Well the universality thing is really a very weak argument. The brain is quite universal, but it still is specialized, for example for image processing. It is a finite resource, you only have so many neurons in a brain, and only can train them on so many tasks. So it probably makes sense to devote more neurons to some tasks than to another.
Of course you may ask, when is it decided what specialization is chosen, genetically or by nurturing. Clearly we can learn and specialize on things through nurturing, but some things we are also born with, for example a language instinct. So I don't think your argument is an argument at all.
I don't know if you are a woman or a man, but one thing I notice is that women can always tell me what everybody else is talking about in a cafe. I can only concentrate on the woman I am talking to, and blank out all the other people in the room. Maybe it is a personal deficit of mine (bad hearing or whatever), but I could imagine it is a women thing (broader attention). Just an example.
Apes do image processing too; that is from a time before intelligence.
The meaning of one's mind being born specialized is that either it's incapable of some functions (not universal), or it's pre-loaded with enough complexity to make some functions easier and others harder. And further, the claim has to go on to say that we don't put layers of abstraction over this and do whatever we want anyway, low level complexity be damned. Do you have an argument this is the case?
You give language instinct as an example. So, do you have any argument that our DNA contains knowledge to facilitate language in particular? But perhaps more importantly, an argument that this is done differently for different people, in such a way as to cause differences in adult personalities?
As far as I know it has always been the case that people developed a language. For example there are cases where children had been raised in total isolation from society, and they developed their own language (I think even single children). So it seems to me it is fairly certain that something in the brain makes it develop a language.
Your "image processing is not intelligence" again refutes itself: so you admit that there are some things in which brains might differ. Surely, even if some parts of the brain are universal, the ultimate development must depend on the inputs available. For example, no humans have ultrasonic "vision" like bats, because they lack the respective organs. It follows that it is possible for brains to be different, depending on the body that provides the sensory inputs.
Also, it is not clear in my opinion that apes are not intelligent.
Btw. I am still not claiming that women can not be good at maths - of course they can be, there are many examples.
I guess I am not even claiming that the difference between men and women with respect to founding startups is not cultural. But I am claiming that the culture is not arbitrary, but has evolved because of the biological preconditions. Not arbitrary means it can not simply be explained by "repression through men".
As far as I know it has always been the case that people developed a language. For example there are cases where children had been raised in total isolation from society, and they developed their own language (I think even single children). So it seems to me it is fairly certain that something in the brain makes it develop a language.
That does not follow. For example, maybe they developed language because it's very useful.
@image processing: There are things inside brains which can/do differ, the issue is what effect this has on adult minds. And personality in particular. For example, how does the difference survive layers of being interpreted to remain a difference in adults personalities?
@ "repression through men" -- My position is that culture is largely transmitted, unintentionally, through behavior of parents. Further, mothers appear to have more influence over children than fathers. And female friends appear to influence young females more than their male friends. And I think the same sorts of things are done to both male and female children, just differently.
"And female friends appear to influence young females more than their male friends. "
Well if you believe that, then you admit that there is a difference between men and women (within your kind of logic).
Of course nurturing has an effect, but the fact remains that men and women are different and have to face different challenges in life. It is not only the 9 months of pregnancy - yes, men could stay at home after pregnancy (now that we have breast pumps for the milk). But there are still several other differences, as I explained elsewhere, not the least the problem of finding a mate to begin with. It is a completely different challenge for men and for women, simply because women can only have a few children, whereas men can have thousands of children in theory. So women have to be more selective etc. Again just one example, but in the sum things like that end up evoking behavioral differences.
If all behavioral differences were only the result of nurturing, then why are there no more random variations? Why are there not more societies where all boys behave like girls in our western world, and vice versa? If boys and girls really were equal except for the nurturing and their visible difference, then we should see such variations, because if a society with our boy/girl pattern is stable then the reverse would be equally stable.
Edit: I think you yourself mentioned tomboys, so there are people with reversed roles. Therefore, all else being equal, whole islands of societies should develop where roles are mirrored (because apparently the reverse strategy is being evaluated on a regular basis - so if it would be equally successful, it should from time to time become dominant). But they apparently don't develop.
I said from the outset that our culture treats men and women differently. That includes, among many other things, what gender of friends they are encouraged to have as young children.
Why aren't there more variations in culture on Earth? First, there is a lot of shared culture across a lot of the Earth, like Abrahamic religions. Second, perhaps the logic of the situation (e.g. men being stronger) lent itself to certain simple gender roles. If so, that isn't why they still exist today in any form. Third, the general logic of memes can create common points across cultures. Fourth, Earth is a small sample size.
You yourself mentioned the tomboys. Therefore nature is obviously capable of still evaluating new strategies, even under the tyranny of culture. Therefore it needs explaining why none of those strategies ever reached a significant mass, if their efficiency is the same as the existing ones.
Of course you may ask, when is it decided what specialization is chosen, genetically or by nurturing. Clearly we can learn and specialize on things through nurturing, but some things we are also born with, for example a language instinct. So I don't think your argument is an argument at all.
I don't know if you are a woman or a man, but one thing I notice is that women can always tell me what everybody else is talking about in a cafe. I can only concentrate on the woman I am talking to, and blank out all the other people in the room. Maybe it is a personal deficit of mine (bad hearing or whatever), but I could imagine it is a women thing (broader attention). Just an example.