Because one comment has never contained so much truth.

They can also process boobs if they’d like to

Their bed nucleus of the stria terminalis should be twice as large as a woman’s, and that’s what guided their gender identities. Not that I’m a biological determinist, just a strict physicalist with no belief in metaphysical choice superceding determinism, but a lot of times the brain’s development has recursive feedback loops such that smaller choices early on can alter the size of brain structures along with sex hormones and the development environment in the womb or even outside of it for a while, the earlier the more significant. All I know is that the size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis is pretty consistently twice the size in men as it is in women regardless of the gender assigned at birth.

So what i’m hearing is that i should attach all items my husband regulalrly loses track of to a moving object to play into his sight strengths. Basket on the ceiling fan it is

No, it’s because women are smart enough to look under shit and we men are not. 90% of the time I ask my partner if she knows where something is, she asks if I looked under x, and about half the time it is, in fact, under x.

Goddamend nature and all these bugs disguised as features!

Then how do they disappear from the dryer?

Hey, I am more complex than that!

And toast, and crunch!

Yes, absolutely. But as I said, it’s probably not as clear cut as whether you’re XX or XY, because there are other factors that can also impact hormone levels and sensitivity to hormones

If only some men used those neurons to read

My wife (presenting me with three identical carpet samples): “Do you like grey with a hint of blue, grey with a hint of pink or grey with a hint of yellow?”

Me: “Trick question?”

I thought he was referring to more frequent color blindness in males

I’ve heard that women have more cones in their eyes as well, which leads to a more nuanced sense of differentiation between colors.

My two eyes see slightly different color. Noticed this years ago when looking at a florescent ceiling light with my eyes relaxed such that I was seeing a double image. The two images of the light were a slightly different color.

I’m a dude.

it’s essentially an excessive over simplification of something that’s not perfectly accurate, that’s the problem.

While it would apply to hunting, when you’re talking about something like visual acuity, it’s super broad in the applications that it’s useful in. Even things such as not falling over would be beneficially influenced by better visual acuity. You could argue that men just stopped falling over and dying as frequently, leading to evolutionary selection over time, but that’s probably not super accurate lol.

I was thinking it was more to do with dancing

You’re thinking of Homo Groovensis, the famous hunter dancerers.

hmm, that’s definitely interesting.

Usually the way to identify if its about hunting/war or not is to find the exceptions and links: do hunters that perform really, really well have 3x the visual cortex neurons? Is it a socialization thing where doing certain tasks results in higher brain differentiation?

yeah, this is why i think it’s more of a secondary adaptation, as opposed to something directly evolving from the needs of hunting for example. Something like this is generally broad, and generally applied, usually. So i would think the cause would as well.

One thing that i thought of was a nightwatch position, the heightened visual acuity would be highly valuable in a low visibility environment. So maybe it’s something like co-evolution? Where females developed more accurate color perception, while males developed more accurate movement perception.

we’re probably thinking too hard about it, and it’s probably just evolution trolling us and giving us the best of both worlds because we are in fact a socialized species. So this could stem from our social aspect, not directly, but the benefit of it in a social aspect is vastly more impactful, leading to more socialization, and further development of this adaptation.

Women do prefer men who show attention to detail. It’s why men’s attire meant to look good, often contains buckles, buttons and pins that give it a slight touch of detail.

It is possible for someone with two X chromosomes to still be colorblind, but since this gene is recessice you have to have the mutation on both chromosomes, which makes it way more rare.

You pretty much nailed it

It’s not really a backup X. In any given cell in a woman’s body, one of the X chromosomes has been inactivated into something called a Barr body. The remaining X chromosome is then the active one.

Women carriers of the gene defect for protan (causing protanopia in males) exhibit Schmidt’s Sign, an abnormal insensitivity to long wavelengths (red light). This is due to the highly skewed L:M cone ratio caused by the defective gene.

I know a colorblind XX person. But he’s a trans man, so make of that what you will.

At the very least it makes a good exercise in questioning facts to make sure you are not coming to faulty conclusions by misunderstanding.

deleted by creator

Could be as simple as humans get so many neurons and need to allocate them across total set of stuff needed for life.

Women need to devote a good % of those to pregnancy mode, while men just have normal mode.

Therefore some functions may have to deal with reduced neuron allocations, because the ‘missing’ ones are required elsewhere.

Obviously a simplification of things, but with only one way of needing to be men optimize to a different configuration with a different allocation of neurons to match.