I haven’t read Gina Rippon’s book, but having watched her on YouTube (the RI talk), I’m a bit concerned about her message and surprised she is so favourably referred to in FWR.
After a lot of interesting discussion in the talk about brain plasticity and permeability, the social and educational environment, and the shortcomings of neuroimaging, she seems suddenly to leap to the conclusion that there is probably no such thing as sex at all, or not really much in terms of biological sex distinctions, and that instead of dividing ourselves into men and women, we just need to see ourselves as individuals, for unspecified purposes (sport? changing rooms? prisons?)
I suspect that she may have just meant this to apply to brains, not biological sex generally, since (a) nothing whatsoever in her talk about brain function justified dismissing the concepts of biological sex in terms of chromosomes, genitalia and reproductive function, and (b) she was also clearly interested in comparative male/female achievement data, and let’s face it if there is no such thing as biological sex this can’t be measured.
But this was not at all clear : and in fact she seems at a couple of points to nod favourably to ideas that there are no biological sex differences in terms of chromosomes or genitalia.
I think this is probably why she’s being pushed by the Guardian: that she is providing an argument that strongly militates against dividing people by biological sex in any capacity, including sports and changing rooms. So now I’m loath to buy her book. Has anyone else had the same reaction to her? Is this the conclusion of her book, also? Or was it just a case of a poorly concluded talk?