Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.36 AVERAGE
3.36 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
adventurous
challenging
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
fast-paced
Is This An Overview?
Gender and sex are not the same, although many say gender when they mean sex. Biological sex is determined by gametes, not chromosomes or genitals. Gametes are mature reproductive cells, and there are only two types of gametes. Sperm produced by males, and eggs produced by females. Making sex binary. Intersex individuals are born with male and female sexual anatomy. But intersex people produce only a single type of gamete.
Gender identity is the relation between how the individual perceives themselves and their sex. Whether the individual feels masculine or feminine. Gender expression is how gender identity is externally expressed. Hormonal exposure in the womb influences gender identity. Making gender a biological product. Along with sexual attraction. Socialization influences what gender aspects can be expressed or suppressed, but not the individual’s preferences for masculine or feminine traits.
The terms, what they mean, and their implications has received a lot of attraction, often not the wanted kind. Opposing views that perceive the science and social values differently. Sparking conflict, and confusion. Confusion fueled by the spread of misinformation that has negative consequences on the vulnerable people who are seeking help. What is needed is to treat everyone with respect, no matter their biological aspects, sexual proclivities, or gender identity.
How Does Politics Effect Biology?
Biology has been subsumed into politics and social media. Used as a tool of power rather than informational discovery. Seeking justice is not enough, for those who power is against are punished. People have lost their jobs, along with mental and physical safety. Science is being suppressed even in academia. Scientists are willing to lie for political favor. Everyone else is hurt by not knowing the value of information.
There are even consequences of seeking information. No matter why or what the individual thinks about the ideas, they are punished. Seeking information about biology has become a threat to those in power.
Historically, there were many links between biology and sex that were incorrect, such as making the claim that women are less intellectually competent. But, even with more refined biological understanding and how biology effects the human being, biology is still stigmatized.
Science is meant to consider different opposing sides, rather than just one. As a sex researcher, the author wanted to combat sexual stigma and shame.
Are There Sex Differences?
There are sex differences in the brain. Differences that lead to people having different interests and behaviors. Biology, rather than socialization. As different sexes have different interests, they gravitate to different occupations. The gender hiring gap can be created through biology influencing interests rather than discrimination.
Equality between the sexes does not require each to be treated the same. Women can make their own decisions.
Should Someone Change Gender’s Or Transition Their Sex?
People can identify, or misidentify, their gender for social benefits such as to get dates. Gender identity has become a way of belonging to a community, rather than reflecting their own ideas. The problem with gender is not that its binary, the problem is that people stereotype based on gender.
People should have the same opportunities, but that does not mean that physical characteristics of people are the same. Transitioning one’s sex, does not change the physical biological characteristics. Males transitioning to female, do not lose their physical advantages, even with hormonal therapy.
Parents are pressured to have their children transition, for their children’s safety even though transitioning does not have the expected results. Children can feel discomfort in their bodies, but then become comfortable in them as they grow up.
Children are not allowed to make various choices because they lack the emotional and intellectual skills to make life-altering decisions. Yet people still try to have children transition early.
Caveats?
This is a sensitive and polarizing topic. The author shares consequences of expressing certain views in this book. A theme of the book is what makes science, and how scientific views in the book are under attack. The problem is that the way the author approaches these topics, knowing the sensitivity of the issues, can be inappropriate. The author reciprocates the opposition’s high disapproval with high disapproval, which can prevent the opposition from consider the ideas in the book.
Although there is science in the book, the interpretations of the findings have varying qualities. A theme of the book is that biology determines sex and gender, rather than social values. But the distinction between biology and social values are not given enough consideration, specifically the impact of culture on biological inclinations. The author acknowledges that the brain has neuroplasticity, but sees the function as very limited. There is other research indicating that culture can override genetic inclinations.
This book is harmful to women gay and trans and basically anyone that isn't standard cishet. It plays into the homophobic, transphobic and mysogonistic patriarchy. It shows impressively how the interpretatio of facts and science can be highly subjective.
If your interpretation of facts go against everything the majority of scientists see and conclude to the point where it excludes you from academia and you complain repeatedly about ethics commitees, you might want to take a close look at your point of view and consider that maybe your conviction that YOU are the only one with the RIGHT interpretation of the facts and EVERYONE ELSE is actually wrong, is on the wrong side of seeing things.
I don't even know who the author is ranting about. Who exactly is forcing children to be transgender? Who is telling every little boy who likes to play with dolls that he is a girl and all little tomboys that they need to grow up to be men? Who forces their children to grow up gender nonconforming?? Who is "glorifying trans kids"? Who is transitioning because being trans is popular and "easier" (seriously??) than being gay or gender nonconforming. Who seriously believes it is easier to be a trans woman than a feminine man, a trans man than a butch woman? I absolutely can not believe that these are any kind of majority or that this is what society is rapidly moving toward as the author repeatedly states.
Soh bases her narrative on oversimplifications, generalised stereotypes, fearmongering, and amplified extremes about gender issues to fit her interpretation of the "truth".
If your interpretation of facts go against everything the majority of scientists see and conclude to the point where it excludes you from academia and you complain repeatedly about ethics commitees, you might want to take a close look at your point of view and consider that maybe your conviction that YOU are the only one with the RIGHT interpretation of the facts and EVERYONE ELSE is actually wrong, is on the wrong side of seeing things.
I don't even know who the author is ranting about. Who exactly is forcing children to be transgender? Who is telling every little boy who likes to play with dolls that he is a girl and all little tomboys that they need to grow up to be men? Who forces their children to grow up gender nonconforming?? Who is "glorifying trans kids"? Who is transitioning because being trans is popular and "easier" (seriously??) than being gay or gender nonconforming. Who seriously believes it is easier to be a trans woman than a feminine man, a trans man than a butch woman? I absolutely can not believe that these are any kind of majority or that this is what society is rapidly moving toward as the author repeatedly states.
Soh bases her narrative on oversimplifications, generalised stereotypes, fearmongering, and amplified extremes about gender issues to fit her interpretation of the "truth".
This is an incredibly important and timely book. I'm not going to give a thorough review right now, because I want to spend some time looking up the science Dr. Soh references in order to fully draw my own conclusions on several things she brings up.
If what she says on children transitioning is accurate, though, there are very profound and concerning implications. I find this especially troubling as a masc lesbian, seeing it is young masc lesbians who are most at risk under the current false narratives and myths around gender and identity.
This renders the book very important for young people, and for parents of young people.
That being said, there are two issues in this book where I remain unconvinced by Dr. Soh's arguments (even though at the whole, the book comes across to me as very solid). These issues are related to non-binary identities and autogynephilia.
What I wish she would have touched on with non-binary identities is the fact that some people experience gender dysphoria enough to partially transition, taking hormones etc., but not enough to identify as the opposite sex. This to me seems like a solid reason to be open-minded to at least the possibility of non-binary identities (though I share her concerns over the explosion of non-binary identities and how a fair amount of that may be driven by misogyny and homophobia).
Perhaps she didn't bring this up because there haven't been scientific studies on this? I don't know if there have been or not. But I still think this is something she should have mentioned. At the very least, it's a fascinating phenomenon that needs to be legitimately studied.
As for autogynephilia, it seems reasonable to assume that some MTF trans people experience this, but there are also lots who deny it reflects their experiences. To explain away this denial with other theoretical factors comes across as special pleading to me, which I found really disappointing, as Dr. Soh seems very rational and objective in other areas. ContraPoints did a very thorough video on the topic I found insightful, and it's worth watching for an alternative perspective.
If what she says on children transitioning is accurate, though, there are very profound and concerning implications. I find this especially troubling as a masc lesbian, seeing it is young masc lesbians who are most at risk under the current false narratives and myths around gender and identity.
This renders the book very important for young people, and for parents of young people.
That being said, there are two issues in this book where I remain unconvinced by Dr. Soh's arguments (even though at the whole, the book comes across to me as very solid). These issues are related to non-binary identities and autogynephilia.
What I wish she would have touched on with non-binary identities is the fact that some people experience gender dysphoria enough to partially transition, taking hormones etc., but not enough to identify as the opposite sex. This to me seems like a solid reason to be open-minded to at least the possibility of non-binary identities (though I share her concerns over the explosion of non-binary identities and how a fair amount of that may be driven by misogyny and homophobia).
Perhaps she didn't bring this up because there haven't been scientific studies on this? I don't know if there have been or not. But I still think this is something she should have mentioned. At the very least, it's a fascinating phenomenon that needs to be legitimately studied.
As for autogynephilia, it seems reasonable to assume that some MTF trans people experience this, but there are also lots who deny it reflects their experiences. To explain away this denial with other theoretical factors comes across as special pleading to me, which I found really disappointing, as Dr. Soh seems very rational and objective in other areas. ContraPoints did a very thorough video on the topic I found insightful, and it's worth watching for an alternative perspective.
informative
medium-paced
informative
fast-paced
I agree with the bulk of Soh's scientific analysis and many of her prescriptions, particularly in the areas of scientific practice and academic freedom. However, she resorted to unsupported assertion of her own opinion much too often. Classic liberals and thoughtful conservatives in search of thoughtful nuance and depth of reflection, look elsewhere. I would suggest Anderson's "When Harry Became Sally."
This was not the book I thought it was going to be. So maybe I should have done my research. But I’ve always considered myself pretty open-minded to listening, at least, so I read it. I had some issues with the conclusions got to in this book. 1. The villianization of activists this entire book was really off-putting. 2. The dismissal and vitriol towards the social sciences, how can you claim to be only supporting the facts of science when you say an entire type of science is not real. I think that needs some looking into. 3. I think the main thesis of kids aren’t trans they’re gay is extremely flawed. This book was thought-provoking at least, and made some sense in places. But it definitely had some major flaws of logic for me. How can you believe that removing the humanity from a distinctly human issue is the way to get to the truth?
