A new study out of the United Kingdom is sure to ruffle some feathers in snowflake land, as it makes a solid case for why gender is not – I repeat, not – a so-called "social construct," as many far left-leaning liberals like to pretend it is.
John A. Barry from University College London's Institute for Women's Health evaluated 16 separate studies published between the years of 1980 and 2016, which included 787 boys and 813 girls, all of whom ranged in age from one to eight. The purpose of these studies was to identify whether or not boys and girls naturally choose gender-specific toys innately, or if they're taught such by their parents and society at large.
After accounting for various factors like the presence of an adult, the setting, and the gender norms of the countries where these children lived, Barry found that, generally speaking, boys naturally like boy things, and girls naturally like girl things.
Just a few short decades ago, we wouldn't have needed a study to declare such a thing, as most members of society had not yet been exposed to the toxic ideologies of leftist gender neutralism. But in today's world, it's apparently necessary to have science tell the world what it should already know: that boys are biologically different from girls.
"There is a fashion today to say that gender is purely a social construct," Barry stated about his research, which was published in a recent issued of the journal Infant and Child Development. "In reality, gendered behaviour is a mix of biology and social influence."
Irony: Claiming that boys are exactly like girls is an absolute social construct
What makes this study truly amazing is that it came out of what some might consider to be a left-leaning university – and from its women's studies department, no less. In no uncertain terms, Barry makes it clear that from a biological standpoint, boys still like things like cars and trucks, while girls like dresses and tea parties.
This is a generalization, of course. But it certainly gets the point – a scientific point, just to be clear. No matter how much modern-day feminists would prefer that everyone be sex-less and androgynous, nothing could be more unscientific. In fact, nothing could be more of a social construct as far as gender is concerned.
And that's the true irony in all this. While social justice warriors (SJWs) march through the streets demanding equality and claiming that there are hundreds of genders, science is clear that there are only two genders. The real social construct here is the idea that fringe extremists can simply declare the opposite to be true and demand that everyone abide by it like some kind of state-mandated religion.
"For some people the topic of gender difference in toy choice is controversial, because they passionately believe that such gender differences should not exist," says Barry.
But that's just it: What someone believes should exist may not align with what actually exists. And in this case, what actually exists are just two genders: male and female.
Sure, there are various outside influences such as chemical endocrine-disruptors that are apparently causing more people than ever before to question their genders. But this doesn't change biology, which at its untainted core is the same as it's always been.
"Research into gender differences often attracts criticism which seems to be based on the moral judgement that biological bases for sex differences are somehow harmful to society," Barry concludes. "As scientists, and as members of the public who value truth over opinion, we need to move beyond moralistic arguments about facts and instead use the facts in beneficial ways."
Follow more news on gender issues at Gender.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.