Published on 12, July, 2020
I can't stand stereotypes and do not wish to be defined by my condition. I would rather people saw me as an individual with strengths and weaknesses, some of which can be explained by me having Asperger's syndrome, rather than defining me by a label. This is why I can't stand the word 'aspie'. While having Aspergers is an important part of my identity, it is no more important than me being female, no more important than my sexuality or my age. I would hate it if someone did not see past me being a woman or past my age, why is having aspergers any different? The disability movement campaigned for disability to be seen not as an individual affliction or difference, to move beyond individualising disability and to see it as a societal problem: people with disabilities should campaign collectively to change society, making it imperative to see the person before the disability. I am a person with asperger's syndrome, not an aspie. I share traits that other people with AS may have, but I don't share all the traits, just enough to have aspergers. We are all different, to say I am an aspie suggests conformity with other 'aspies' and obliterates the part of me that defies easy categorization.
http://www.livescience.com/4085-emotional-wiring-men-women.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/spatial_tests.shtml for but two articles.
I'd post proper scientific papers, but I don't have access to those kinds of repositories, and I suspect neither do you (but if you do, then I suggest you pull up the research for yourself).
There are also studies that demonstrate women and men process pain differently, as well as other studies that clearly demonstrate many other hard-wired psychological differences.
You're responding emotionally Hope, which is fine, but don't confuse what you 'like' with what is 'true'.
And, this is not to say that men or women are better or worse then each other, or that there is not a large overlap in psychological profiles.
Difference does not infer value, in fact, the only things we all, and all things in nature, have in common are that we are all utterly unique, and ultimately worthless.
But that uniqueness does not preclude similarity and the possiblity of grouping individual entities into type groups based on their shared properties.
Oh, and I believe the 'black athelets' thing is an urban myth - there were never any such studies done, it's was pure speculation based on the appearence of there being a high number of top-class black athletes (which I believe is also not true).
And there is no "what it is to be human" there is only "what you believe it is to be human". We are not 'special' and there is no 'meaning', 'purpose', or 'essence' to being human.
This does not reduce us all to being identical, far from it, it brings us closer to our true nature - unique, and individual, but interconnected, patterns of energy - as unique and important as any rock, tree, apple, or rabbit.