You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.36 AVERAGE
3.36 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I learned a lot from reading this, but feel it is largely reductive and ultimately does more harm than good. Completely agree about the necessity of unbiased science, but this really just struck a nerve. :(
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
medium-paced
There is a lot of heat and emotion around the subjects of sex and gender. This is most visible in the national debates around the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, but particularly around those concerning transgender individuals. While my own thoughts about such issues have centered on compassion for others, I have been confused about what is really going on for these individuals. Not being a member of this community, I must admit that I do not understand all of the issues. But I long ago concluded that I don't need to. It isn't about what I think or understand but about accommodating and caring for people wherever they are and however they see themselves.
Hoping to better educate myself, I recently read the book The End of Gender by Debra Soh, a former sexology researcher who left academia to pursue a career in journalism. The book is a straightforward look at what the science of sexology says about sex and gender and many of the public issues surrounding them. It is an eye-opening book that is likely to both challenge and confirm your views on these subjects, no matter how you feel about identity politics.
This is not a political book, or at least it is not meant to be. It is grounded in published sexology research and takes the position that we ought to be open and clear about the science even if it goes against what we believe or is popular. Some may think this is a license to abuse minorities. The author disagrees. It isn't the science we should take issue with but how some people use it as a weapon of hate.
The book is organized around nine myths about sex and gender. Two of these myths are "There are more than two genders" and "Sexual orientation and gender identity are unrelated". Due to the sensitive nature of these topics, you likely reacted strongly to one or both of those statements. I highly encourage you to read this book from a well-educated scientist who uses research to inform her compassion. One of the major concerns she raises is the number of transgender individuals who transition and later change their mind and detransition. Perhaps a better understanding of the science behind sex and gender can lead to better outcomes for those struggling with identity issues.
Zero stars because this book is transphobic as hell and will hurt real children. But I considered giving it one star because the author (a 30-year-old straight conservative woman with a PhD in something not very related to the topic, not a doctor or therapist) obviously considers herself an expert on queer people, sex, gender, and relationships, and if you are a gay person/feminist with a thick skin you will laugh yourself sick.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Homophobia, Misogyny, Transphobia
This is a critical reply to a lot of post-modern gender studies, which became more political than scientific. However, it is not a conservative “return great old days, when women knew their place”, but liberal approach, that agrees that minorities like LGBTQ+ are disadvantaged, but disagrees on the current approach to solve these problems. I read is as a part of monthly reading for April 2021 at Non Fiction Book Club group.
There are nine myths discussed in the book, namely:
Biological sex is a spectrum. this is the simplest chapter, stating that in biology sex is defined by gametes, which are mature reproductive cells. There are only two types of gametes: small ones called sperm that are produced by males, and large ones called eggs that are produced by females. There are no intermediate types of gametes between egg and sperm cells. Sex is therefore binary. QED
Gender is a social construct. This is bit murkier. She debates that gender initially defined by sex, and while a person’s gender and sex may not coincide, it is still rooted in biology. Biological sex dictates gender in more than 99 percent of population. To claim that there are no differences between the sexes when looking at group averages, or that culture has greater influence than biology, simply isn’t true. Socialization shapes the extent to which our gender is expressed or suppressed, but it doesn’t dictate whether someone will be masculine or feminine, or whether she or he will be gender-conforming or gender-atypical. Whether a trait is deemed “masculine” or “feminine” is culturally defined, but whether a person gravitates toward traits that are considered masculine or feminine is driven by biology. She cites several research papers to support that and shows problems with at least one study that does not.
There are more than two genders. There are only two genders. Not three, not seventy-one, and certainly not an infinite number. Gender is not a spectrum. Her point is that even non-binary don’t identify exclusively as either male or female. Nonbinary identity labels may seem boundless, but they all basically mean that a person identifies, to some extent, as both male and female, or neither. Here I point that actually it is to a person to decide, whether they agree with such interpretation – if one wants to be called the third gender (or anything else) I’m fine with it in a conversation with that person.
A nice additional point by the author about pronouns: With the growing popularity of gender fluidity and gender neutrality, more people are deciding that announcing one’s pronouns at the beginning of any social interaction is a good idea. Transgender people transition because they want to live as the opposite sex. To ask a trans person explicitly about their pronouns can be offensive, because it suggests their gender wasn’t obvious. When non-trans people put their pronouns in their bios and email signatures, et cetera, in an attempt to be more inclusive, this can make it harder for trans people to find other members of their community.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are unrelated She shows that gay activists have historically fought for the idea that gay people were “born this way,” and that being gay was not a choice, but something they realized about themselves from a young age that could not be changed, adds studies by Ray Blanchard, a world-renowned sexologist and professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto that show that
the fraternal birth order effect offered an explanation, establishing that gay men were more likely than heterosexual men or lesbian women to have a greater number of older brothers. This stems from the prenatal environment. When a woman becomes pregnant with a male fetus, her body interprets it as a foreign substance due to antigens produced by the Y-chromosome. This sets off an immune response in her body, with antibodies rendering the masculinizing process inoperative, a response that strengthens with each subsequent male child. This immune response is likely only one factor among many that affect male sexual orientation, since not every gay man has older brothers, and not every man who has many older brothers is gay.
Also the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, or “INAH-3” is more than twice as large in straight men as in gay men; in gay men, it was closer in size to that of straight women.
Children with gender dysphoria should transition Here she vehemently opposes the fear-mongering of some doctors and activists that if parents don’t support immediate medical intervention with puberty blockers their kids run much higher chance of suicide. She shows that all eleven long-term studies ever done on gender dysphoric children, between 60 and 90 percent desist by puberty. Also stating that if a kid is consistent, persistent, and insistent that they need a transition, they ought to get it in uonly this case but not when a kid wants to get tattoos or piercings, to drive, vote, drink, or buy cigarettes, because they lack the emotional maturity to make life-altering decisions is at least inconsistent.
No differences exist between trans women and women who were born women This one can be most clearly seen in sports, that body’s development depends on biological sex. She describes that current stance of radical feminism and states that transgender women have endured an unfortunate history of prejudice and being unfairly painted as sexually deviant, and that transgender people should not be penalized when antisocial men choose to manipulate the system. It is antisociality, not the existence of a paraphilia, that leads someone to commit a sexual offense.
Women should behave like men in sex and dating While this is more social than scientific issue, she states that sexes have different sexual systems, stemming from thousands of generations of evolutionary influence, and these differences play out in meaningful ways. Evolutionary explanations may be used by some individuals to disrespect women and deny female autonomy, but once again, instead of pretending that these facts are falsehoods, a more productive approach would be to call out people who use them to promote backward ideas. The fact that the act of sex comes with a greater cost to women, due to the possibility of becoming pregnant and having to take on related responsibilities—giving birth, breastfeeding, raising the child, and ensuring his or her survival means that even with all modern pharmacology it is evolutionary rooted so search for the most attractive partner.
Gender-neutral parenting works , again a social not scientific issue, heavily dependent on definitions. If in the past parents preferred a gender-conforming child. Girls were supposed to be dainty princesses and boys were to be stoic adventurers. Now, a polar-opposite trend has emerged, with a preference for gender-atypical children. Let children decide for themselves, play with guns or dolls or both or neither
Sexology and social justice make good bedfellows - a final chapter asking to divide science and political activism.
I agree with a lot of points and definitely it is wrong to have political activism silencing scientific research even if yes, research is biased because humans are, but the very scientific approach tries hard to check for biases, while activists often have only belief in their rightness
There are nine myths discussed in the book, namely:
Biological sex is a spectrum. this is the simplest chapter, stating that in biology sex is defined by gametes, which are mature reproductive cells. There are only two types of gametes: small ones called sperm that are produced by males, and large ones called eggs that are produced by females. There are no intermediate types of gametes between egg and sperm cells. Sex is therefore binary. QED
Gender is a social construct. This is bit murkier. She debates that gender initially defined by sex, and while a person’s gender and sex may not coincide, it is still rooted in biology. Biological sex dictates gender in more than 99 percent of population. To claim that there are no differences between the sexes when looking at group averages, or that culture has greater influence than biology, simply isn’t true. Socialization shapes the extent to which our gender is expressed or suppressed, but it doesn’t dictate whether someone will be masculine or feminine, or whether she or he will be gender-conforming or gender-atypical. Whether a trait is deemed “masculine” or “feminine” is culturally defined, but whether a person gravitates toward traits that are considered masculine or feminine is driven by biology. She cites several research papers to support that and shows problems with at least one study that does not.
There are more than two genders. There are only two genders. Not three, not seventy-one, and certainly not an infinite number. Gender is not a spectrum. Her point is that even non-binary don’t identify exclusively as either male or female. Nonbinary identity labels may seem boundless, but they all basically mean that a person identifies, to some extent, as both male and female, or neither. Here I point that actually it is to a person to decide, whether they agree with such interpretation – if one wants to be called the third gender (or anything else) I’m fine with it in a conversation with that person.
A nice additional point by the author about pronouns: With the growing popularity of gender fluidity and gender neutrality, more people are deciding that announcing one’s pronouns at the beginning of any social interaction is a good idea. Transgender people transition because they want to live as the opposite sex. To ask a trans person explicitly about their pronouns can be offensive, because it suggests their gender wasn’t obvious. When non-trans people put their pronouns in their bios and email signatures, et cetera, in an attempt to be more inclusive, this can make it harder for trans people to find other members of their community.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are unrelated She shows that gay activists have historically fought for the idea that gay people were “born this way,” and that being gay was not a choice, but something they realized about themselves from a young age that could not be changed, adds studies by Ray Blanchard, a world-renowned sexologist and professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto that show that
the fraternal birth order effect offered an explanation, establishing that gay men were more likely than heterosexual men or lesbian women to have a greater number of older brothers. This stems from the prenatal environment. When a woman becomes pregnant with a male fetus, her body interprets it as a foreign substance due to antigens produced by the Y-chromosome. This sets off an immune response in her body, with antibodies rendering the masculinizing process inoperative, a response that strengthens with each subsequent male child. This immune response is likely only one factor among many that affect male sexual orientation, since not every gay man has older brothers, and not every man who has many older brothers is gay.
Also the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, or “INAH-3” is more than twice as large in straight men as in gay men; in gay men, it was closer in size to that of straight women.
Children with gender dysphoria should transition Here she vehemently opposes the fear-mongering of some doctors and activists that if parents don’t support immediate medical intervention with puberty blockers their kids run much higher chance of suicide. She shows that all eleven long-term studies ever done on gender dysphoric children, between 60 and 90 percent desist by puberty. Also stating that if a kid is consistent, persistent, and insistent that they need a transition, they ought to get it in uonly this case but not when a kid wants to get tattoos or piercings, to drive, vote, drink, or buy cigarettes, because they lack the emotional maturity to make life-altering decisions is at least inconsistent.
No differences exist between trans women and women who were born women This one can be most clearly seen in sports, that body’s development depends on biological sex. She describes that current stance of radical feminism and states that transgender women have endured an unfortunate history of prejudice and being unfairly painted as sexually deviant, and that transgender people should not be penalized when antisocial men choose to manipulate the system. It is antisociality, not the existence of a paraphilia, that leads someone to commit a sexual offense.
Women should behave like men in sex and dating While this is more social than scientific issue, she states that sexes have different sexual systems, stemming from thousands of generations of evolutionary influence, and these differences play out in meaningful ways. Evolutionary explanations may be used by some individuals to disrespect women and deny female autonomy, but once again, instead of pretending that these facts are falsehoods, a more productive approach would be to call out people who use them to promote backward ideas. The fact that the act of sex comes with a greater cost to women, due to the possibility of becoming pregnant and having to take on related responsibilities—giving birth, breastfeeding, raising the child, and ensuring his or her survival means that even with all modern pharmacology it is evolutionary rooted so search for the most attractive partner.
Gender-neutral parenting works , again a social not scientific issue, heavily dependent on definitions. If in the past parents preferred a gender-conforming child. Girls were supposed to be dainty princesses and boys were to be stoic adventurers. Now, a polar-opposite trend has emerged, with a preference for gender-atypical children. Let children decide for themselves, play with guns or dolls or both or neither
Sexology and social justice make good bedfellows - a final chapter asking to divide science and political activism.
I agree with a lot of points and definitely it is wrong to have political activism silencing scientific research even if yes, research is biased because humans are, but the very scientific approach tries hard to check for biases, while activists often have only belief in their rightness
informative
medium-paced
Apparently, this is a controversial book, and I should be careful I do not get “cancelled” by reading it! I consider myself a “centrist” and “progressive”, but I have also been concerned about the increasingly zealousness of activists against science in recent times if it does not fit a particular political or social justice position. I found the author to compassionate and objective and even though she is pro-gay and trans rights, she has been targeted by gender and trans activists for her scientific views on gender and sex.
Whilst she covers 10 myths in this book about sex and gender from a biological perspective, I found the most interesting (and disturbing) to be the final chapter about academic freedom – how science has become increasingly politicised and biased and academics who put forward alternative views or try to research what are considered “controversial” areas can have their careers destroyed and are now afraid to publish for fear “of offending people”. Social activism and political pressure mean instead of rigorous and respectful debate, studies are suppressed, not published or manipulated to obtain a certain outcome.
Readers may not agree with everything Dr Soh writes, but I think its so important we read alternative viewpoints otherwise we continue to live in our echo chambers. It seems that once religion suppressed science and progress, and now the suppression is coming from the supposed “progressive left” – very sad.
Whilst she covers 10 myths in this book about sex and gender from a biological perspective, I found the most interesting (and disturbing) to be the final chapter about academic freedom – how science has become increasingly politicised and biased and academics who put forward alternative views or try to research what are considered “controversial” areas can have their careers destroyed and are now afraid to publish for fear “of offending people”. Social activism and political pressure mean instead of rigorous and respectful debate, studies are suppressed, not published or manipulated to obtain a certain outcome.
Readers may not agree with everything Dr Soh writes, but I think its so important we read alternative viewpoints otherwise we continue to live in our echo chambers. It seems that once religion suppressed science and progress, and now the suppression is coming from the supposed “progressive left” – very sad.
When I saw this at the library, I was drawn to it because of how charged the topic is. I have read a couple of books that discuss gender such as the Female Brain and Delusions of Gender. More thoughts on this topic was welcome.
I thought the author would advocate for the message that gender is fluid but it turned out to be the opposite as Debra Soh goes into many different topics such as gender, science and research. What surprised me was that those who support the left could be extreme and use their efforts to prevent researchers from publishing their work. But Soh mentions that not all of those with Left beliefs behave like this. I found that she really tries to be diplomatic in how she conveys her thoughts and the facts.
It seems like our society is so reactive that we cannot have different points of view anymore. People react strongly and vehemently via the internet and social media and this can greatly affect how academic work gets approved and published. She breaks each chapter up with a myth and starts to debunk it. Some of her points do make me want to go "nope!" or I could understand why people would flare up upon hearing it and assume.
I found the first few chapters quite technical and the information went abit over my head but the last few were easy to read. What I did see was so sad. This was not an easy book to get through.
This brought new perspectives to me because I am not sure what to believe and I do agree that the information we see may not always be accurate or objective.
I thought the author would advocate for the message that gender is fluid but it turned out to be the opposite as Debra Soh goes into many different topics such as gender, science and research. What surprised me was that those who support the left could be extreme and use their efforts to prevent researchers from publishing their work. But Soh mentions that not all of those with Left beliefs behave like this. I found that she really tries to be diplomatic in how she conveys her thoughts and the facts.
It seems like our society is so reactive that we cannot have different points of view anymore. People react strongly and vehemently via the internet and social media and this can greatly affect how academic work gets approved and published. She breaks each chapter up with a myth and starts to debunk it. Some of her points do make me want to go "nope!" or I could understand why people would flare up upon hearing it and assume.
I found the first few chapters quite technical and the information went abit over my head but the last few were easy to read. What I did see was so sad. This was not an easy book to get through.
This brought new perspectives to me because I am not sure what to believe and I do agree that the information we see may not always be accurate or objective.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
I have to say I was surprised by how bad this book was.
It's not bad in a boring, or even shocking sense.
It's bad in that it's a charade. This book was an unfortunate occurence and is covered in red flags. Firstly, for a book that hopes to blend biology and sociology, there is little attempt made to actually understand the theory of gender. In fact, it seems that most social science is discounted as untrustworthy. But even the biological underpinnings of this book show cracks.
The whole book is an act of belief, a suspension of critical thought. The author's thinking is very obviously unstructured, which may make it difficult to notice at first that the arguments are not logical. The whole book relies on the first one to set up her arguments about gender, although several statements from this chapter are contradictory. Each chapter is organized like a long op ed. Counter arguments are not provided. Statistics are rare. Anecdotes are abundant. Red flags are overwhelming. These include the author trying to sell you her scientific and liberal creds and painting herself as the victim of unfair scrutiny to avoid that you dig too deep into the arguments.
It might have been a book about people's experiences, but the experiences of transgender individuals is really only lightly touched upon in this book. Indeed very little investigation is given into why people transition, if not to present what I understand to be fringe theories about sexual motivations.
This is a book about science in name only. It is truly unfortunate that most readers will not have the experience necessary to realize how fare Soh strays from the path of deliberate, thoughtful investigation of a hypothesis. This book also would like to document social phenomena, but unfortunately relies so heavily on anecdotes and the type of reporting meant to scare your grandparents, that it's impossible to take the author's word that what she describes is by any means an unbiased depiction of current events.
Perhaps most unfortunately, for a book that deals heavily with social phenomena, there appears to be very little awareness of the social sciences. Soh is not an expert in this field. Neither am I. But I didn't write a book about social theory. Such a book should have been at least double the length, and have come with sufficient argument, statistics, and supporting material if it aimed to "debunk" anything at all.
It's not bad in a boring, or even shocking sense.
It's bad in that it's a charade. This book was an unfortunate occurence and is covered in red flags. Firstly, for a book that hopes to blend biology and sociology, there is little attempt made to actually understand the theory of gender. In fact, it seems that most social science is discounted as untrustworthy. But even the biological underpinnings of this book show cracks.
The whole book is an act of belief, a suspension of critical thought. The author's thinking is very obviously unstructured, which may make it difficult to notice at first that the arguments are not logical. The whole book relies on the first one to set up her arguments about gender, although several statements from this chapter are contradictory. Each chapter is organized like a long op ed. Counter arguments are not provided. Statistics are rare. Anecdotes are abundant. Red flags are overwhelming. These include the author trying to sell you her scientific and liberal creds and painting herself as the victim of unfair scrutiny to avoid that you dig too deep into the arguments.
It might have been a book about people's experiences, but the experiences of transgender individuals is really only lightly touched upon in this book. Indeed very little investigation is given into why people transition, if not to present what I understand to be fringe theories about sexual motivations.
This is a book about science in name only. It is truly unfortunate that most readers will not have the experience necessary to realize how fare Soh strays from the path of deliberate, thoughtful investigation of a hypothesis. This book also would like to document social phenomena, but unfortunately relies so heavily on anecdotes and the type of reporting meant to scare your grandparents, that it's impossible to take the author's word that what she describes is by any means an unbiased depiction of current events.
Perhaps most unfortunately, for a book that deals heavily with social phenomena, there appears to be very little awareness of the social sciences. Soh is not an expert in this field. Neither am I. But I didn't write a book about social theory. Such a book should have been at least double the length, and have come with sufficient argument, statistics, and supporting material if it aimed to "debunk" anything at all.