The Gendered Brain caused by biosocial straitjackets

[NeurotrashWarrior]

Thought easier to do a new post; this is a really good summary of Gina Rippon's new book on the neurosexism in brain research or how it's been interpreted.

(I'm still not sure if she's made it to radio 4 yet!)

Two key paragraphs for me:

Cultural paths
So if it’s not brain hard-wiring, how do we explain the often stark differences in behaviour and interests between men and women? Here is where we get to Rippon’s thesis on the impact of a gendered world on the human brain. She builds her case in four loosely defined parts, from the sordid history of sex-difference research through modern brain-imaging methods, the emergence of social cognitive neuroscience and the surprisingly weak evidence for brain sex differences in newborns. Rippon shows how children’s “cerebral sponges” probably differentiate thanks to the starkly pink-versus-blue cultures in which they are soaked from the moment of prenatal sex reveal.
....

Whatever the subtitle, the book accomplishes its goal of debunking the concept of a gendered brain. The brain is no more gendered than the liver or kidneys or heart. Towards the end, Rippon flirts with the implications of this finding for the growing number of people transitioning or living between current binary gender categories. But for now, she concludes, most of us remain strapped in the “biosocial straitjackets” that divert a basically unisex brain down one culturally gendered pathway or another.

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x

"The brain is no more gendered than the liver or kidneys or heart."

"It is well known that males are larger, have longer limbs, a larger rib cage with larger organs like heart and lungs, bigger hands ..."
fairplayforwomen.com/tw_in_sports/

Ah very true, good spot. I don't know if that's her or the article's phrase.

The brain is larger in males as well isn't it

Having said that its just bigger which would be a sex difference not a 'gender' one

Well my book has arrived and yes the comparison with kidneys is the articles' phrase not hers.

It's 4cm thick so it'll take a while but I've already spotted a truck load of myths smashed, including the whole 4th digit finger length stuff and the bit on why she thinks Baron Cohen's Gendered Brain idea was misplaced. Lots on hormones, a few bits on autism, adhd etc. She's been called a 'grumpy old harridan' and 'post menopausal affirmative action loser;' I wouldn't be surprised if she likes hanging out with us vipers too.

Don't stare too long at the front cover; it makes reading it a tad tricky.

You can get big or small brains in either sex apparently. Not linked to IQ either.

neuro

Yeah

I reckon my brain is bigger than dh

Buuuuuutttttt i read that it was based on size

And men as a class are bigger than women as a class

Hence my generalising

And surely that must follow for kidneys....maybe not lungs

Ive no idea really

Wheres bowl, i feel i need bowl

Or you to read the book quickly...

I’m waiting for my copy having read the Observer article. I think she is going to debate at the Roual Institution and will appear on Radio 4 soon.

I'm pretty sure that Fine debunked the idea that bigger brains are directly related to greater intelligence in her book.

I mean, just on a common sense level, men have bigger heads too so are their brains larger in relation to their bodies or are they just larger all round? I think it's the latter, isn't it?

And we know very well that bigger animals aren't necessarily more intelligent than smaller animals, unless you think a sperm whale could outsmart you.

Cordelia Fine Delusions of Gender’ is great too. She shows that on a whole range of attributes considered both ‘male’ and ‘female’ the differences between same sex individuals is much greater than the difference between the averages of male and female. Even those averages will he influenced by the different worlds males and females have grown up in. Ultimately we are all individuals and she points out that if she put down clusters of characteristics describing a person we would not be able to tell if the individual was male or female. This is of course obvious - I am more ambitious and driven, less empathic and caring than many men I know. Yet I am still, happily, a woman. Gender Identity is really Gender Stereotype - something invented by human societies with an underlying assumption that all men have the same ‘male’’ characteristics and all women have the same ‘female’ characteristics. But of course we don’t we are all individuals.

I read most of Testosterone Rex; can't remember much detail though I need to revisit it.

Reviews on the back by Cordelia Fine, Angela Saini (Inferior - not read that one) and Dr Emily Grossman, a broadcaster.

From skims, Rippon really emphasises how very young children are affected by a gendered environment and are also aware of basic anatomy differences between the sexes.

unless you think a sperm whale could outsmart you

Have you read some of the posts on mumsnet??

But yeah i agree that bigger doesn't mean more intelligent

I'd heard of a small study regarding autism and early brain size (large) I think this is it. As usual though, a small phenotype. Can't generalise.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28239961/

Ultimately we are all individuals and she points out that if she put down clusters of characteristics describing a person we would not be able to tell if the individual was male or female.

So there is no justification for separate sports competitions for males and females?

It's about the brain, not the body.

Is your brain separate from your body??

I guess if you identify as an alien

crsacre the brain and body might be on average different sizes - this affects sport in the case of the bodies - but his doesn't not lead to people having an innate "gender". It means that people have a sex. Gender is constructed socially (based on perceived sex). If somebody does not fit what society/they see as the stereotype for their sex then they sometimes perceive themselves as having a different "gender" because they don't fit sex stereotypes. This, however, does not make them a different sex. It just means that they have correctly identified the stupidity of sex stereotypes. Hurray for them! It all goes a bit wrong though when those same people are encouraged to think that if they don't fit the stereotypes they must be in the wrong body. Everybody is in the right body in the sense that there is no right and wrong body. Gender, which is based on sex stereotypes from a young age, makes us think that gender and sex are the same. They are not. Gender is a lie. Sex is a neutral fact.

While I believe there always has been gender stereotypes, some based on sex women have babies, men don't. Men are bigger and stronger.

However many female stereotype barriers were broken down during WW2. Women who'd have been SAHM's used the state nurseries and went to work. While the men were away, women were doing traditionally male roles. At the same time they wore 'male' clothing jeans / dungarees.

I'm not sure when Enid Blyton wrote Famous Five, but George was the tomboy, and Anne the girlie girl. So it was accepted then that not all girls were into pink fluffy unicorns. Many young girls had George as their heroine.
I don't think there ever has been a George equivalent for boys ie an girlish boy in a book.

Maybe Billy Elliot is as close as we come to a male George.

Before the 90s toys were toys particularly young childrens stuff came in bright basic colours. Even dolls clearly aimed at girls were multicoloured, Sindys jeep was yellow and tent blue.
Since the 90's things started to appear gendered basic bright (sometimes blue / green) targeted at boys and pink/ purple targeted at girls. Barbie took over Sindy and everything became very pink.

I used to think it was a pure marketing thing, aimed at making it more difficult for families with different sex children to pass toys and to a certain extent clothing down. Now I'm not so sure.

However at no point in time has it been widely accepted for males to be wearing skirts / dresses. The way women can wear jeans (or waist high overalls to a certain generation).

STEM subjects are trying hard to attract girls. Are they being put off because its seen a male so if you like it you must be transmale?

Are there traditionally female sectors trying to attract males?

I certainly believe we need to break down gender stereotypes. For both boys and girls sakes.

I don't think there ever has been a George equivalent for boys ie an girlish boy in a book.

Through My skimming of the book, I did see Rippon pointing this out.

Which has been my thoughts for a long time since I had my own boys.

Insert Gloria Steinem quote that I cant find but found this instead:

'It’s important for girls not to internalize a sense of passivity or inferiority or second-classness, and for boys not to internalize a sense of having to be stronger or superior or in control. What helps the most is for boys to be raised to raise children. I don’t have children, but I was raised to raise children—to be empathetic and pay attention to detail and be patient. Boys are often raised that way, but not often enough.'

www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/3-questions-gloria-steinem/

Steinem “I’m glad we’ve begun to raise our daughters more like our sons, but it will never work until we raise our sons more like our daughters.”

Found another useful article
www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/upshot/how-to-raise-a-feminist-son.html

Just reading your post again, Ed, I think you're very right.

crsacre Is it really so difficult to understand that just because men and women have some things in common doesn't mean that they also have no differences?

Eg. men and women have different reproductive organs, but the makeup of our skin is (as far as I'm aware) the same.

In the same way it is possible for our brains to be more similar than different, but our pelvic structure, hormone levels etc to be different.