Delusions of Gender

Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference is a 2010 book by Cordelia Fine, written to debunk the idea that men and women are hardwired with different interests. The author criticizes claimed evidence of the existence of innate biological differences between men and women's minds as being faulty and exaggerated, and while taking a position of agnosticism with respect to inherent differences relating to interest/skill in 'understanding the world' versus 'understanding people', reviews literature demonstrating how cultural and societal beliefs contribute to sex differences.

Delusions of Gender:
How Our Minds,
Society, and Neurosexism
Create Difference
Cover
AuthorCordelia Fine
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
SubjectSex and intelligence
PublisherW. W. Norton & Company
Publication date
2010
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages338
ISBN0-393-06838-2

Contents

In the first part of the book, "'Half Changed World', Half Changed Minds", Fine argues that social and environmental factors strongly influence the mind, challenging a 'biology as fallback' view that, since society is equal now for the sexes, persistent inequalities must be due to biology. She also discusses the history and impact of gender stereotypes and the ways that science has been used to justify sexism.

In the second part of the book, "Neurosexism", Fine criticizes the current available arguments and studies supporting sex differences in the mind, focusing on methodological weaknesses and implicit assumptions. Within neuroscientific investigations, these include small samples that give rise to unreliable, spurious results, and poorly justified 'reverse inferences' (claims of stereotype-consistent psychological differences between the sexes on the basis of brain differences). Fine also demonstrates how already weak neuroscientific conclusions are then grossly overblown by popular writers. Fine also discusses non-neuroimaging evidence cited as support for innate differences between the sexes. For example, she explains weaknesses in the work done by a student of Simon Baron-Cohen that has been widely cited (by the Gurian Institute, by Leonard Sax, by Peter Lawrence, and by Baron-Cohen himself): one-and-a-half-day-old babies were tested for preference in sequence rather than being given a choice; were tested in different viewing positions, some horizontal on their backs and some held in a parent's lap, which could affect their perception; inadequate efforts were made to ensure the sex of the subject was unknown to the tester at the time of the test; the authors assume, without justification, that newborn looking preferences are a reliable 'flag' for later social skills that are the product of a long and complex developmental process.[1]

In the third part of the book, "Recycling Gender", Fine discusses the highly gendered society in which children develop, and the contribution of that to the group identity processes that motivate children to 'self-socialize'. This challenges the common belief of parents that they tried gender-neutral parenting, but it didn't work. An overall thesis of the work is the negative impact for sex equality of neurosexism (popular or academic neuroscientific claims that reinforce or justify gender stereotypes in ways that are not scientifically justified).

Reception

In the UK, the book received positive reviews in Nature,[2] The Independent, The Times Literary Supplement, New Scientist, Metro and The Belfast Telegraph.[3] The Guardian[4] and London Evening Standard[5] each chose it as a Book of the Year. It was Book of the Week in Times Higher Education.[6]

In Australia, the book received positive reviews in The Age, The Australian and The West Australian.[3]

Delusions of Gender received positive reviews in the United States in The New York Times,[7] The Washington Post,[8] USA Today,[9] Newsweek,[10] Jezebel[11] and Kirkus Reviews.[12] Publishers Weekly chose it for a starred review and as a Pick of the Week.[3]

More positive reviews came from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, The Globe and Mail, Socialist Worker, Out in Perth, The Fat Quarter, Erotic Review, The F Word, Counterfire, Neuroskeptic (at Discover magazine).[3] Ms. magazine and Elle singled the book out for their readers.[3]

  • 2013 Warwick Prize for Writing, shortlist
  • 2011 Victorian Premier's Literary Award for Non-Fiction, shortlist
  • 2011, Best Book of Ideas, shortlist
  • 2010, John Llewellyn Rhys Prize, shortlist

Academic reaction

Simon Baron-Cohen reviewed the book in The Psychologist. In it, he accused Fine of "fusing science with politics," writing, "Where I – and I suspect many other contemporary scientists – would part ways with Fine is in her strident, extreme denial of the role that biology might play in giving rise to any sex differences in the mind and brain. ...(she) ignores that you can be a scientist interested in the nature of sex differences while being a clear supporter of equal opportunities and a firm opponent of all forms of discrimination in society."[13] Fine responded in a published letter to The Psychologist, stating "The thesis of my book (no veils required) is that while social effects on sex differences are well-established, spurious results, poor methodologies and untested assumptions mean we don’t yet know whether, on average, males and females are born differently predisposed to systemizing versus empathising."[14]

Former APA President Diane F. Halpern, co-author of the article "The Science of Sex Differences in Mathematics and Science"[15] that Fine criticizes in Delusions of Gender, reviewed the book and concluded that it was "strongest in exposing research conclusions that are closer to fiction than science...[but] weakest in failing to also point out differences that are supported by a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research", noting that Fine largely ignores the latter body of research.[16]

Stanford neurobiologist Ben Barres stated in a review for the Public Library of Science Biology that Delusions of Gender "should be required reading for every neurobiology student, if not every human being."[17]

Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist who is the author of Why can't a woman be more like a man?, in a video lecture stated that Fine "[hasn't] got a clue about biology".[18]

McCarthy and Ball (2011) reviewed the book in the journal Biology of Sex Differences. They acknowledged that "Prompting laypeople to adopt a more critical view of overly simplistic views of complex data sets is a goal any scientist can support, and for that we applaud (Fine's) efforts." However, their overall review is not positive, and they suggest that Fine's book presents an oversimplified and seriously distorted characterization of neuroscience as applied to the study of sex differences. They expressed disappointment that Fine's book "...can be vexing in the ways the scientific study of sex differences in brain and behavior is portrayed and (how) the current state-of-the-art is presented."[19] However, later work by Fine published in the journal Neuroethics identified systematic issues in the way human neuroimaging investigations of sex differences tend to be investigated, contra the notion of a few 'bad apples'.[20] Many of the criticisms of such work made in Delusions of Gender were noted in the article "Perils and pitfalls of reporting sex differences" by Donna L. Maney, as part of a Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Theme Issue "Multifaceted origins of sex differences in the brain', compiled and edited by McCarthy in 2016.

Evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk, reviewing the book with Rebecca Jordan-Young's Brain Storm, in the Quarterly Review of Biology wrote: "It is important to emphasize that neither author advocates throwing the gender-neutral baby out with its pink or blue bathwater ... The books are good ammunition for arguments with people who think science has incontrovertibly shown biological bases for gender differences such as mathematical ability. At the same time, they are not simply claiming that “it is all culture” or that science can play no role in understanding gender. Both Fine and Jordan-Young want better science, not less of it."[21]

gollark: Valid Haskell code:```haskelllet 2 + 2 = 5 in 2 + 2```
gollark: Mine would be about as hard and much better.
gollark: ...
gollark: ...
gollark: ...

See also

References
  1. Fine, Cordelia (2010). Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. W. W. Norton. pp. 112–115. ISBN 978-0-393-34024-2.
  2. Valian, Virginia (16 February 2011). "Psychology: More alike than different". Nature. 470 (7334): 332–333. doi:10.1038/470332a. Preview and rental of the article available on readcube.com here.
  3. "Delusions of Gender". Cordelia Fine. Archived from the original on September 5, 2013. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
  4. Winterson, Jeanette (November 26, 2010). "Books of the year". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
  5. Urwin, Rosamund (November 25, 2010). "The books we loved in 2010". London Evening Standard. Evening Standard. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
  6. Rose, Hilary (September 30, 2010). "Book of the Week: Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences". THE: Times Higher Education. TSL Education. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
  7. Bouton, Elizabeth (August 23, 2010). "Peeling Away Theories on Gender and the Brain". The New York Times. Retrieved August 23, 2013.
  8. Herbert, Wray (September 12, 2010). "'Delusions of Gender' argues that faulty science is furthering sexism". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 23, 2013.
  9. Vergano, Dan (August 8, 2010). "Neuroscience or 'Neurosexism'? Book claims brain scans sell sexes short". USA Today. Gannett. Retrieved August 23, 2013.
  10. Bennett, Jessica (September 1, 2010). "'Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference'". Newsweek. Newsweek/Daily Beast. Retrieved August 23, 2013.
  11. North, Anna (September 1, 2010). "5 Myths About The Female Brain". Jezebel.com. Gawker Media. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
  12. "Book Review: Delusions of Gender". Kirkus Reviews. Nielsen Business Media. June 15, 2010. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
  13. Baron-Cohen, Simon (November 2010). "Delusions of gender – 'neurosexism', biology and politics". The Psychologist. British Psychological Society. 23 (11): 904–905.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  14. Fine, Cordelia (December 2010). "Forum: Seductive arguments?". The Psychologist. British Psychological Society. 23 (11): 948–949.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Pdf version.
  15. Halpern, Diane F.; Benbow, Camilla P.; Geary, David C.; Gur, Ruben C.; Hyde, Janet Shibley; Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (August 2007). "The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 8 (1): 1–51. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x. JSTOR 40062381. PMC 4270278. PMID 25530726.
  16. Halpern, Diane F. (3 December 2010). "How Neuromythologies Support Sex Role Stereotypes". Science. 330 (6009): 1320–1321. doi:10.1126/science.1198057. ISSN 0036-8075. JSTOR 40963960. Despite the large amount of junk science on the topic that is reported in the popular media and in some academic outlets, there are also consistent findings of sex differences that hold up across studies, across species, and across cultures. Most of these are ignored by Fine.
  17. Barres, Ben A. (2010). "Neuro Nonsense". PLoS Biology. 8 (12): e1001005. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001005. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 3001899.
  18. George Kalarritis (8 January 2017). "Physical & Psychological Differences Between Men and Women. Lewis Wolpert (2013)" – via YouTube.
  19. McCarthy, Margaret M; Ball, Gregory F (2011). "Tempests and tales: challenges to the study of sex differences in the brain". Biology of Sex Differences. 2 (1): 4. doi:10.1186/2042-6410-2-4. ISSN 2042-6410. PMC 3108906.
  20. Fine, Cordelia (2012). "Is There Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging Investigations of Sex Differences?". Neuroethics. 6 (2): 369–409. doi:10.1007/s12152-012-9169-1. ISSN 1874-5490.
  21. Zuk, Marlene (15 August 2017). Fine, Cordelia; Jordan-Young, Rebecca M. (eds.). "Mentally Rotating Gender". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 86 (3): 198–202. doi:10.1086/661120. JSTOR 10.1086/661120.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.