You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
hjwilder 's review for:
informative
reflective
medium-paced
In my early twenties during my graduate degree program, I was a graduate assistant to what was essentially a student outreach center on campus. There were three of us, all from the mental health counseling masters program--two of us feminine presenting and one man. Our tasks ranged from calling students, conducting orientations and campus tours, data analysis, and reception. Despite the fact that my skills were best suited for data analysis and software orientaiton, I was repeatedly scheduled for reception again and again, along with the other feminine presenting student. The man we worked with loved reception. He enjoyed greeting and speaking to new and returning students as well as any passers by. He was very rarely scheduled for it though and instead go stuck with the tasks I enjoyed, based solely on assumption that he would enjoy the more socially isolated task and I the more social one because of the optics of our presentation. This issue was alleviated later when I spoke to the center supervisor, who recognized the gender essentialism in the scheduling. It's worth noting the scheduling was conducted by a cis woman, and my supervisor, who then presented as a cis male, ended up being a trans woman. It's not a coincidence that my supervisor was able to recognize the nonsense of the assignment and was able to affirm me in my assignment. In connection, I think of a story my mother used to tell me where she had hoped to enter into video editing in the 80s and 90s, only to quit the jobs because she was 1. underpaid, but 2. the only woman in the technical side of film and thus fixated on by her male colleagues, and feel like it has some merit being listed here when we talk about women in 'male' fields and vice versa.
Gender and bio essentialism is rampant, and always has been, but it's got more fire behind it with movements like trans-exclusionary radical feminism and anti-trans gender-binary rhetoric flooding the airwaves of political pundits and policy. Make no mistake, these movements are based deeply in eugenics and can only end up there when you believe that anybody is born with any proclivity based within a binary. Whether it is gender, orientation, racial, or neurotype, the belief of adhering to a binary will always slide fast in that direction because it ignores the radical impact of social structures. While at first I found myself a bit disappointed that the book focuses solely on the gender binary of men and women based on sexual characteristics, it became pretty clear pretty quickly that we have to start this conversation there. We have to dismantle the idea that there is any difference at all that can be noted by neuroscience before we can start to have a conversation of gender as a social construct simply because all arguments for gender essentialism are so steeped in bunk 'science'.
Recently, I was speaking to a client who spoke to me about confusion on the gender affirming process for her trans friend, who had recently come to realize she was a trans woman. She, like many cis women, bristled at the feminization process and felt boiled down to hyper-feminine characteristics. She, rightfully, stated that her womanhood expanded beyond those characteristics. I spoke with her about how often we, as individuals raised in girlhood, do similar things during puberty. The realization or compulsory move towards feminity usually involves a stage of experimentation. Little pre-teen girls putting on too much makeup and wearing their mother's heels, metaphorically of course, because this is the way we're taught to explore the facets of gender. We then decide, like trans women often do, which parts of the performance we'd like to wear, but make no mistake. It is very much a performance. The amount of women I know personally and professionally who altered their gender presentation after covid because they didn't have to worry as heavily about the perception and affirmation of their gender--from wearing makeup, shaving their legs or arm-pits, or wearing bras--cannot be understated.
So, all of these anecdotes being said, I think Rippon does a fantastic job of breaking down just how poor interpretation of neuroscience has led to the perpetuation of a science hypothesis that just has no weight to it. It's a good companion piece to Bitch: On the Female of the Species by Lucy Cooke in breaking down the intense bias that exists in field, and the interpretation of these fields, that hold a weighted interest in perpetuating gender essentialism. All critiques I've seen of Gender and Our Brains have seemed to boil down to a variation of, "Rippon lists lots of science to back up her claims, but I simply believe too strongly that the characteristic differences I see are biological and not socially inferred at all, therefore I will continue to believe in gender essentialism because my bias confirmation is too strong." It's too bad, because it's a willful misreading of the text, and will lead those readers down a path that, like I said, makes it easier to agree with concepts tied to white supremacy (if social impacts aren't that impactful, then the only way to attest for higher presence of white individuals in positions of education, power, and financial affluency is that they are 'built better' for it) and eugenics (if things are innate, then we negate the plasticity of our brains and experiences, and become more accustomed to the idea that things cannot be changed or accomodated for those who are disabled).
Overall, 4.5 stars moved down to 4 stars simply because it was a bit repetitive in parts. I don't think that's bad, and honestly I believe it's necessary for Rippon because of the monster she was addressing here, but it made it a slog to get through.
Gender and bio essentialism is rampant, and always has been, but it's got more fire behind it with movements like trans-exclusionary radical feminism and anti-trans gender-binary rhetoric flooding the airwaves of political pundits and policy. Make no mistake, these movements are based deeply in eugenics and can only end up there when you believe that anybody is born with any proclivity based within a binary. Whether it is gender, orientation, racial, or neurotype, the belief of adhering to a binary will always slide fast in that direction because it ignores the radical impact of social structures. While at first I found myself a bit disappointed that the book focuses solely on the gender binary of men and women based on sexual characteristics, it became pretty clear pretty quickly that we have to start this conversation there. We have to dismantle the idea that there is any difference at all that can be noted by neuroscience before we can start to have a conversation of gender as a social construct simply because all arguments for gender essentialism are so steeped in bunk 'science'.
Recently, I was speaking to a client who spoke to me about confusion on the gender affirming process for her trans friend, who had recently come to realize she was a trans woman. She, like many cis women, bristled at the feminization process and felt boiled down to hyper-feminine characteristics. She, rightfully, stated that her womanhood expanded beyond those characteristics. I spoke with her about how often we, as individuals raised in girlhood, do similar things during puberty. The realization or compulsory move towards feminity usually involves a stage of experimentation. Little pre-teen girls putting on too much makeup and wearing their mother's heels, metaphorically of course, because this is the way we're taught to explore the facets of gender. We then decide, like trans women often do, which parts of the performance we'd like to wear, but make no mistake. It is very much a performance. The amount of women I know personally and professionally who altered their gender presentation after covid because they didn't have to worry as heavily about the perception and affirmation of their gender--from wearing makeup, shaving their legs or arm-pits, or wearing bras--cannot be understated.
So, all of these anecdotes being said, I think Rippon does a fantastic job of breaking down just how poor interpretation of neuroscience has led to the perpetuation of a science hypothesis that just has no weight to it. It's a good companion piece to Bitch: On the Female of the Species by Lucy Cooke in breaking down the intense bias that exists in field, and the interpretation of these fields, that hold a weighted interest in perpetuating gender essentialism. All critiques I've seen of Gender and Our Brains have seemed to boil down to a variation of, "Rippon lists lots of science to back up her claims, but I simply believe too strongly that the characteristic differences I see are biological and not socially inferred at all, therefore I will continue to believe in gender essentialism because my bias confirmation is too strong." It's too bad, because it's a willful misreading of the text, and will lead those readers down a path that, like I said, makes it easier to agree with concepts tied to white supremacy (if social impacts aren't that impactful, then the only way to attest for higher presence of white individuals in positions of education, power, and financial affluency is that they are 'built better' for it) and eugenics (if things are innate, then we negate the plasticity of our brains and experiences, and become more accustomed to the idea that things cannot be changed or accomodated for those who are disabled).
Overall, 4.5 stars moved down to 4 stars simply because it was a bit repetitive in parts. I don't think that's bad, and honestly I believe it's necessary for Rippon because of the monster she was addressing here, but it made it a slog to get through.