What do you think?
Sexing the Brain
In Sexing the Brain , Lesley Rogers explores the science of sex differences in brain and behavior. She shows how, in each age, scientific claims about sex and gender differences have reflected the culture of the time. Although the conviction has spread that genetics can explain everything, the author brings to light the role of culture and environment in the formation of the behavioral traits, and so provides an important corrective to popular reductionism.
154 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 2000
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 2, 2012
The author seems to be somewhat unsure of her target audience - it would be perfectly possible to develop the argument for a general audience without detailed brain anatomy, but much of the discussion is repetitive in the way that is not required to convince a scientifically literate reader. That and the manner in which some of the central chapters verged on polemic annoyed me, but I was encouraged by the end when it became clear that her main point was that in an organ as complex as the brain, in an organism influenced by so many aspects of environment as humanity, then a reductionist description of differences in sex and sexuality is entirely inadequate.
December 6, 2012
Too argumentative. The author seems to only want to critique studies which illustrate biological differences in gender/sex, thus being biased in her presentation as if reductionism is unscientific or somehow inferior to her behaviorist views.
January 13, 2022
One of my favourite subjects to think about is the differences between men and women, although more from a religio-philosophical perspective than scientific. I did learn a lot from the science perspective in this book, but it get tedious and frankly a bit boring after a while. The book is also more of a critique on previous research done by researchers the author disagree with vehemently and there is very little of the author's own research (a lot of her own opinions though) in it. I am not a scientist at all (and not planning to cross reference the book by trying to read any of the articles the author mentions) but from a religious and philosophical point of view I do agree with her on many points. One of these is that, though I am absolutely and unashamedly pro-LGBTQ, I disagree that anyone is born either hetero- or homosexual. The fact that I am heterosexual I base more on my environment and social ideas of that environment than on my genes, the more I learn about the LGBTQ community and my own openness to that community, the more I carefully consider myself bi-curious. Personally, I feel I have a choice in this. I further agree completely with Rogers that our brain sizes and differences in genes and the amount of male or female hormones does not make men superior to women. In the end, the only reason the book does not deserve a four star is because, despite being quiet short, it is difficult to read and get very boring at stages.
October 24, 2022
6.4/10 — l’d love an updated version of this book as a lot of the science used is understandably out-of-date, with the book being 21 years old. Additionally, the language used to talk about a lot of concepts is equally archaic. I did find it very interesting how the author highlights how politically and socially motivated some researchers can be with their analysis of findings and data, so much so that other researchers struggle to reproduce the same findings. Definitely a book that gives biological credence to gender being a construct.
“The intricate processes involved in the development of a living organism cannot be separated one from another. Genes, hormones, and inputs from the outside all interact. They are completely intertwined.”
“The intricate processes involved in the development of a living organism cannot be separated one from another. Genes, hormones, and inputs from the outside all interact. They are completely intertwined.”
February 18, 2014
The book is written for a non-scientific audience. It's part of a series on the brain and I expect it was meant to summarize for a general reader, the state of the knowledge on the topic. As such it was OK.
The author rightly points out that there is a lot of quack science in a field dominated by quack science. Medical doctors are not generally educated as good scientists and the knowledge base in brain-sex comes largely from medical-psychiatric professionals. Lesley Rogers argues repeatedly (and correctly) that much of the knowledge is wrong because it is socially biased, mostly because the field was male-dominated for many years. Even now woman researchers (she criticizes several by name) are also guilty of letting preconceived social outcomes drive the research (e.g. gay genes; male vs. female differences).
I think the problems that these researchers foment is more hideous than that and Rogers seems to only vaguely get it herself. The problem is common enough among even good scientists. It happens when researchers make statements about their research that sound like conclusions or outcomes when they are actually hypotheses (an hypothesis is a research question, stated as a declarative to be tested). (I call this the hand-waving and pandering to popularity found in the Discussion of many research articles in these fields) The sad thing that Rogers points out is that many of the hypotheses are never followed up on as research questions in themselves. Worse yet the popular press (also badly fouled up with pseudo-educated science phobic journalists) jump on these hypothesis statements and run with them as "scientific" conclusions such that these non-valid "findings" become entrenched in the public conversation. Rogers quotes one example near the end of the book that persists decades after the original work was falsified scientifically.
Rogers also rails against too much reductionism in the field. While I agree that too much is often made of the results of reductionist studies (see above) I disagree that this is all bad. Reducing combined intractable factors in research is the only way to move knowledge forward. I agree that workers and everyone else should not be permitted to make too much of their results. Reducing confusing factors to manageable minimums is only the beginning of a long process of dovetailed experiments that eventually make some sense of the whole; only if all the work is completed. It's hard work.
However, constantly hiding behind statements like "its too complicated to understand" or "it cannot be understood through reductionist tests" is not useful either. This seems to be Lesley Roger's position. Some people want us all to go back to the Dark Ages of alchemy and mystical interpretations of the world. I'm just not sure what Lesley Roger's thinks the way forward should be.
The author rightly points out that there is a lot of quack science in a field dominated by quack science. Medical doctors are not generally educated as good scientists and the knowledge base in brain-sex comes largely from medical-psychiatric professionals. Lesley Rogers argues repeatedly (and correctly) that much of the knowledge is wrong because it is socially biased, mostly because the field was male-dominated for many years. Even now woman researchers (she criticizes several by name) are also guilty of letting preconceived social outcomes drive the research (e.g. gay genes; male vs. female differences).
I think the problems that these researchers foment is more hideous than that and Rogers seems to only vaguely get it herself. The problem is common enough among even good scientists. It happens when researchers make statements about their research that sound like conclusions or outcomes when they are actually hypotheses (an hypothesis is a research question, stated as a declarative to be tested). (I call this the hand-waving and pandering to popularity found in the Discussion of many research articles in these fields) The sad thing that Rogers points out is that many of the hypotheses are never followed up on as research questions in themselves. Worse yet the popular press (also badly fouled up with pseudo-educated science phobic journalists) jump on these hypothesis statements and run with them as "scientific" conclusions such that these non-valid "findings" become entrenched in the public conversation. Rogers quotes one example near the end of the book that persists decades after the original work was falsified scientifically.
Rogers also rails against too much reductionism in the field. While I agree that too much is often made of the results of reductionist studies (see above) I disagree that this is all bad. Reducing combined intractable factors in research is the only way to move knowledge forward. I agree that workers and everyone else should not be permitted to make too much of their results. Reducing confusing factors to manageable minimums is only the beginning of a long process of dovetailed experiments that eventually make some sense of the whole; only if all the work is completed. It's hard work.
However, constantly hiding behind statements like "its too complicated to understand" or "it cannot be understood through reductionist tests" is not useful either. This seems to be Lesley Roger's position. Some people want us all to go back to the Dark Ages of alchemy and mystical interpretations of the world. I'm just not sure what Lesley Roger's thinks the way forward should be.
November 22, 2014
It is a very biased book. Maybe it is biased towards the right answer, I don't know, it is quite possible, but the thing is: it is written in a "biased way". The author does not try to tell you the story, she doesn't invite you to think together; she does not compare different claims, looking for their strong and weak sides. She is not engaged in a process of looking for an answer, and she doesn't engage you. She knows the answer, and everybody who don't adhere to her views are wrong. And it is annoying.
I hoped to read this short book to become more versed in the problem, but it is exactly the sort of book that can put somebody off from even trying to read about this subject. It turns this potentially very interesting and important subject in a barren and angry minefield, with author as a sniper on a tree, ready to shoot you immediately the moment you even think that there could be some differences between boys and girls. "The nature is more complex than it seems" she writes repeatedly, but then essentially simplifies it to one possible answer.
Also, as another reviewer mentioned, the intended audience is unclear. It is too boring for a layperson, as it has too many unexplained technicalities in it, but it is also boring for a specialist, as it rarely goes into details of the claims. It sits there in this no-mans-land (to be honest, most popular scientific books do), but it's really a shame considering, again, how potentially interesting and important, and universally loaded this question is.
I'll have to stay waiting for another book about sex and brain.
I hoped to read this short book to become more versed in the problem, but it is exactly the sort of book that can put somebody off from even trying to read about this subject. It turns this potentially very interesting and important subject in a barren and angry minefield, with author as a sniper on a tree, ready to shoot you immediately the moment you even think that there could be some differences between boys and girls. "The nature is more complex than it seems" she writes repeatedly, but then essentially simplifies it to one possible answer.
Also, as another reviewer mentioned, the intended audience is unclear. It is too boring for a layperson, as it has too many unexplained technicalities in it, but it is also boring for a specialist, as it rarely goes into details of the claims. It sits there in this no-mans-land (to be honest, most popular scientific books do), but it's really a shame considering, again, how potentially interesting and important, and universally loaded this question is.
I'll have to stay waiting for another book about sex and brain.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews