Sexing the Brain: The Science and Pseudoscience of Sex Differences

Abstract

A recent upsurge in unitary biological explanations for gender differences in behavior (i.e. that they are "hard-wired" in the genetic code), put forward not only in books written for a general audience but also in scientific papers, makes it important to examine the fallacies of these ideas. Such genetic and hormonal explanations of human behavior, formulated with little consideration of the influences of experience, and often without taking experience into account at all, are part of a new wave of genetic explanations for a broad range of human behavior, as explained in the paper. These ideas are far from new; moreover, they are pseudoscientific and are used for political influence under the guise of science. They are a conservative social force that maintains social and educational inequalities between women and men. This paper explains that causal explanations of differences between the sexes are of two completely different types: unitary (genetic determinist) versus interactive explanations. The false reasoning used to support genetic determinist explanations of sex differences in behavior is discussed. To illustrate what biology really tells us about gender differentiation, the paper discusses the interactive roles of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences on the development of gender differences. These interactions are illustrated using two model biological systems (e.g. the intertwined influences of genes, sex hormones and experience on the development of sex differences in behavior in rats, and sex differences in neuronal connections in chickens). There is plenty of scientific evidence to show the complex interactive, and ever changing, influences of experience and genes that take place as an organism develops and throughout its life. Malleability of brain and behavior can be shown clearly using animal models, and the processes involved apply also to the development of brain and behavior in humans. We diminish our understanding of the functions of a host of contributing factors to gender differentiation by parceling out the largest portion of control to the genes. The biology and behavior of humans is dynamic and flexible and need not restrict women to inferior positions in society.

The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism and the Potential Adverse Effects for Boys and Girls with Autism

“…Some of these problems are of a decidedly empirical nature. 3 The kind of evidence Baron-Cohen offers in support of cognitive and behavioural differences between the sexes has been long contested in the literature (Caplan and Caplan 1999;Fausto-Sterling 1985Fine 2010a;Jordan-Young 2010;Rogers 2010). Without taking into account the social and regional factors that inform how girls and boys are socialized within their respective natal units-writ large to include extended family and community networks-or their greater social contexts in which actions and character traits acquire meaning and significance (Kitayama and Cohen 2010), Baron-Cohen's presentation of behavioural, cognitive, or affective sex differences is profoundly misleading (Rogers 2010;Yoder and Kahn 2003).…”

“…3 The kind of evidence Baron-Cohen offers in support of cognitive and behavioural differences between the sexes has been long contested in the literature (Caplan and Caplan 1999;Fausto-Sterling 1985Fine 2010a;Jordan-Young 2010;Rogers 2010). Without taking into account the social and regional factors that inform how girls and boys are socialized within their respective natal units-writ large to include extended family and community networks-or their greater social contexts in which actions and character traits acquire meaning and significance (Kitayama and Cohen 2010), Baron-Cohen's presentation of behavioural, cognitive, or affective sex differences is profoundly misleading (Rogers 2010;Yoder and Kahn 2003). There simply is no substantive reason for thinking that males are biologically constituted 4 to excel in areas that require aptitudes in abstract reasoning (i.e., systemizing acumen) or that females are biologically constituted to excel in areas that require aptitudes in intuitive reasoning or emotional intelligence (i.e., empathizing acumen) (Caplan and Caplan 1999;Nash and Grossi 2007;Spelke 2005;Yoder and Kahn 2003).…”

Benefits of Life Skill Based Education for Neurodiverse Adults: An Integrative Review and Analysis

“…One exception has been made where it has been disclosed that the authors have little to no affiliation with the organisation (Crabtree & Demchick, 2015). Furthermore, the study followed the theoretical lens of occupational justice, which meets the inclusive requirements of our review (Gail, Katherine, Cindy, & Aakifah, 2018 A plethora of limitation such as methodological flaws, false starts and non-inclusive samples (such as gender-bias and racial bias) has led to the inaccurate representation of ND adults (Beck, Lundwall, Gabrielsen, Cox, & South, 2020;Beery & Zucker, 2011;Helmer, Schottdorf, Neef, & Battaglia, 2017;Milner, McIntosh, Colvert, & Happé, 2019;Quinn & Madhoo, 2014;Rogers, 2010). Many women often do not get believed about their challenges, and are misdiagnosed, which leads them to suffer in silence (Bargiela, Steward, & Mandy, 2016;Beck et al, 2020;Helmer et al, 2017;Kuzminski et al, 2019;Leedham, Thompson, Smith, & Freeth, 2020;Olkin, Hayward, Abbene, & VanHeel, 2019;Rogers, 2010).…”

“…Furthermore, the study followed the theoretical lens of occupational justice, which meets the inclusive requirements of our review (Gail, Katherine, Cindy, & Aakifah, 2018 A plethora of limitation such as methodological flaws, false starts and non-inclusive samples (such as gender-bias and racial bias) has led to the inaccurate representation of ND adults (Beck, Lundwall, Gabrielsen, Cox, & South, 2020;Beery & Zucker, 2011;Helmer, Schottdorf, Neef, & Battaglia, 2017;Milner, McIntosh, Colvert, & Happé, 2019;Quinn & Madhoo, 2014;Rogers, 2010). Many women often do not get believed about their challenges, and are misdiagnosed, which leads them to suffer in silence (Bargiela, Steward, & Mandy, 2016;Beck et al, 2020;Helmer et al, 2017;Kuzminski et al, 2019;Leedham, Thompson, Smith, & Freeth, 2020;Olkin, Hayward, Abbene, & VanHeel, 2019;Rogers, 2010). As a result, already marginalized individuals are excluded/discriminated from services that will likely benefit them the most (Holthe & Langvik, 2017;Matheson, Foster, Bombay, McQuaid, & Anisman, 2019).This has led to several repercussions such as: alarmingly high rates of suicide amongst women, and alack of access to healthcare and higher education for women and racial /ethnically diverse individuals (Camm-Crosbie et al, 2018;Cassidy et al, 2019;Kirby et al, 2019).…”

“…This raises some ethical concerns, and human rights issues around programs towards ASD individuals (Treweek, Wood, Martin, & Freeth, 2019 may be at play-which often exist when identifying, and/or stigmatizing ASD individuals who do not fall within a "stereotype" (Obeid et al, 2021). Other factors such as how gender bias plagues the field of scientific research could also be contributing to some deep rooted bias's (Bargiela et al, 2016;Baruah, Singla, Narwat, Das, & Chapadgaonkar, 2018;Coleman & Hong, 2008;Helmer et al, 2017;Larrazabal, Nieto, Peterson, Milone, & Ferrante, 2020;Quinn & Madhoo, 2014;Rogers, 2010;Warrier et al, 2020).…”