Scan barcode
A review by afterglobe
Gender Mosaic: Beyond the Myth of the Male and Female Brain by Luba Vikhanski, Daphna Joel
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.