents unveil the sex of their child that, in some cases, different values are attached to the pinkness or blueness of the news.

It used to be white in the past because people were very poor by today’s standards and couldn’t afford new stuff for each baby they had. Using white still yielded men who behaved like men and women who behaved like women, and back then one could argue that women behaved more like women and men more like men than they do now.

This Gina whore is a “top neuroscientist.” Keep that in mind.

The belief that differences in male and female behaviour are dictated by hormones is as firmly entrenched as the idea that a person’s gender dictates the sort of brain they will have.

Yet what’s easily forgotten is while many hormones are thought to be male or female — for example androgens such as testosterone are described as ‘male’ and oestrogen and progesterone as ‘female’ — they are actually found in all of us, male and female alike. And like the brain, it seems hormones are not fixed at birth, but fluctuate depending on environment and a person’s experiences.

Yeah this bitch “scientist” is a retard.

Okay Gina, let’s try this: if men and women have the same brain and every difference in their behavior, interests, and capacity is due to how they’re treated, then how come we have men and women in the first place? Who treated the first blank slate humans like men and women to “condition” them into being men and women?

This is where all “social construct” theories flop.

Far from the ‘biology in the driving seat’ characterisation of hormones such as testosterone dictating how someone develops, it’s clear that levels can be driven by different social activities.

An astonishing example of this is that testosterone levels in fathers will vary depending on how much time they spend caring for their children.

…she’s so close to suggesting boys will spontaneously develop breasts at puberty if treated as if they were girls from birth…

One study exposed three groups of men to a computerised baby doll that had been programmed to cry. The first group wasn’t allowed to intervene, the second could intervene but their efforts to pacify the doll would fail and the third were able to comfort the doll.

Testosterone levels rose in the first group, stayed constant in the second but decreased among the group who were able to successfully calm the ‘infant’.

Yes, let’s make that into a maxim: “doing womanly stuff is not manly.”

It has always been assumed the two biological templates that produce different female and male bodies will also produce differences in the brain, but recent research suggests that, even in adulthood, instead of differences there’s actually a lot of overlap.

In 2015, a study of 1,400 brain scans concluded we should ‘shift from thinking of brains as falling into two classes, one typical of males and the other typical of females, to appreciating the variability of the human brain mosaic’.

Less than six per cent of the sample consistently fitted conventional ideas about brain traits considered ‘male’ or ‘female’. The rest showed a range of variability between each brain, with a general ‘pick and mix’ collection of maleness and femaleness. Instead of women being from Venus and men from Mars, it seems we may all be from the same planet.

Have you seen women’s jaws lately?

This is what Jews do, man. They throw chemicals in the water to turn the frogs gay and then they tell you that the frogs were gay all along.

The frogs were not gay before, and men and women were not similar before.

While one study of adults supposedly backed up women’s natural preference for pink (it’s been speculated that women are programmed through evolution to favour pink because in prehistoric times they had to look for berries for survival), a more recent study in four to five-month-old infants, using eye movements as a measure of their preference, found no evidence of sex differences at all, with all babies preferring the reddish end of the spectrum.

I’m going to throw the radical idea out there that babies prefer pink because the color resembles what they’d find in the skin of their mothers. Pink is a very mammalian color.

Last year a survey by the Guides reported girls as young as seven felt boxed in by gender stereotyping. Nearly 50 per cent felt it reduced their willingness to speak up at school.

As one commentator noted: ‘We teach girls that pleasing others is the most important virtue and that being well-behaved is contingent upon being quiet and delicate.’

Wh… what year is it?

I mean… you can watch women at school, at your job, on the streets, on social media… they’re definitely not well-behaved, quiet, delicate, and they’re definitely not eager to please.

Don’t fall for this Gina whore trap.

“Social constructs” are biological constructs.

How come women are pretty much the same everywhere?

Is there some kind of overarching culture that encompasses all skin colors to make different peoples “program” women behavior into front-hole humans and men behavior into front-spear humans?

Yes! It’s called BIOLOGY!

People in the past were well aware of women’s nature.

What we are seeing here is the promotion of pseudoscience on par with Franz Boas‘ “race doesn’t exist” theory. Pseudoscience is always a political agenda packaged in a thin veneer of science. And we’re living in an age when scientists themselves who know the truth are too scared to come out and say the truth, for fear of being crucified.

When Nicolas Wade, former New York Times science editor, wrote a book about how race is real, he was literally called a Nazi. No one wants to deal with that, so Scientist Gina is able to publish this tripe with impunity so that the social engineers can use it as a weapon against society.

Don’t let Jews trick you into thinking women are anything other than wombs conveniently packaged in self-propelling machines for ease of transport.

Especially not after they’ve poisoned our people and those poor frogs.

Andrew Anglin contributed to this report.