all 7 comments

[–]jkfinn 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One lesser disturbing point in this review is the reference to Soh as writing pieces for Playboy. The more disturbing point is Soh’s positing of both sex and gender as biological (what!!) So, what does "The End of Gender" of the title mean? Does it mean the end of socially constructed gender? It does: “Fact: Gender, too, ‘both with regard to identity and expression,’ is biology-based and therefore binary. ‘It is not a social construct, nor is it divided from anatomy or sexual orientation.’”

You talk about biological determinism. This is what you call not-messing-around or a gut punch. And it’s the reverse of gender abolition. Maybe Soh’s Playboy pieces are not at all out of line with her politics. Is she a conservative feminist? I mean biological determinism is absolutely critical in upholding women’s (and black’s) inferiority. And it erases culture, history, oppression, class, and sexual and racial politics.

[–]Sun_bear 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This review claims the book says gender is innate and male brains are fundamentally different to female brains, I was under the impression this had been comprehensively debunked, can any scientists on here weigh in?

[–]GConly 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

this had been comprehensively debunk

A few publishing researchers take this view (Joel et al), and that paper gets published on this sub pretty repetitively. It's had some criticism because other researchers looked at the same data and found even using her pretty limited criteria you could still ID the sex in most cases. And it went up to about 92% looking at a whole brain MRI.

In their PNAS article, Joel et al. (1) demonstrate extensive overlap between the distributions of females and males for many brain characteristics, measured across multiple neuroimaging modalities and datasets. They pose two requirements for categorizing brains into distinct male/female classes: (i) gender differences should appear as dimorphic form differences between male and female brains, and (ii) there should be internal consistency in the degree of “maleness–femaleness” of different elements within a single brain. Based on these criteria, the authors convincingly establish that there is little evidence for this strict sexually dimorphic view of human brains, counter to the popular lay conception of a “male” and “female” brain. This finding has broad implications not only for the ontology of gender, but also for the statistical treatment of sex in morphometric analyses. Critically, however, the conclusion that human brains cannot be categorized into two distinct classes depends largely on the level of analysis. Although the set of properties that distinguish one category from another is rich and flexible, there is rarely a diagnostic form (e.g., what singular physical characteristic reliably distinguishes cats from dogs?) and there is often substantial within-category variability (e.g., breeds of dogs) (2). The failure of the brain to meet these two requirements does not mean that “human brains cannot be categorized into two distinct classes: male brain/female brain.” In fact, an individual’s biological sex can be classified with extremely high accuracy by considering the brain mosaic as a whole. To demonstrate this, we acquired T1-weighted structural MRI scans for 1,566 individuals, aged 19–35 y (57.7% female), from the freely available Brain Genomics Superstruct Project (3). Cortical thickness and subcortical volume estimates were calculated using the FreeSurfer automatic segmentation algorithm (v5.3; surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki). First, 400 subjects were retained as a held-out validation set. Next, penalized logistic regression [elastic net (4, 5)] was used to predict the sex of each individual based on their mosaic, or pattern, of morphometric brain data. Within the training set (n = 1,166), a regression model was built using three repeats of 10-fold cross-validation. The model was then used, without modification, to predict the sex of each individual in the held-out sample. Classification accuracy was extremely high [accuracy: 93%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 89.5–94.9%, P < 10−16] and remained significant if head-size-related measurements were excluded [92% (CI 88.9–94.5%), P < 10−16] or regressed out [70% (CI 65.0–74.2%), P < 10−6]. To borrow the framing of Joel et al. (1), the human brain may be a mosaic, but it is one with predictable patterns. Despite the absence of dimorphic differences and lack of internal consistency observed by Joel et al. (1), multivariate analyses of whole-brain patterns in brain morphometry can reliably discriminate sex. These two results are not mutually inconsistent. We wholly agree that a strict dichotomy between male/female brains does not exist, but this does not diminish or negate the importance of considering statistical differences between the sexes (e.g., including sex as a covariate in morphometric analyses).

I can tell you the intermediate brains were quite gender non conforming from other research (usually gay).

More criticism.

Joel et al.'s method systematically fails to detect large, consistent sex differences

The problem is I could pull up several hundred papers looking at sex differences in the human brain, and every single researcher looking at gender dysphoria accepts that there's a difference in average male and female brains. Joel is in a small minority, but she gets pushed here as the standard paradigm in this discussion. In order to understand and use the recent MRI research we need to accept the majority paradigm.

Leaving aside MRI studies, there are epigenetic differences between male and female brains too. I know that it's standard here to claim these are down to social environment, but you can observe differences appearing in animal models at the fetal stage and you can see they are already largely present in human newborns. You can see adult sex hormones make differences in development too, which is why studies in the brains of the trans need to be done on those who haven't been taking hormones.

My 2c.

[–]Stormweather 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

From what I've read about her, she is a staunch conservative and the furthest thing of being a feminist (she likes Ben Shapiro, for god's sake!). If you look at her twitter and instagram account, you'll see that she panders mostly to men. That's a definitive red flag for me. And like Sun-bear said, wasn't the theory of the "female brain" debunked? Isn't that the main critique point of Radfems regarding TRAs and their stereotyping of gender?

[–]Cicerosolo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

On Joe Rogan she defined herself as an American liberal and on the left wing

[–]jet199 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People worrying about her saying gender is innate need to look at how she is defining gender. She's basically talking about a small handful of behaviours which are pretty consistently spread across men and women in all different cultures across the globe, not the whole set of social rules, costume and stereotypes which vary by culture that most people in social sciences would refer to as gender.