for you more sciencey types to read

[PassiveAgressiveQueen]

www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/

I havent read it so cant give a summary

It all seems rather inconclusive doesn't it. Lots of ifs and maybes.

It's quite an old article and as ubik said there are a lot of ifs and maybes.
This is a lot more recent and convincing.

The study posted in the OP has a tiny number of subjects, is flawed methodologically and isn't borne out by a meta analysis of studies.

Still interesting though.

Have you read Delusions of Gender? After reading that I've read 'brain scans say X' reports with far more scepticism!

i was thinking the only brains they can do these scans on are newborn baby brains, as our brain grows and changes with everything we see/hear/feel, so they can not say if any differences are real or environmental in an adult.

I'm not a scientist - but there are a few things about that report that don't convince me that the findings are significant too.

I'm interested in your choice of mn board for this topic! I don't see transsexual issues per se as a feminist matter.

Looks around for a MN science board!

The categorising of female and male brains is a feminist issue. I believed the report would be bunkum but as it was in new scientist i presumed it would be harder to de-bunk.

why different brain types is a feminist issue:
"you are a woman your brain is pink and fluffy inside, it explains why you can't drive or do techy stuff you see"

Ah yes I see what you mean. Sorry for a sloppy post. It's not the categorising of brains, it's the transgender topic that I'm objecting to classifying as a feminist concern.

My understanding is that male and female babies' brains are much more similar than was expected before scanning became possible. Differences in maths ability, multitasking (how convenient for men that women are supposedly sooo much better at multitasking) according to my admittedly limited knowledge are now thought to be largely a product of cultural influences - which of course will alter the developing brain.

Tbh there has been so much talk about transgender recently that I feel a bit turned off by the whole subject. Well, that and the cases of mtf trans who look male demanding access to women only spaces and the whole business of relabeling in a way that defines women out of existence.

there has, but it was only by reading some of the threads that made me feel it was ok to not like how (some) mtf are trampling all over us.
I knew i didn't like the idea that being female was a feeling and it seemed to involve dresses and LOTS of makeup.

Some interesting articles.

welsh I didn't actually know people thought that women's hypothalumus (hypothalumuses - no idea what the plural is ) is bigger than men's.
Interesting stuff.

The transgender threads have been an eye-opener to me too.

The media is full of it - Caitlyn Jenner, a documentary series about children categorised as transgender - with the mtf rejoicing in princess,sparkly,pink clothes of course, the news item about a transgender woman being moved from a male to a female prison, 'no-platforming' of academic women for their views on transgenderism......

I believed the report would be bunkum but as it was in new scientist i presumed it would be harder to de-bunk

The New Scientist is pretty much the Daily Mail of science journalism. In fact I'm sure the mainstream media get all their science news straight from NS.

They report on the more sensational research. Not necessarily the soundest or best science, but the stuff that will sell copies. It's a good read to get a general overview of what's happening in the science world, but the articles are only ever a journalists version of the science. And it's unusual for a journalist to have any science background.

As with all science "news", you need to go back to the original research to make any informed decision on whether it stands up to scrutiny.

oh, that is depressing about new scientist.

As with all science "news", you need to go back to the original research to make any informed decision on whether it stands up to scrutiny

I do agree with this but I think you are being really unfair on NewScientist there.
The point about them picking exciting topics is valid - they are a magazine after all. But I think most of their journals are scientists.

Science needs to be made accessible, you can't expect everyone to read the full article of every scientific topic thet may have a passing interest in.