OP disabled reblogs on the post soon after my reblog pointing out that women are statistically much better than men at separating reality from fiction but not without hitting me with this banger of a reply (second screenshot)
Firstly the ostensibly progressive 'queer' crowd using the word 'weird' as an insult is the purest form of satire, absolute gold
As for the actual point in question...Nowhere did I say 'inherently capable' or 'biologically capable', and if op had asked me where that difference in capabilities comes from my answer would be SOCIALIZATION (as would be any radfem's answer, as op would know if they actually had a look at what radfems believe instead of parroting the nonsense about biological essentialism)
It is curious, however, how often the 'queer' crowd takes any statistical observations about the differences between male and female behavior to be statements of biology (it's almost like, in spite of their professed leftist progressiveness, they haven't actually engaged with any classical left-wing analysis that deals with social structures and class)
And then the next gold nugget of satire, of course — reducing female biology to the 'c*nt' (something that the progressive crowd keeps accusing radfems of doing)
If the superior female capacity for separating fiction from reality were actually biological (which it isn't), it would be an emergent function of her DNA* and thus be stored in pretty much every cell of her body
*footnote for the DNA nerds out there: I'm not implying that DNA could have a separate 'critical thinking' gene or set thereof, but rather that a very large set of genes coding for much simpler things, some possibly completely unrelated to the process of cognition, would end up in symbiosis creating such a capacity. But this is a purely theoretical exercise since, as mentioned previously, the (most significant part of) this capacity comes from socialization**
**footnote for my inner stickler: just like with most things in anthropology, interpersonal differences in the skill of separating fiction from reality are likely mediated by biology as well as socialization, but on statistically significant scales the aspect of socialization seems to come forth as dominating. And in the patriarchy it would be futile to try to conduct studies on whether this difference might have a statistically significant biological component since socialization starts even before a child is born, is ubiquitous and there's no way to filter it out post factum)
