Sex(ual dimorph)ism

Intelligent people are the minority, gender notwithstanding. By definition, most people are 'average'. And a slew of folk are dumb.

This is not sexism. This is sexual dimorphism. When I say that negroid race has better immunity to diseases due to their ancestors living in equatorial zones overflowing with microorganisms and thus they still have genetically solidified immune system that is superior to any other race, it isn't racism, it's anthropology. Why would you call facts proven experimentally sexist? Sexism would be denial of those differences and asking of woman to become a man or vice versa. Both cannot be each other due to difference in activity in basal ganglia, especially in corpus amygdaloideum (men have them much bigger and much more functional for the sake of understanding aggression, limiting it and building hierarchy while women have no hierarchy except comparing beauty - attractiveness to men and their men themselves; also this ganglia makes us understand responsibility differently, which I have already told somewhere) and corpus callosum (which has totally different characteristic of connection between hemispheres, mainly by difference in formation of the different parts of brain responsible for different activities, where females mostly have respective centers in both hemispheres working together and observing any problem from two aforementioned ways of thinking and thus having superiority in spatial problems and most common everyday occurrences that can be solved by heuristics, and men connecting one parts of brain to different parts performing different functions to use associative power to find any clues of how to solve the problem; the most referred brain part, by the way, is secondary visual cortex), and also some cortical structure, namely gyrus cinguli as it is much more active in women due to the differences in work of corpus callosum described above.


Absolutely fair point.



Of course, if you still want to insult me, go ahead. It would simply mean you couldn't bring yourself to try and verify my arguments or even read them. Not my fault, not yours. Maybe your genetics', but no one is at fault as this one, too.

I apologize for being regarded as offensive as I have no intention to from very beginning.

I does. As people who will not do it right will not let their offspring survive and/or reproduce due to either physical or psychological traumas rendering them useless in society. This is how men get filtered every day, you know?
Of course, when we talk about society, we get much more additional factors including upbringing and finances.

And of course, being a good professional and being intelligent is not always the same thing. It isn't even often the same thing, as skill is not experience is not knowledge. The may overlap and may not.

And I forgot to define the intelligence I mean ability to create causal associations, making them complex and deep, and apply these associations to the problems.

Most humans (I don't even mention women, even thought vast majority of them is includes as well) do no ever use this heavy, slow, resource-demanding apparatus of association, logic and reasoning. Normal people don't have a habit of asking themselves "What the hell am I doing and why?". They just look at the problem and automatically, without even involving their consciousness, do the thing they see fit the most to solve the problem. It's called "field behaviour". All good professionals, except scientists, do that. Wh? Because that's faster and cheaper with result being the same in most cases.

That's why majority of people are not intelligent: there is next to no need for intelligence in everyday life. The only acts that required intelligence except science were navigation (after a hunt, either successful or not) back homwe and the act of hunting, killing, murdering someone.
It's only later we first required priests to tell us when do we start and end working in the fields, etc. And only priests were doing that, and no one more. Fun fact: despite daughters of pharaohs having pompous titles about being married to gods, no woman has ever set a foot into a temple during the time of Egyptian supremacy. They were not welcome by the gods as they were too down to earth, too practical.

The facts aren't sexist because facts are facts, they don't have human qualities. 

Also, you are not offering facts to us here. You are offering anatomical facts and then applying your own views to the facts, for example "generally have more muscle tissue, better quality of that tissue and better innervation of it. That is due to anabolic effect of testosterone which prepares man for explosive use of brute force in times of hunting. Yes, men are more muscular for the sake of killing someone with less strikes than average"

The fact part of this: Men generally have more muscle tissue (partially due to the increased testosterone levels, there are other reasons too).
The opinion part of this: This prepares man for explosive use of brute force in times of hunting, for the sake of killing someone with less strikes than average.

There is no evidence that the increased strength of males is for use in hunting, nor that it is for killing people. If we take the animal kingdom as an example, it's far more likely that the only reason for increased male strength is to physically compete with each other to try and impress a mate. Now if we take almost any society that we know about through the whole of recorded history (if you find a counter-example, i'd be interested to read about it as I know of none), males no longer have to physically compete against each other for mating rights, thus males increased physical strength is a biological throwback that we now use for a totally different purpose. 

On to the sexism part: Regardless of any average attribute of a given gender, if you don't provide equal opportunities for them because of their gender you are being sexist.

So it's pretty clear from above that is why you are being sexist. I anticipate that you might disagree that what you think amounts to sexism, because it's not unequal to treat people differently because they have different attributes. But this is not correct, because you are still treating an individual by an average, which removes their agency completely from your decision [for an example of this, you may say "only men can be firefighters because they need them to be X strong and women are way less likely to have X strength than men are", then while it is maybe true that people who have X strength are at a ratio of 1000:1 male:female, you should still allow females to be firefighters so long as they are X strong, otherwise you are being sexist.]

Scientific certainties and observations about genetic factors that affect personality and propensity towards certain aspects aren't exactly synonymous or congruous with opinion; that's just reality. It's tough to separate the two sometimes because we allow emotion and civility to override logic; and that's kind of what morealsworth is getting at. It's clearly not an attempt at sexism when you remove emotive response, as (he?) makes statements about gender and race that are observable and can be reproduced in scientific method.

There are always exceptions to the rule because of environmental factors, intellectual and emotional education, our amazing abilities to adapt and override our innate genetic instinct.

Of course, he does sort of invalidate some of his statements by poisoning them with a bit of bias.

When and where did I not provide equal opportunities for men and women? It is history and evolution that didn't, and I never said that it changes anything for us. Though I do say that if you demand the same intelligence from both sexes, you would be unfair to both.

One of main problems in modern education is that girls' nervous system grows during and after the growth spurt is delayed compared to boys' by about one year, so putting girls and boys of the same age through the same classes would either no give girls the time to properly understand the meaning of processes described and will force them to just memorize the whole thing without understanding, or will give boys not enough stimuli for their prefrontal associative cortex, delaying their growth, or even both.

As such, doing so will be NOT providing the same opportunity to both sexes.

Now if we DO provide the result required by making separate math programs for different sexes by changing ages of teaching, we would be called sexist instead, contradicting your definition entirely.

It just means the boys were sacrificed. The most popular move, by the way, damaging their love for studying by providing more opportunities to the slowest.

Also, it wouldn't be alike.

I actually agree with a fair bit of your viewpoint; it invariably comes down to the individual and not thier "pee pee parts".
Whether male or female stays home while thier partner works (if they have one) is fairly irrelivant - especially in the case of most of "modern" civil societies today, with a few acceptions due to religious and political influences.
That said, (in no way attempting to derail or invalidate your point), from what I've read and heard, from a scientific standpoint, is that typically men and women process information and environmental factors in sometimes subtly different ways, that we may or may not be conscious of, and sometimes in very noticeable and observable ways. This however is again subjective from individual to individual, and is in no way shows a true measure of overall intellectual (or physical) superiority; people are far to varied and remarkable to be catagorized and sorted in this way. The point I was trying to make is that there is a fair amount of proven evidence in reference that supoorts both genetic and environmental factors directing our decisions and choices, and our overall life outcome, more so than we realize (gender is but one among a mmultitude of factors); and to discard that would be denying rationality and logic over to emotion. Take the phenomena of identical twins - despite many similarities they can become vastly different people. Or look at split-parent homes; whom the child is mainly raised by (exposed to) may determine many differences to some degree; my parents are divored and I often wonder who I'd be had they remained married, or if my father had main custody instead of my mother. All this has nothing to do with being sexist, but to deny gender isn't a factor is illogical - and can possibly be construed as being as gender-biased as well. It's an eternal discussion, really, because of the human-factor of injecting emotional self (personality, the Id, and Ego) into rational observation, thereby skewing our perception (bias). We all do it, I'm probably doing it now, but that's also part of what makes us so infathomably fascinating and amazing. I am not trying to sway you or change your mind about it - your viewpoint is yours and I agree that the commandments presented appear to be very sexist and biased, and need to be reexamined (which apparently has happened). I honestly can't think of any other way to present that particular set of "gender commandments" without seeming sexist, sonI'm curious to see what they've come up with.

I may have rambled on a bit and not made my point well; I have a tendancy to do that. I blame my disorganized male frontal cortext and testosterone ladden medulla. ;p