Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Myth of pink brain blue brain

83 replies

Thelilywhite · 27/07/2017 21:37

I was pleased to see this posted from the let toys be toys campaign. It's easy to read and I think useful in our gender critical arguments. I've been away and not up to speed on individual threads so thought it better to make a new one.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
geekaMaxima · 30/07/2017 16:36

Can this have an explanation for transgenderism or the notion of a gendered brain?

This response might be long, sorry, but bear with me. I'm walking a line between precision and brevity Grin

There are sex differences in human brains at the molecular level (as well as at the macro level or size and structure), plus sex differences in susceptibility to disease, mental illness, addiction, etc., and it's a hot topic in research right now to pin down the epigenetic mechanism of these differences. As ever, these are only mean differences (males as a group differ from females as a group) but some of the effect sizes are quite large.

Epigenetics govern huge parts of brain development. All human (and mammal) brains are heading for a female phenotype until hormonal signals from the fetal testes begin to "masculinise" the brain in the time around birth by switching on various genes (and switching off others) concerned with neural development. For the last couple of months of full-term human pregnancy, and the first couple of months of newborn life, a baby boy's brain is developing differently from a baby girl's at both micro and macro level. A good indicator that these changes are epigenetic (rather than driven purely by genes) is Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, an intersex disorder where XY males are insensitive to male hormones and so their brains never undergo masculinisation: these babies have XY genotype but an XX brain phenotype due to lack of epigenetic change. Bear in mind that even though we talk about masculinised and feminised brains, it's still just average differences: there is immensely more that is similar than different, and it's a spectrum from highly masculinised to highly feminise. It's also not necessarily masculinisation or feminisation of behaviour, just of structure and not across all the parts of the brain equally: only of specific structures, to varying extents.

From this point onwards, most of the research is in mice and rats rather than humans so its applicability is unclear - similar mechanisms are likely to apply to humans, but probably not in exactly the same way. Experiments have shown that when you disrupt brain masculinisation in newborn male rats by chemically switching off relevant genes, so their brains become feminised, they don't show male sexual behaviours (like mounting females) as adults. If you artificially masculinise brains of newborn female rats by switching genes on (or by giving them male hormones), they show male sexual behaviours as adults. You can also somewhat masculinise the brains of older female rats, after the critical newborn period, by switching on the genes but not by simply giving them male hormones. Overall, it looks like male and female rodent brains are bipotential - they can become either epigenetically masculinised or feminised by hormone exposure in a critical period around birth. Once this period is over, there is some fine-tuning possible (perhaps in the hormonal rush of puberty?) but the work of neural sex differentiation is normally fixed shortly after birth.

But enough about rodents. What about gendered brains in humans? In my view, I think it's theoretically likely - but by no means definite - that some human behaviours are similarly epigenetic, but it's more likely to be the instinctual ones that have analogues in other mammals. For instance, stereotypical female nurturing might be due to two waves of epigenetic factors - hormonal brain feminisation around birth that means genes regarding nurturing are switched on and waiting for a trigger, and/or intensive exposure to an infant that acts as a trigger to produce nurturing behaviour. Since it's all probabilistic, it means that some women are not particularly nurturing because their brains weren't highly feminised as a newborn and so the relevant genes are only partially switched on and/or they haven't spent enough time around infants to trigger the behaviour. Likewise, some men are highly nurturing because their brains weren't highly masculinised as a newborn and so the relevant genes are partially switched on and/or they spent intensive periods with infants and so triggered nurturing behaviour. This is just an example I'm making up! There's no evidence for this kind of thing in humans, but it's an example of what's theoretically possible.

As for transgenderism, there's no evidence there either. Some researchers with clear agendas have written about the epigenetic basis of trans identity like it's accepted fact but it most certainly isn't. Masculinisation or feminisation of brain structure says absolutely nothing about gender identity and it's massive overinterpretation to claim that it does. Rodents don't have gender identities and that's where most of the evidence base comes from... At a stretch, it's possible that brain masculinisation or feminisation could set the stage for certain behavioural preferences that are then reinforced. For example, higher levels of male hormones in young children and masculinised brain structure can predict greater preferences for rough and tumble play - if this behaviour is socially reinforced in boys but suppressed in girls, then suddenly perfectly natural variation in child behaviour becomes dichotomised into boy and girl roles. And being constantly told, implicitly or explicitly, that your behaviour is wrong for your sex can't be good for any child's developing sense of self.

One thing I would say that's strongly indicated from animal research is that cross-sex hormones in adulthood (or anytime after the newborn period) cannot completely feminise a male brain or masculinise a female one. While the hormones themselves will have certain effects, the critical window is long closed for them to bring about epigenetic change. Male brains stay masculinised, female brains stay feminised, unless something much more radical than cross-sex hormones are used to alter gene expression.

It's also the case that the "female brain in a male body" narrative doesn't make much sense in terms of neuroepigenetic research. Once a fetus develops male genitalia, its testes will release hormones to masculinise the brain to a greater or lesser extent. If the male hormones aren't released or don't work, you have an intersex condition, which is an entirely different kettle of fish to what counts as trans now. In the absence of intersex conditions, male brains are masculinised, female brains are feminised. Most of the job is done by the age of 2 months, but it might be completed at puberty. Very speculatively, I do wonder if the potential epigenetic fine-tuning at puberty is what leads to desistance in gender dysphoric children.

BeyondDrinksAndKnowsThings · 29/07/2017 13:31

The epigenetics revolution is a great book on the subject. Weirdly enough it was recommended to me here by cote, on a trans thread ages ago Grin

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00JFVOLZK/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1&tag=mumsnetforum-21

Datun · 29/07/2017 12:20

OK, thanks geekaMaxima. Fascinating stuff.

geekaMaxima · 29/07/2017 11:20

Datun Things are a bit manic today but I'll put together a proper reply later. The quick answer is sort of, maybe, but it's not straightforward. Confused

Datun · 29/07/2017 00:34

geekaMaxima

Thanks for the explanation. Can this have an explanation for transgenderism or the notion of a gendered brain?

claritytobeclear · 28/07/2017 14:41

Just a turn of phrase, geeka. I am not sure there is such a neat split between what is cultural and what is physiological, either. Brain injury can have a huge impact upon language development for example.

geekaMaxima · 28/07/2017 14:36

clarity Yes, you did talk about gene expression but it was the phrasing that environment can "alter biology" that I was referring to. I meant that other people often misinterpret biology as genetics, not that I thought you did.

The Piraha stuff on number (plus related work on spatial and colour judgements) is interesting but it's linguistic/cultural rather than epigenetics.

claritytobeclear · 28/07/2017 13:57

Thoughts change nothing, but the actions and behaviours we perform as a result of those thoughts do have the capacity to change gene expression

I thought I read some study in neuroscience that showed a link to brain structure, thought patterns and speaking type therapies. But, as usual, I read widely but forget the sources, hey ho.

There are some interesting studies into language development across different societies and beliefs. A study of the Piraha people and their capacity for learning number concepts I found particularly interesting.

claritytobeclear · 28/07/2017 13:51

However, it's open to misunderstanding to say environment affects biology because it makes it sound like the genetic make-up itself changes (I've heard people argue this point).

I thought I was careful to talk about 'gene expression' rather than 'changing genetics', geeka but understand how this could have been lost (through my writing style).

claritytobeclear · 28/07/2017 13:49

However I prefer to think that even if epigenetics show genetic predispositions are environmentally made then surely they can be unmade iyswim. I find the alternative too depressing to contemplate.

I totally agree with that Thelily. I like to think of the way we can empower ourselves through knowledge of Epigenetics and prevent undesirable gene expressions.

geekaMaxima · 28/07/2017 13:04

Glad it helped, lily Smile

I'm a STEM academic in a related area so I'm familiar with a lot of this stuff. And don't get me started on the monkey studies mentioned earlier... HmmGrin

Thelilywhite · 28/07/2017 12:57

Thanks Geeka Im struggling to understand as biology was never my thing but your explanation has really helped.

OP posts:
geekaMaxima · 28/07/2017 12:49

Well, environment, not just your own behaviour, generally, can alter your biology. Certain genes are switched on or off depending on environmental factors. This genetic state can be passed from parent to child. Our thought patterns, responses, decisions made, can affect our gene expression.

Well, no, not quite. Epigenetics refers to selective environmental switch-on/off of the expression of certain genes. Genetics and environment interact to alter phenotype, which does include behaviour but also appearance, susceptibility to disease, etc.

However, it's open to misunderstanding to say environment affects biology because it makes it sound like the genetic make-up itself changes (I've heard people argue this point). Environment doesn't change genetics, but it can change how a body (and therefore a brain) develops.

It's also overstating the case by quite a bit to say that thought patterns, decisions, etc. affect gene expression. Thoughts change nothing, but the actions and behaviours we perform as a result of those thoughts do have the capacity to change gene expression but only on a probabilistic basis. It's not a case of doing that behaviour = changing gene expression, just that is increases the chance of gene switch on/off happening, which increases the chance of a certain phenotype appearing. For instance, say I carry a gene that, if expressed, increases my chance of lung cancer by 300%. The gene is currently switched off, but it could switch on anytime. If I take up smoking, it increases the chance that this gene will be switched on by 50%. So I might develop lung cancer even if this gene remains switched off, but I might not develop it even if it gets switched on. Epigenetics just means that smoking changes the odds.

The hereditary part is fascinating, though. For example, famine conditions in the Netherlands after ww2 increased the chance of babies being born smaller than average. That is, environmental conditions altered uterine environment - so far so standard, nothing epigenetic there. The reason we know that it did bring about change in gene expression is that those small babies also had an increased chance having smaller than average babies. Genes related to growing babies were switched in/off in fetuses in the 40s, and the expression of these genes was observed in the 60s-70s when average birth weight stayed lower than expected despite excellent nutrition.

Datun · 28/07/2017 12:35

Thelilywhite

Ok. Great, thanks.

Thelilywhite · 28/07/2017 12:32

Datun
Im just ploughing through some stuff. When iv got my head around it I will try and give you some.

OP posts:
Datun · 28/07/2017 12:22

However I prefer to think that even if epigenetics show genetic predispositions are environmentally made

Can someone give me some examples of this?

Thelilywhite · 28/07/2017 12:06

Sorry folks ,didn't mean to post and run. I've just caught up and enjoyed reading your responses.
mostly Iv not read pink brain blue brain will add to my list! Am familiar with Cordelia Fines work though.
clarity I agree that recent advances in brain plasticity studies complicates matters. However I prefer to think that even if epigenetics show genetic predispositions are environmentally made then surely they can be unmade iyswim. I find the alternative too depressing to contemplate.

OP posts:
claritytobeclear · 28/07/2017 11:54

But it seems to be that behaviour can profoundly alter not just your brain, but perhaps your biology too?

Datun
Well, environment, not just your own behaviour, generally, can alter your biology. Certain genes are switched on or off depending on environmental factors. This genetic state can be passed from parent to child. Our thought patterns, responses, decisions made, can affect our gene expression. Meaning we can be predisposed to certain characteristic behaviours. Although these behaviours do not have to be a pre requisite. Genetic features are often meta stable, in other words.

Could the stereotype of middle-class, dictate the behaviour of the fans? Reigning in their baser desire for a spot of tribal confrontation?

Quite possibly. But this could change if the stereotype were to be challenged.

Datun · 28/07/2017 11:45

claritytobeclear

To be honest, I was pretty certain you were English!

It's quite hard to tell someone can you please be a bit clearer without sounding like you're having a go.

I've just been thinking about all this a little more. I don't know what epigenetics is, despite googling it.

But it seems to be that behaviour can profoundly alter not just your brain, but perhaps your biology too?

I could easily have got that wrong.

But to follow my thinking. It's quite well-known that local violence escalates after a football match, both street and domestic. Football hooliganism. It can't be because of what they have been watching, otherwise you would get tennis hooliganism, athletics violence etc.

So it must be in the tribal nature of the opposing fans.

Except you don't get it with rugby.

Traditionally an amateur game, played by the middle classes.

Could the stereotype of middle-class, dictate the behaviour of the fans? Reigning in their baser desire for a spot of tribal confrontation?

NoLoveofMine · 28/07/2017 11:33

They enter the world of sexism and their determination to have a stem career gradual erodes.

I've read of this happening as well, it's a regressive cycle as this in turn leads to the next generation of women experiencing similar and attitudes that these careers aren't for them being perpetuated. Some firms are fighting against this - at school we've had women come in to give talks who are excelling in STEM fields and doing a lot of work to improve representation, plus Crossrail in London has a good number of women working on it - a third, which although it's a shame this seems good, is something when compared to national figures. www.crossrail.co.uk/careers/engineer-your-future

claritytobeclear · 28/07/2017 11:31

And I am English. From the north. My family have lived here for centuries.

claritytobeclear · 28/07/2017 11:30

Datun that is funny. I have a degree in English language and linguistics! I know my writing can read a little densely though. Too many ideas to put into one sentence! I used to get a lot of my work proofread. A lot of this involved shorter sentences! Oops.

Datun · 28/07/2017 11:27

claritytobeclear

I don't wish to be rude, but may I ask whether English is your first language?

Perhaps it's the way you express yourself, but I sometimes struggle to complete infer your meaning.

I think it might help, if when you make a statement you give an example of it?

Not criticism at all, but I can see that you have thought deeply about things and I imagine you goal is to effectively convey your conclusion.

claritytobeclear · 28/07/2017 11:24

Sorry, I'll stop bothering you with stupid questions.

No bother, Assassinated, I'm really just finding my feet too. These issues are very complex.

claritytobeclear · 28/07/2017 11:21

Do we all think that choices reinforce gender stereotypes?

I think it depends how individualistic or rebellious we are. And how sustainable this is. If we are raising a generation of individualists but that is not sustainable then, perhaps, they are just falling back on and referencing traditional stereotypes because their own generational community does not have cohesive enough values.

But generally, yes, to the question.