1. Hyde, position: Gender similarities hypothesis: men and women are very similar on most (not
all) psychological variables. Meta-analysis: 78% of gender differences are small or close to 0.
→ there are many costs to thinking in differences, stereotypes, etc.
2. Eagly: she wrote the review of nature vs. nurture debate, position somewhat unclear. Probably
in essence, that there should be more integrated models integrating both nature and nurture
explanations and how these interact.
3. Reilly, position: Gender similarities hypothesis ignores lack of teachers, role models, and
other issues for certain genders. Small gender differences can still be very important. Boys for
example less good at learning how to read, write, spell. Intention gender similarities
hypothesis was to promote equality, but it has however obscured some of the research done on
gender differences. Best to see gender as a continuous variable: more about degree of
masculinity and femininity. Both the two are not highly correlated, someone can score high on
both (androgynous).
4. Kuyper, position: her paper was needed, as is stated in it as well. She would however change
2 things: the sample size (larger and not only online) and the way they defined gender
ambivalent identities (she would consider the strength of gender identity as well).
Hyde & Delamater paper:
→ Intersectionality: approach that simultaneously considers the consequences of
multiple group memberships, e.g. the intersection of gender and ethnicity.
→ gender-socialization (the ways in which society conveys to the individual its norms or
expectations for their -gender-typical- behavior).
→ differences exist, but are quite specific. Think of aggressiveness (males>females), risk-
taking/impulsivity (m>f), communication style (f>m, for self-disclosure), sexuality (m>f,
masturbation, casual sex attitudes, pornography use, arousal to erotica, orgasm gap, sex
drive).
→ Differences can be explained by different factors: ‘bogus conditions’ for expectation
effects, biological factors (anatomy, hormones -which is debatable), cultural factors
(double standard, gender roles, marital/family roles, body image), others (pregnancy,
ineffective techniques female stimulation, masturbation incidence differences, erotic
dependency of females on males).
-- Gender dysphoria: distress is central, prejudice is common (can be reduces by perspective-taking of
the group), social transition (living out the gender identity, being supported) → better outcomes, only
20% of children → GD as adult (explained by self-report overestimation, or underestimation due to
prevalence based on GD seeking treatment).
Petersen & Hyde paper:
→ Theoretical frameworks gender differences in sexuality:
1) Evolutionary psychology (incl. sexual strategies theory), result of evolution, different
strategies for genetic success;
2) Cognitive social learning theory, learning through observation, analyzing, modelling,
also through media;
3) Social structural theory, result of differences in division of labor/power & status;
4) Gender similarities hypothesis.
Vanwesenbeek paper:
→ Problems with sex-research:
- Gender vs. sex (problematic, definitions are used as if it’s the same, but are not);
- Gender and sexuality (gender is mostly seen as preceding and determining of sexuality; the
relationship between gender and heterosexuality is tight and reciprocal; patterned fluidity);
all) psychological variables. Meta-analysis: 78% of gender differences are small or close to 0.
→ there are many costs to thinking in differences, stereotypes, etc.
2. Eagly: she wrote the review of nature vs. nurture debate, position somewhat unclear. Probably
in essence, that there should be more integrated models integrating both nature and nurture
explanations and how these interact.
3. Reilly, position: Gender similarities hypothesis ignores lack of teachers, role models, and
other issues for certain genders. Small gender differences can still be very important. Boys for
example less good at learning how to read, write, spell. Intention gender similarities
hypothesis was to promote equality, but it has however obscured some of the research done on
gender differences. Best to see gender as a continuous variable: more about degree of
masculinity and femininity. Both the two are not highly correlated, someone can score high on
both (androgynous).
4. Kuyper, position: her paper was needed, as is stated in it as well. She would however change
2 things: the sample size (larger and not only online) and the way they defined gender
ambivalent identities (she would consider the strength of gender identity as well).
Hyde & Delamater paper:
→ Intersectionality: approach that simultaneously considers the consequences of
multiple group memberships, e.g. the intersection of gender and ethnicity.
→ gender-socialization (the ways in which society conveys to the individual its norms or
expectations for their -gender-typical- behavior).
→ differences exist, but are quite specific. Think of aggressiveness (males>females), risk-
taking/impulsivity (m>f), communication style (f>m, for self-disclosure), sexuality (m>f,
masturbation, casual sex attitudes, pornography use, arousal to erotica, orgasm gap, sex
drive).
→ Differences can be explained by different factors: ‘bogus conditions’ for expectation
effects, biological factors (anatomy, hormones -which is debatable), cultural factors
(double standard, gender roles, marital/family roles, body image), others (pregnancy,
ineffective techniques female stimulation, masturbation incidence differences, erotic
dependency of females on males).
-- Gender dysphoria: distress is central, prejudice is common (can be reduces by perspective-taking of
the group), social transition (living out the gender identity, being supported) → better outcomes, only
20% of children → GD as adult (explained by self-report overestimation, or underestimation due to
prevalence based on GD seeking treatment).
Petersen & Hyde paper:
→ Theoretical frameworks gender differences in sexuality:
1) Evolutionary psychology (incl. sexual strategies theory), result of evolution, different
strategies for genetic success;
2) Cognitive social learning theory, learning through observation, analyzing, modelling,
also through media;
3) Social structural theory, result of differences in division of labor/power & status;
4) Gender similarities hypothesis.
Vanwesenbeek paper:
→ Problems with sex-research:
- Gender vs. sex (problematic, definitions are used as if it’s the same, but are not);
- Gender and sexuality (gender is mostly seen as preceding and determining of sexuality; the
relationship between gender and heterosexuality is tight and reciprocal; patterned fluidity);
