A wonderful blog, FairerScience.org, has brought us this delightful piece on our innate biological womanliness.
...last winter, the Times Online published an editorial by Anjana Ahuja suggesting that little girls' preference for "pink fluff" is a biologically determined feature of girlhood.
Perhaps Ahuja is not aware that this premise is not universally supported:
There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.
[Ladies Home Journal, June, 1918]
The mere fact that some feature of gender difference exists now is not proof that it is biologically determined or some neutrally-valued "natural" state.
The same point can be made with regards to more serious suggestion of gender difference, like that of Larry Summers two winters ago. The fact that there is a measurable gender difference in, for example, high-end scientific achievement tells us nothing about the inevitability of that difference, much less its source
Long-time readers know just how I feel about Larry Summers's comments on women and math ability.
Do take a look at FairerScience.org; it's very cool.
