Gil Hardwick (
Tue, 23 May 1995 03:16:31 GMT

In article <>, ( writes:
>Very sound advice! We should not jump to any conclusions that cognitive
>sexual dimorphism is anywhere nearly as extensive as physical sexual
>dimorphism, based on the scant evidence now available. My lifetime of
>experiences in teaching children and adolescents of both sexes and all
>continental origins has led me to believe that, if tendencies to
>cognitive dimorphism exist, these tendencies show great overlap among
>genders and cultures. (Of course, that just may be my female brain
>working, looking at the big picture! <g>)

None of this thread makes any sense whatsoever until you people are
able to come up with a valid working definition of gender. All I am
reading here continuously is your confusion with sex.

How about proceeding at least from the work of, say, Sandra Bem, or
somebody else who has been carrying out basic research on the gender
of human behavioural attributes.

>If properly funded, this area of neurological research could be very
>fruitful in the near future.

Oh yes! Indeed! Hint hint nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean.

So long as we can find some way to qualify for more funding, we don't
have define what it is we are talking about at all, do we.

Once the money is in the bank, why, we can do what we like. We can go
on for years and years and years without ever coming to any workable
results, and that way see that the flow of money just keeps going on
and on for years similarly.

So long as nobody else, maybe like that pesky Hardwick from down
under we're all trying to get rid of, doesn't show us up publically
for the scientific frauds we know ourselves privately to be.