Women are expected to manage their homes and the people around them, to facilitate and communicate, to be aware of everyone and their emotions. That’s not to say men don’t have those skills, but they’re not as enforced through indirect, and sometimes direct social cues.
It’s a lesson we learn over and over, that strategy and diplomacy pave the way for peace - not open violence. In this sense women, in general, have more learned skills when it comes to negotiating and empathizing.
But again, these skills are learned through socialization and aren’t inherent.
Absolutely those skills are learned through socialization and reinforced over and over by society. There is a little bit of a biological thing that happens with pregnancy that I find quite interesting:
But a recent study - the largest to date - indicates that pregnancy has a profound structural impact on brains and offers new clues into the neurological changes in mums‑to‑be.
It suggests that grey matter - the nerve-rich part of the brain involved in processing information, emotions and empathy - decreases by an average of nearly 5% during pregnancy.
But rather than being a cause for concern, these changes may be beneficial when it comes to caring for newborns, say scientists working on the project in Spain.
One of the dozens of women, now a new mum, who took part in the study told us she welcomed the findings and was “tired of pregnant women being infantilised”.
“Rather than becoming dumber, we are becoming more specialised for the job,” said Tania Esparza.
The BBC was given exclusive access to the Be Mother project and those who have been taking part in it.
The brains of 127 pregnant women were scanned - before, during and after pregnancy - and compared to scans from a smaller number of women who were not expecting.
The greater the changes in the brain, the more likely women were to say they were relating to, and bonding well, with their babies - the team of scientists found.
It’s a temporary change for the most part, but people who have been pregnant have a difference in their grey matter from people who were never pregnant in their life.
Just an interesting little part of biology that is still incredibly under-studied.
Humans have a small degree of sexual dimorphism. And that extends to neurology. Those minute differences get magnified many fold by cultural norms, but we’re physical beings made of atoms. We’re not disembodied spirits floating in the astral plane. We’re sexually dimorphic on the outside and on the inside. And most of what differences do exist are a function of hormones rather than genetics.
An example of this magnification is seen externally in something like size and strength. Men naturally are a bit larger and stronger than women. This is an objective and undeniable physical reality. But what gets tacked onto that is a bunch of stuff that isn’t scientific or rational. People irrationally use this small kernel of truth to conclude that women are unsuitable for certain careers that involve a lot of physical labor. A real physical example of sexual dimorphism gets wildly blown out of proportion by culture.
We can acknowledge these differences without embracing stereotypes. We can reject bioessentialism without veering into unscientific mysticism.
We don’t need to act like conservatives. We don’t need to pillory someone who acknowledges very real and objective matters of human biology. Velma did not suggest that pregnant woman were stupid, emotional, or incapable of supporting themselves. She simply made reference to objective physically measurable things.
It’s disappointing to see someone slander someone as a Terf or to imply that they said things that they never claimed. I get that this can be a triggering topic, but there’s a fine line between rejecting irrational stereotypes and becoming as anti-science as a Republican.
Velma did not suggest that pregnant woman were stupid, emotional, or incapable of supporting themselves. She simply made reference to objective physically measurable things.
This is pretty disappointing to read and leans into the TERF angles of “female/male socialisation” and bioessentialism.
And that’s before we get into the fact that not all cis women become mothers.
It was pretty heavily implied with this comment that I was resorting to bio-essentialism in order to other transpeople when I was referencing an objective physical process that happens during pregnancy.
It might have been a fun little fact you wanted to share, but it gets perceived in relation to conversation about women’s inclination to being protectors.
Try diagramming Mia’s argument. It’s a core part of the argument, it’s just left for the reader to imply. At best, this was done because Mia assumed the reader would be intelligent enough to connect the dots. At worse, it’s a mott-and-bailey argument, pulling the old Charlie Kirk trick of heavily implying something (to the point of being a core part of an argument), and then pretending offense because “I never said that.”
I read velma’s comment and I don’t see a connection between the results of a specfic scientific study and TERF behavior or bioessentialism. I mean, experiences of any and all kinds have constant effects on all our brains? Just because a pregnant person’s brain changes during pregnancy doesn’t mean that those specific brain changes are somehow necessary to be a mother or to occupy the space of motherhood.
What I mean is, one truth does not invalidate the other, both can comfortably exist with each other. A pregnant person’s brain goes through specific changes; you don’t have to be a cis woman or biologically connected to your child to be a mother, both true. “Mother” is an archetype that goes way beyond notions of gender while pregnancy is a biological process that can be tested and measured. To me, these are clearly different things and in no way conflated by velma in her comment, especially considering she is not the author of the study etc.
I’ve never been pregnant or wished to be, but it still blows my mind. On a podcast recently I discovered that women who’ve been pregnant carry the cells of their offspring for the rest of their lives, which makes sense that they’ve been ‘hosting’ another living organism, but keeps the connection and bond in a beautiful way
The fact these things are just being learnt, is tragic and relegates the biological as well as social importance of women who raise children (including the grannies, aunties, and other women in their ‘tribal group’)
Society had really done a number on women, and has become the lesser for it
On a podcast recently I discovered that women who’ve been pregnant carry the cells of their offspring for the rest of their lives, which makes sense that they’ve been ‘hosting’ another living organism, but keeps the connection and bond in a beautiful way.
I’ve always loved this factoid! Knowing I’ve got my son’s imprint on my body for the rest of my life is poetic <3
Its like how mitochondrial DNA passes down through the female line only… we are connected to all our mothers going way back into the past, while keeping a part of any children always in the present
Women are expected to manage their homes and the people around them, to facilitate and communicate, to be aware of everyone and their emotions. That’s not to say men don’t have those skills, but they’re not as enforced through indirect, and sometimes direct social cues.
It’s a lesson we learn over and over, that strategy and diplomacy pave the way for peace - not open violence. In this sense women, in general, have more learned skills when it comes to negotiating and empathizing.
But again, these skills are learned through socialization and aren’t inherent.
Absolutely those skills are learned through socialization and reinforced over and over by society. There is a little bit of a biological thing that happens with pregnancy that I find quite interesting:
It’s a temporary change for the most part, but people who have been pregnant have a difference in their grey matter from people who were never pregnant in their life.
Just an interesting little part of biology that is still incredibly under-studied.
This is pretty disappointing to read and leans into the TERF angles of “female/male socialisation” and bioessentialism.
And that’s before we get into the fact that not all cis women become mothers.
Humans have a small degree of sexual dimorphism. And that extends to neurology. Those minute differences get magnified many fold by cultural norms, but we’re physical beings made of atoms. We’re not disembodied spirits floating in the astral plane. We’re sexually dimorphic on the outside and on the inside. And most of what differences do exist are a function of hormones rather than genetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism_in_human_physiology#Brain_and_nervous_system
An example of this magnification is seen externally in something like size and strength. Men naturally are a bit larger and stronger than women. This is an objective and undeniable physical reality. But what gets tacked onto that is a bunch of stuff that isn’t scientific or rational. People irrationally use this small kernel of truth to conclude that women are unsuitable for certain careers that involve a lot of physical labor. A real physical example of sexual dimorphism gets wildly blown out of proportion by culture.
We can acknowledge these differences without embracing stereotypes. We can reject bioessentialism without veering into unscientific mysticism.
We don’t need to act like conservatives. We don’t need to pillory someone who acknowledges very real and objective matters of human biology. Velma did not suggest that pregnant woman were stupid, emotional, or incapable of supporting themselves. She simply made reference to objective physically measurable things.
It’s disappointing to see someone slander someone as a Terf or to imply that they said things that they never claimed. I get that this can be a triggering topic, but there’s a fine line between rejecting irrational stereotypes and becoming as anti-science as a Republican.
Did anyone ever say she did?
It was pretty heavily implied with this comment that I was resorting to bio-essentialism in order to other transpeople when I was referencing an objective physical process that happens during pregnancy.
It might have been a fun little fact you wanted to share, but it gets perceived in relation to conversation about women’s inclination to being protectors.
Cis women’s brains are rewired during pregnancy in relation to caring and protecting their newborns. I thought it was fitting within this topic.
Try diagramming Mia’s argument. It’s a core part of the argument, it’s just left for the reader to imply. At best, this was done because Mia assumed the reader would be intelligent enough to connect the dots. At worse, it’s a mott-and-bailey argument, pulling the old Charlie Kirk trick of heavily implying something (to the point of being a core part of an argument), and then pretending offense because “I never said that.”
Thank you
This is a real thing that happens during pregnancy.
I have never claimed that all women are mothers or should be mothers.
Edit: I want to make it really, really clear here. I am in no way a TERF and I resent the accusation.
I read velma’s comment and I don’t see a connection between the results of a specfic scientific study and TERF behavior or bioessentialism. I mean, experiences of any and all kinds have constant effects on all our brains? Just because a pregnant person’s brain changes during pregnancy doesn’t mean that those specific brain changes are somehow necessary to be a mother or to occupy the space of motherhood.
What I mean is, one truth does not invalidate the other, both can comfortably exist with each other. A pregnant person’s brain goes through specific changes; you don’t have to be a cis woman or biologically connected to your child to be a mother, both true. “Mother” is an archetype that goes way beyond notions of gender while pregnancy is a biological process that can be tested and measured. To me, these are clearly different things and in no way conflated by velma in her comment, especially considering she is not the author of the study etc.
Edit: missed a word!
I’ve never been pregnant or wished to be, but it still blows my mind. On a podcast recently I discovered that women who’ve been pregnant carry the cells of their offspring for the rest of their lives, which makes sense that they’ve been ‘hosting’ another living organism, but keeps the connection and bond in a beautiful way
The fact these things are just being learnt, is tragic and relegates the biological as well as social importance of women who raise children (including the grannies, aunties, and other women in their ‘tribal group’)
Society had really done a number on women, and has become the lesser for it
I’ve always loved this factoid! Knowing I’ve got my son’s imprint on my body for the rest of my life is poetic <3
Its like how mitochondrial DNA passes down through the female line only… we are connected to all our mothers going way back into the past, while keeping a part of any children always in the present
It is beautiful and poetic
In adopted, I have no dna connection to my mother.
Your mitochondria may beg to differ.
This conversation is not an attack on adopted people or trans women.
My mitochondria may link me to the person who birthed me, it does not link me to my mother.
That was the exact point that was made.
I agree with you and will also note that they are denying the fatherhood of trans men who have borne children
That’s fascinating. There’s so much about women’s biology that remains so far men’s medical research. Where is this quoted from?
Oh oops, I forgot to include the source! I pulled it from this BBC article
Thank you!
Tell that to the Suffragettes.
I’m completely in favor of violence to oppose violence, but that’s where strategy comes in. A gun needs to be aimed to be effective.