The neuroscientist shattering the myth of the gendered brain

[DancelikeEmmaGoldman]

“Neuroscientist Gina Rippon has been ruffling some feathers with her research that is shattering the myth of the gendered brain.

Her work reveals how brains reflect the life they have lived, not the sex of their owners. And that there is no consistent evidence that shows fundamental differences between the brains of men and women. In other words, there is no such thing as the male or female brain.”

“So there is no consistent part of the brain or network we have currently been able to measure that establishes whether a brain is from a man or a woman. That’s the key thing that surprises people because they assume differences are there.”

“The type of games you play will change your brain. We know that from judo and juggling to violin and keyboard playing. By definition, moving the body differently according to the demands of the skill you are acquiring will change the brain. So not playing football will have a direct effect on the brain. But making sure we are doing the right things to stay part of our social group is also an important driver.

“Our brains are gathering the rules of behaviour and if those rules are gendered, then our brains will make us gendered.

“It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some research may find differences, but then you say, ‘have you looked at the education level of those participants, have they been at school for the same amount of time, have you looked at the sports they play or their occupation?’ To which the answer is always ‘no’. So how do you know what you are finding is a sex difference and not an excludence difference.”

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/whats-on/amp/the-neuroscientist-shattering-the-myth-of-the-gendered-brain-9086242/?fbclid=IwAR1hvQ5pz71elbRfv0sgCxZ-4zt0HhjrdzH4pA5ms0ZkuCZQzSYfAc5JVtc&__twitter_impression=true

Finally a study proves something that seems blindingly obvious anyway.

Her book The Gendered Brain is really interesting.

why are 90+% of women attracted to men, and why are 90+% of men attracted to women?

Is that a section in the book?

why are 90+% of women attracted to men, and why are 90+% of men attracted to women?

Presumably to ensure the continuation of the human race.

Presumably to ensure the continuation of the human race.

of course. so is that a difference between brains, or is it a result of a choice that we're attracted to members of the opposite sex?

Genitals and hormones. Suggest read the book, I don't believe it denies biology.

Genitals and hormones

So TRAs are right after all. Having genitals removed and taking cross section hormones irradiates any (biological) difference?

So TRAs are right after all. Having genitals removed and taking cross section hormones irradiates any (biological) difference?

Shouldn’t imagine so. Testosterone causes a number of permanent changes to other parts of the body. Likely it causes changes in the brain as well, whether they’re visible on MRI or not. The removal may not reverse those changes, but might create a different pathway altogether.

why are 90+% of women attracted to men, and why are 90+% of men attracted to women?

The book doesn't really cover that, nor why men have higher rates of crime etc. which I would have found interesting but is outside the scope of the book.

It's more about how women have been discriminated against for a long time and the ladybrain was used as a justification (it is smaller and therefore must be inferior!) but women can do just as well as men on things like spatial awareness etc.

Women's performance on complex tasks is badly affected if they are told that it is something that women can struggle with, or IIRC even if you tell them that it's something that women normally do better than men because it reminds them that they are a woman (this is one of the reasons I will always be against announcing my she/her pronouns in my email signature etc).

Gina Rippon work is very interesting. Our brains are plastic and respond to the outside world which is why black cab drivers who have spent years doing ‘the knowledge’ of the layout of London streets show visible differences in the area of their brain that desks with that type of processing. Girls are given dolls to play with, boys meccano and this is why boys develop better viseo spatial skills. She was on TV a little while ago working with primary school
Children showing that girls could improve their viseo spatial skills and boys their ability to verbalise their emotions through exercises and toys designed to stimulate that part of the brain. All very positive.

of course. so is that a difference between brains, or is it a result of a choice that we're attracted to members of the opposite sex?

There has to be some difference.....especially as a result of hormones. They are pretty powerful substances. So, maybe not much structural difference, but in response patterns.......

Surely arguably the fact that 90% of us are attracted to the opposite sex is a similarity between males and females, not a difference.

So TRAs are right after all. Having genitals removed and taking cross section hormones irradiates any (biological) difference?

Biological differences are never really eradicated by cross sex hormones, but it is clear that hormones do have an impact on mood & sex drive, amongst other things.

When watching 'Freddie' the 'father' give birth - it was quite obvious that the powerful birthing/post-birth hormones kicked in big time - as Freddie bonded with the baby. that is why it was so disturbing that Freddie then decided they wanted to go back on testosterone, straight away. Freddie was clearly feeling very maternal and soft and vulnerable - and didn't like this.

Genitals and hormones strongly determine sexual attraction I understand. Making artificial genitals is kind of irrelevant?

In 2001 our team at Cambridge published what is still the only study of sex differences in 24-hour-old newborns. We showed babies a human face, or an object, to gauge what took their interest. While many babies showed no preference, more boys looked longer at the object and more girls looked longer at the human face. At 24 hours old, these babies could not possibly have been influenced by cultural expectations of what boys or girls ought to be interested in.
This has been debunked - surely it requires replication studies to be taken seriously, but hey it's SBC's work so it must be right.

We showed babies a human face, or an object, to gauge what took their interest. While many babies showed no preference, more boys looked longer at the object and more girls looked longer at the human face.

I wrote about this study on another thread last year.

The results of this test (whether a child had a preference for looking at a face or a mobile) for boys were 25.0% face, 43.2% mobile and 31.8% no preference. For girls 36.2% face, 17.2% mobile and 46.6% no preference.

So if a baby preferred looking at a mobile, it is more likely to be a boy than a girl, but a fair number of girls also had this preference. If a baby preferred to look at a face or had no preference, it is more likely to be a girl, but you could not be anywhere near certain of this.

If you took the results of tests from one baby at random, you would not be able to tell from its preferences whether it was a boy or a girl.

Also, with only 102 babies in the study (44 boys, 58 girls), I'm not sure of the statistical significance of the results.

Sex differences in human neonatal social perception

SBC appears to be trying to hang on to his beloved, but outdated, gendered brain research.

This is a reasoned debate between two academics using evidence to attempt to back up their arguments. Perhaps Baron-Cohen will find a flaw in Rippon's theory leading it to be modified. Or vice versa. That is how theory progresses.

Neither has called the other a bigot, or accused them of wanting people to die.

How refreshing.

I tend to agree with Cohen that Rippon is taking a fairly far out view compared to other scientists and the point that its about populations we should be thinking about is important.

Probably because, like me, she’s a child of the Sixties. If all differences are cultural, we can change to make society more equal. I am passionate for an equal society too. But our political beliefs — however sincerely held — should never make us selective when it comes to science."

I also tend to agree with this. I don't think there is any value in preferring Rippon's argument just because we like the idea that men and women are identical apart from their genitalia and what hormones they happen to have in them. Believing it won't make that social engineering possible if its not true.

I have the book.

of course. so is that a difference between brains, or is it a result of a choice that we're attracted to members of the opposite sex?

She's doesn't deny there are physical structures in a female or male brain sexed brain that are distinct to the sex of their owners. Such as a female pituitary gland v a male one. Those structures remain in all trans people as they are chromosomally developed in the womb. But the parts of the brain that are malleable and might be distinguished on a scan, eg, a mathematician v an artist are not linked to sex.

She uses the phrase "a gendered environment creates a gendered brain."

She describes how much early gender stereotypes impact choices, games, hobbies etc of children and so also academic and professional achievements.

There is individual free will of course. And different character traits result in individuals being more or less bothered by what their peers do.

This is (I believe) fundamentally why there are a high number of trans identifying people with autism; they are often less interested in being the same as their peers or are less influenced by social peer groups.

The majority of young children who don't have autism start to be bothered about what peers think of them at a young age, as well as the differences between the gender stereotypes, and where they fit in.

The book does also discuss a range of things such as hormones in utero. It's all very complex.

She also makes the point as others have that there's more variation in terms of brains within a sex than between the sexes.

So you'll have a very "stereotypically" female brain (what ever the hell that is) at either end of a "spectrum" of men and women as well as a very stereotypically Male brain at the other end of both spectrums.

It doesn't mean that there's accidentally been a brain popped in the wrong body. Society is the issue; by being so very gender/sex stereotypical. Miranda Yardley links to a very interesting essay on his site, a world where gender is truly defunct and only biological sex is noted. Reading it makes you realise how impossible it would be to ever get there; the human race is really stereotypical.

GR and SBC have had at least one public debate on all this. SBC doesn't see how his theory is really bloody negatively stereotyped and consequently harms people with asd as it ignores a great number of people with autism who don't fit his mould, of both sexes.

Just an extra note: Stereotyping is a normal early childhood method of learning about the world; children rely on it as they develop their understanding of categories, labelling and verbal reasoning.

If you look at the Blanks development of verbal reasoning, you see how 'neurotypical' children rely on concrete examples of things, some till age four. It progresses slowly through to more abstract concepts to age 6 or even 7.

Categorising (and so verbal reasoning) is also an area that children with autism struggle with (central coherence theory) as they struggle with nuance and small differences within a broad category (eg, different types of dog, different restaurants as part of a chain).

Probably not explaining well but this is another way in which a child can be confused by stereotypes and their own interests and their own sex if living in a very rigidly gender stereotypical environment.

Not sure if the link works

bso.bradford.gov.uk/userfiles/file/Special%20Educational%20Needs/LEVELS%20OF%20QUESTIONING.doc

(Sorry I've gone a bit war and peace on you all there )