“Male psychology is deeply affected by inability to ever be pregnant, which makes it essentially different from female psychology” is false
That argument I would object to. There are probably differences in average male and female psychologies which have a causal history related to the ability to become pregnant—even ‘creepiness’ instincts are probably somewhat related. But that isn’t the same thing as pregnancy directly meaning the female and male psychologies different through knowing about pregnancy.
Hm. So, I would object to the line you quote, but mostly because I don’t have a clue what “essentially different” means. On the other hand, something like “Differences in how men and women get pregnant, and knowledge of and experiences that depend on those differences, is a significant source of between-group variance in the behavior of men and women” doesn’t strike me as objectionable at all. I mean, it might turn out to be false, but it seems to me a plausible belief in advance of experimental confirmation/rejection.
That argument I would object to. There are probably differences in average male and female psychologies which have a causal history related to the ability to become pregnant—even ‘creepiness’ instincts are probably somewhat related. But that isn’t the same thing as pregnancy directly meaning the female and male psychologies different through knowing about pregnancy.
Hm.
So, I would object to the line you quote, but mostly because I don’t have a clue what “essentially different” means.
On the other hand, something like “Differences in how men and women get pregnant, and knowledge of and experiences that depend on those differences, is a significant source of between-group variance in the behavior of men and women” doesn’t strike me as objectionable at all. I mean, it might turn out to be false, but it seems to me a plausible belief in advance of experimental confirmation/rejection.
I’m not sure if we disagree on this.