Scan barcode
afterglobe's review against another edition
2.0
A big thank-you to NetGalley, the author, and publisher for giving me a copy of this book for an unbiased review.
2 – Interesting, but I am concerned the veracity and objectivity of this book.
This is by far the most difficult review I’ve ever had to write and it took me hours and hours of research to get to a point where I was able to give this book a fair and unbiased critique.
I became interested in neurology while reading Robert Sapolsky’s “Behave.” Since then, I have been reading anything and everything relating to the function of the human brain, the ways in which our brains impact our behavior, and how society (aka nurture) interacts with our brain function (aka nature) to shape the human experience.
Joel’s “Gender Mosaic” offers the following thesis:
1. The human brain is a mosaic of male/female characteristics
2. Consequently, as no brain is purely “male” or “female,” most brains are “intersex”
3. Our society shapes expectations of men/women to shove them into pre-existing gender constraints, and we would be better off if we eliminated gender altogether
This all sounds reasonable and it certainly appeals to this liberal feminist. But then, as a discerning reader, I must ask myself – but is her analysis correct?
A quick disclaimer: I am not a scientist nor a neurologist. However, based on my very limited understanding of brain function, several questions came up during my reading:
- If brains are neither male nor female, how do we explain brain disfunction? Namely, why is that women have higher rates of Alzheimer’s, while men are more prone to Parkinson’s? How do we explain the fact that scientists have detected key differences in the way that male/female brains synthesize certain neurotransmitters, such as serotonin? Why are certain brain dysfunctions, such as ADD and schizophrenia, manifested in predictably distinct ways depending on biological sex?
- If society plays a key role in our binary understanding of female/male brains, how is it that primates (who are not conditioned by our gender roles) still exhibit similar behaviors in terms of aggression, dominance, nurturing, submission, etc.?
- We know that certain hormones cause different reactions in male/female brains (as per Sapolsky’s book). How does this work, if brains are neither consistently male nor female?
- If nature vs. nurture is not significant, why devote such a large portion of the book to society’s impact on gender roles?
With this in mind, I turned to literature which disagreed with Joel’s points of view. As a UCI alumna, I reached out to Larry Cahill. He is cited in Joel’s book as a supporter of the viewpoint that brains are primarily male or female. He directed me to several articles on the topic, which ultimately were quite convincing to me for the following reasons:
1. Joel argues that the viewpoint of an intersex brain is a feminist one and implies that those who disagree belong to the old-school world of measuring skulls to justify intelligence and male superiority. However, even a cursory glance at modern literature on the male/female difference in brains identifies that these scientists seek to benefit both sexes, rather than to stigmatize one or the other. Much of Cahill’s research points to the fact that, when we treat women “the same” as men in medicine, we risk endangering them by ignoring that brain dysfunctions often manifest differently between the sexes or require different types of treatment. In fact, it is more feminist to acknowledge these differences than to refute them. This goes in line with introducing more female test animals into brain research, which has primarily been concerned with the male brain.
2. While Joel’s argument ignores the impact of male/female brains as they pertain to the treatment of brain disfunction, Cahill and his supporters dive deep into the issue. They examine the impacts of sex differences in the brain within subjects like dementia, addiction, chronic stress, and learning. After reading these articles, it is difficult to see how brains can really be grouped as intersex – of course, exceptions to the rule may exist, but even Joel agrees that men and women can be seen as two distinct groups, with individual variations.
3. Cahill argues that Joel’s methodology in several of her tests is flawed and he mentions the 2013 study as an example. Here, Joel and her team use “internal consistency” to justify the existence of a male/female brain. Cahill points out that the methodology used by Joel’s team makes it impossible to attain any result other than the intended conclusion. However, he mentions that when her tests were duplicated, men and women could indeed be easily discerned in up to 77% of the time. He states, “Even higher levels of discriminability between the sexes have been reported by other teams regarding human brain structure and function, and regarding personality.” As such, despite Joel’s criticism of cherrypicking, it seems that she may be guilty of some of this herself.
This being said, I do think that Joel’s book contains two important points:
1. Regardless of whether or not there are sex differences between women/men, individuals should be treated as individuals. A woman visiting a doctor should not be screened for diseases primarily on the basis of her sex, any more than a man should be restricted from participating in traditionally “feminine” activities.
2. A society which is not primarily focused on gender binaries is healthier, as it allows both men and women (as well as individuals who may not fit into a traditional gender binary) to express the best aspects of their individual selves/abilities.
Overall, I think this book is very interesting and am glad to have read it. The reason I could not rate it higher is because I do not think that it is fit for the average reader. Most people will not take the time to look into opposing arguments. This book is meant to be a study of neurology, but in truth it is much more of a political treatise on how we should deal with the topic of gender. However, gender and sex are not the same thing. Perhaps it would be fair to call gender the nurture aspect of our experience, and sex the nature. I am concerned that readers will take this book as invitation to conflate the two, arriving at potentially erroneous conclusions. As such, I would recommend this book, but only to readers who are willing to go deeper into this topic, and to truly form an independent opinion on the gender mosaic of the male/female/(intersex?) brain.
2 – Interesting, but I am concerned the veracity and objectivity of this book.
This is by far the most difficult review I’ve ever had to write and it took me hours and hours of research to get to a point where I was able to give this book a fair and unbiased critique.
I became interested in neurology while reading Robert Sapolsky’s “Behave.” Since then, I have been reading anything and everything relating to the function of the human brain, the ways in which our brains impact our behavior, and how society (aka nurture) interacts with our brain function (aka nature) to shape the human experience.
Joel’s “Gender Mosaic” offers the following thesis:
1. The human brain is a mosaic of male/female characteristics
2. Consequently, as no brain is purely “male” or “female,” most brains are “intersex”
3. Our society shapes expectations of men/women to shove them into pre-existing gender constraints, and we would be better off if we eliminated gender altogether
This all sounds reasonable and it certainly appeals to this liberal feminist. But then, as a discerning reader, I must ask myself – but is her analysis correct?
A quick disclaimer: I am not a scientist nor a neurologist. However, based on my very limited understanding of brain function, several questions came up during my reading:
- If brains are neither male nor female, how do we explain brain disfunction? Namely, why is that women have higher rates of Alzheimer’s, while men are more prone to Parkinson’s? How do we explain the fact that scientists have detected key differences in the way that male/female brains synthesize certain neurotransmitters, such as serotonin? Why are certain brain dysfunctions, such as ADD and schizophrenia, manifested in predictably distinct ways depending on biological sex?
- If society plays a key role in our binary understanding of female/male brains, how is it that primates (who are not conditioned by our gender roles) still exhibit similar behaviors in terms of aggression, dominance, nurturing, submission, etc.?
- We know that certain hormones cause different reactions in male/female brains (as per Sapolsky’s book). How does this work, if brains are neither consistently male nor female?
- If nature vs. nurture is not significant, why devote such a large portion of the book to society’s impact on gender roles?
With this in mind, I turned to literature which disagreed with Joel’s points of view. As a UCI alumna, I reached out to Larry Cahill. He is cited in Joel’s book as a supporter of the viewpoint that brains are primarily male or female. He directed me to several articles on the topic, which ultimately were quite convincing to me for the following reasons:
1. Joel argues that the viewpoint of an intersex brain is a feminist one and implies that those who disagree belong to the old-school world of measuring skulls to justify intelligence and male superiority. However, even a cursory glance at modern literature on the male/female difference in brains identifies that these scientists seek to benefit both sexes, rather than to stigmatize one or the other. Much of Cahill’s research points to the fact that, when we treat women “the same” as men in medicine, we risk endangering them by ignoring that brain dysfunctions often manifest differently between the sexes or require different types of treatment. In fact, it is more feminist to acknowledge these differences than to refute them. This goes in line with introducing more female test animals into brain research, which has primarily been concerned with the male brain.
2. While Joel’s argument ignores the impact of male/female brains as they pertain to the treatment of brain disfunction, Cahill and his supporters dive deep into the issue. They examine the impacts of sex differences in the brain within subjects like dementia, addiction, chronic stress, and learning. After reading these articles, it is difficult to see how brains can really be grouped as intersex – of course, exceptions to the rule may exist, but even Joel agrees that men and women can be seen as two distinct groups, with individual variations.
3. Cahill argues that Joel’s methodology in several of her tests is flawed and he mentions the 2013 study as an example. Here, Joel and her team use “internal consistency” to justify the existence of a male/female brain. Cahill points out that the methodology used by Joel’s team makes it impossible to attain any result other than the intended conclusion. However, he mentions that when her tests were duplicated, men and women could indeed be easily discerned in up to 77% of the time. He states, “Even higher levels of discriminability between the sexes have been reported by other teams regarding human brain structure and function, and regarding personality.” As such, despite Joel’s criticism of cherrypicking, it seems that she may be guilty of some of this herself.
This being said, I do think that Joel’s book contains two important points:
1. Regardless of whether or not there are sex differences between women/men, individuals should be treated as individuals. A woman visiting a doctor should not be screened for diseases primarily on the basis of her sex, any more than a man should be restricted from participating in traditionally “feminine” activities.
2. A society which is not primarily focused on gender binaries is healthier, as it allows both men and women (as well as individuals who may not fit into a traditional gender binary) to express the best aspects of their individual selves/abilities.
Overall, I think this book is very interesting and am glad to have read it. The reason I could not rate it higher is because I do not think that it is fit for the average reader. Most people will not take the time to look into opposing arguments. This book is meant to be a study of neurology, but in truth it is much more of a political treatise on how we should deal with the topic of gender. However, gender and sex are not the same thing. Perhaps it would be fair to call gender the nurture aspect of our experience, and sex the nature. I am concerned that readers will take this book as invitation to conflate the two, arriving at potentially erroneous conclusions. As such, I would recommend this book, but only to readers who are willing to go deeper into this topic, and to truly form an independent opinion on the gender mosaic of the male/female/(intersex?) brain.
madelemarch's review against another edition
2.0
I’m sure part of my frustration with this book stemmed from the fact that a lot of this information wasn’t new to me. If you don’t know anything about gender and its social construction, parts of it *might* make for an okay read. That said, this book really white-washed the brain and definitely felt late to the game.
Put another way: if you’re interested in the substance and would like a worthwhile recommendation, feel free to hit me up instead of reading this book.
Put another way: if you’re interested in the substance and would like a worthwhile recommendation, feel free to hit me up instead of reading this book.
kaleko's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
thepurplebookwyrm's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
4.25
Another great book on the subject of gender and neurosexism!
This one is an interesting addition to the topic insofar as I think it might draw in (and convince) a wider array of people than something like The Gendered Brain by Gina Rippon (or even Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine), which could be read as slightly too "blank-slatist" for some people I suppose.
Gender Mosaic presents original research carried out by one of the authors, as well as research done by other scientists in the field, and overall doesn't really insist on any particular position with regards to the "nature vs. nurture" debate. The conclusion certainly veers towards a "gender abolitionist" stance more than anything else, but the way the subject matter was presented came across as very pragmatic and understanding - is how I'm going to put it - of more skeptical (or less feminism-versed) individuals.
I also read this book very quickly and found it pleasantly straight-to-the-point in its delivery style.
What kept this from reaching a 5 stars rating was the introduction of (and now obligatory nod to?) gender identity (theory/ideology) into the mix. The authors took the time to clearly define sex and gender at the beginning of the book, but didn't think to do the same for gender ID; an element which undermined pretty severely most of their thesis in my opinion, and which wasn't at all well integrated with the rest of their discussion. It plainly should've been left out of the book.
I'm also not personally convinced getting rid of the words "man" and "woman" is necessary (or even desirable as long as sex-based oppression remains a thing) to build a gender-free world; or that this would naturally happen in a gender-free society. We don't impose gender upon cattle, yet we recognise female bovines as cows and male ones as bulls, for example. Then again, I guess it all depends on how one defines "man" and "woman". Given that short chapter on gender ID, I'm not that surprised the authors seemed a bit confused (and thus confusing) on that front.
Still, I would definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject - I'd even specifically recommend pairing it with Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez, given there's a bit of topical overlap between the two. 😉
This one is an interesting addition to the topic insofar as I think it might draw in (and convince) a wider array of people than something like The Gendered Brain by Gina Rippon (or even Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine), which could be read as slightly too "blank-slatist" for some people I suppose.
Gender Mosaic presents original research carried out by one of the authors, as well as research done by other scientists in the field, and overall doesn't really insist on any particular position with regards to the "nature vs. nurture" debate. The conclusion certainly veers towards a "gender abolitionist" stance more than anything else, but the way the subject matter was presented came across as very pragmatic and understanding - is how I'm going to put it - of more skeptical (or less feminism-versed) individuals.
I also read this book very quickly and found it pleasantly straight-to-the-point in its delivery style.
What kept this from reaching a 5 stars rating was the introduction of (and now obligatory nod to?) gender identity (theory/ideology) into the mix. The authors took the time to clearly define sex and gender at the beginning of the book, but didn't think to do the same for gender ID; an element which undermined pretty severely most of their thesis in my opinion, and which wasn't at all well integrated with the rest of their discussion. It plainly should've been left out of the book.
I'm also not personally convinced getting rid of the words "man" and "woman" is necessary (or even desirable as long as sex-based oppression remains a thing) to build a gender-free world; or that this would naturally happen in a gender-free society. We don't impose gender upon cattle, yet we recognise female bovines as cows and male ones as bulls, for example. Then again, I guess it all depends on how one defines "man" and "woman". Given that short chapter on gender ID, I'm not that surprised the authors seemed a bit confused (and thus confusing) on that front.
Still, I would definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject - I'd even specifically recommend pairing it with Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez, given there's a bit of topical overlap between the two. 😉
kendalljl's review against another edition
4.0
Gender Mosaic reads a bit like a dissertation (I'm sensing a theme with the books I read) and hypothesizes that brains are not singularly male or female, but that each brain is made up of a mosaic of characteristics, some male and some female.
Joel's argument is that while some characteristics may appear more frequently on the average men or women, using gender as a marker for interest or talent in specific areas is misguided because of each unique mosaic.
I liked her analysis on how gender differences are reported in popular media: even though studies often show that male and female brains are more similar than they are different, popular media (and even scientific journals) tend to focus on the differences more and to amplify those differences beyond their significance.
It made me think a lot about my internalized gender biases and how I expect myself (or others) to act based on them. Think about it: do you hear "maid" and think woman? Or hear "chess player" and think man? In 2020 I'm excited to start reframing the stereotypes I have when I come upon them.
Joel's argument is that while some characteristics may appear more frequently on the average men or women, using gender as a marker for interest or talent in specific areas is misguided because of each unique mosaic.
I liked her analysis on how gender differences are reported in popular media: even though studies often show that male and female brains are more similar than they are different, popular media (and even scientific journals) tend to focus on the differences more and to amplify those differences beyond their significance.
It made me think a lot about my internalized gender biases and how I expect myself (or others) to act based on them. Think about it: do you hear "maid" and think woman? Or hear "chess player" and think man? In 2020 I'm excited to start reframing the stereotypes I have when I come upon them.
kait_sixcrowsbooks's review against another edition
informative
reflective
fast-paced
3.0
Considering I just finished reading this an hour and a half ago (after starting it 8 hours prior), I'll probably change this review/rating around a little bit, but as it stands right now? It's about a 3 or 3.5. Gender Mosaic isn't necessarily bad, or anything. It's just. Okay? It didn't exactly bring anything new to the table for me (I've studied psychology and GWS for a few years -- have a degree in them -- so that makes sense), but like.
It seemed incredibly cis-focused (trans and non-binary folks get relegated to a single chapter) and honestly? I'm getting tired of books/articles surrounding gender not centering trans and non-binary experiences right from the get-go. Or, when they do mention us, it's only for the section/chapter about us, and we're never mentioned again, or only in passing. For a book all about how gender doesn't determine how one behaves or what their brain looks like, and that we shouldn't enforce a binary, it was pushing a binary pretty heavily when the only time non-cis people were mentioned, it was to say, "Oh! And there's these people who fight against the gender binary, too!"
On top of that, even though they explained sex and gender are different (and even mentioned that sex isn't necessarily a binary either), the authors still...basically conflated the two. And went with the assumption that sex is a binary.
I dunno, it wasn't horrible, but I wasn't too impressed with it. I'll have to think more on it, though, and I may write a review on my blog in the future.
It seemed incredibly cis-focused (trans and non-binary folks get relegated to a single chapter) and honestly? I'm getting tired of books/articles surrounding gender not centering trans and non-binary experiences right from the get-go. Or, when they do mention us, it's only for the section/chapter about us, and we're never mentioned again, or only in passing. For a book all about how gender doesn't determine how one behaves or what their brain looks like, and that we shouldn't enforce a binary, it was pushing a binary pretty heavily when the only time non-cis people were mentioned, it was to say, "Oh! And there's these people who fight against the gender binary, too!"
On top of that, even though they explained sex and gender are different (and even mentioned that sex isn't necessarily a binary either), the authors still...basically conflated the two. And went with the assumption that sex is a binary.
I dunno, it wasn't horrible, but I wasn't too impressed with it. I'll have to think more on it, though, and I may write a review on my blog in the future.