How Evolution Explains Sex Differences ... Or Not

Linked  Video Title: "How Evolution Explains Sex Differences"

I'm not going to waste a minute of my time watching this video -- the title alone, plus the fact that Gad Saad is an "evolutionary psychologist" (*), is all I need to know to know that the video is a waste of time and intellect.

But, in case you, Gentle Reader, are still intimidated by the asserted authority of the religionists of evolutionism, consider this:
1) definitionally, "evolution" operates only on genes, or more precisely, on gene expression;
2) thus, if "evolution" is to explain sex differences amongst human beings, there must be some important and enduring genetic difference between the sexes upon which "evolution" has acted over the eons, and the expression of which genes greatly influences the generally observable differing behavior and preferences of men and women;
3) but, in point of fact, due to the very mechanisms of sexual reproduction, the genetic differences between men and women are limited to a paucity of genes on the Y-Chromosome;
4) THUS, "evolution" cannot explain sex differences in humans.

(*) Straight psychology is lame and sketchy enough all on its own, but turn it into "evolutionary psychology" and you have a "science" without a subject of study.

How Evolution Explains Sex Differences - Gad Saad | Maiden Mother Matriarch 43

EDIT (2025/03/24):

Concerning "evolutionary truths between men and women" @7:00 mark --

If there are "evolutionary truths between men and women" (that is, if evolutionary psychology is anything other than Just-So bullshittery), then those "truths" -- to *be* evolutionary -- must be encoded in the DNA. YET, the genetic difference between men and women is limit to a handful of genes on the Y-chromosome; and the Y-chromosome does in fact, engage in "cross-over" (or "recombination") with a corresponding region on the X-chromosome (*).

The genetic difference between a man and a women is very a slender reed, indeed, upon which to build a metaphysic.

(*) That is, strictly speaking, it is not true that a man receives his Y-chromosome unchanged (absent mutation) from his father.

The Rise, Peak (& Fall?) of Petersonism

Oh, the Humanity!

Oh, the irony!

Shadow to Light: Evolutionary Psychology Caught in the Cross-Fire-- "Along comes PZ Myers, making the argument that you don’t have to be an expert in evolutionary psychology to critique and dismiss evolutionary psychology. Yes, PZ Myers makes that very argument."

In case Gentle Reader does not immediately catch the irony -- and why should you, for what should you know or care who either PZ Myers or Rebecca Watson are -- in some other context, say, you or me criticizing either atheism or Darwinism and rejecting either on the grounds of their self-contradictions and other illogic, good ol' PZ would be singing out the other side of his mouth.

As far as it goes

One of those "gamers" who claims to be a Christian: Debasing marriage -- There are more ways to lie, to deceive others (or oneself), than simply to say what is not-true. And, in fact, the "best" lies, the ones that most successfully deceive their audience, are those which say nothing that is in itself false.

What this 'Dalrock' always seems to forget to mention is that men created and promoted and cheered-on and empowered 'feminism' and the so-called Sexual Revolution. And it wasn't *just* the ivory-tower leftists who did this; Joe Average -- the very same Joe Average who is now bitching about the wholly predictable result -- was also willingly complicit, and continues to be, in the training up of whole generations of American women to be disposable tramps, to be nothing more than sterile masturbatory aids to his passing whims.

These "manosphere" whingers are forever bitching because "there are no good women left to marry" -- by "good" they mean both "hot" and "chaste" (*) -- even as they assert for themselves the need and the (moral) right to "test drive" any women they are "dating", so as to ensure that they are "sexually compatible", before actually maybe thinking about marrying her, someday, if the creeks don't rise.

In other words, they don't want to marry one woman and limit their sexual expression to her alone: they want unfettered and indiscriminate access to one of the benefits of marriage, without any of the concomitant costs or commitments.

Even before the term "dating" came to almost always mean "engaging in pre-marital sex with", "dating" wasn't about marriage -- the word for that is 'courting'. Even in the supposedly more innocent 1950s, the most innocent meaning "dating" ever had was "let's 'hang out' and see what happens" ... as though it hasn't been very well known, since about the beginning of time, what happens when men and women, not married to one another, "hang out".

(*) But "hotness" and "chastity" are polar opposites.


Edit:

In case Gentle Reader has not yet understood why I go on about the damnable hypocrisy of the "gamers" of the "manosphere" (*), consider this short post by 'Dalrock': Mentu’s moving vasectomy post ... and especially the "moving" post to which the title refers: Vasectomy Part 1.

(*) I mean, even aside from the fact that "game" is intentionally constructed on a false, and indeed wholly imaginary, anthropology: "evolutionary psychology".