On 2005-03-21, David Nusinow penned: > > I'm not even going to begin to touch the NYT article directly, as it makes > my stomache churn. The findings have interesting implications for sexual > dimorphisms, and perhaps more importantly differences between individuals. > In no way though, does this imply that women are genetically superior to > men. I give the NYT article a big "Troll" rating.
Thanks for the alternate point of view. The article "smelled" iffy to me, but I don't have the biology background to evaluate it myself. FWIW, I never read it as seriously suggesting that women are "better" -- just that they might exhibit a wider range of behaviors across the board. Is that plausible? My first thought, actually, was that these studies could possibly indicate that medical research for women should involve a wider sampling, or be taken with a bigger grain of salt, or something. I could imagine that these genetic differences might relate to differences in the risk for certain diseases or tolerance for certain drugs. -- monique Ask smart questions, get good answers: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
