What do you think?
Rate this book
On Sex and Gender: A Commonsense Approach
An eye-opening account of what the left and right get wrong about sex and gender—and how we can get them right for everyone.
On Sex and Gender focuses on three sequential and consequential What is sex as opposed to gender? How does sex matter in our everyday lives? And how should it be reflected in law and policy? All three have been front-and-center in American life and politics since the rise of the trans rights They are included in both major parties’ political platforms. They are the subject of ongoing litigation in the federal courts and of highly contentious legislation on Capitol Hill. And they are a pivotal issue in the culture wars between left and right playing out around dinner tables, on campuses and school boards, on op-ed pages, and in corporate handbooks.
Doriane Coleman challenges both sides to chart a better way. In a book that is equal parts scientific explanation, historical examination, and personal reflection, she argues that denying biological sex and focusing only on gender would have profound and detrimental effects on women’s equal opportunity, on men’s future prospects, and on the health and welfare of society generally. Structural sexism needed to be dismantled—a true achievement of feminism and an ongoing fight—but going forward we should be sex smart, not sex blind.
This book is a clear guide for reasonable Americans on sex and gender—something everyone wants to understand but is terrified to discuss. Coleman shows that the science is settled, but equally that there is a middle ground where common sense reigns and we can support transgender people without denying the facts of human biology. She livens her narrative with a sequence of portraits of exceptional human beings from legal pioneers like Myra Bradwell and Ketanji Brown Jackson to champion athletes like Caster Semenya and Cate Campbell to civil rights giants like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Pauli Murray. Above all, Coleman reminds us that sex not only exists, but is also good—and she shows how we can get both sex and gender right for society.
On Sex and Gender focuses on three sequential and consequential What is sex as opposed to gender? How does sex matter in our everyday lives? And how should it be reflected in law and policy? All three have been front-and-center in American life and politics since the rise of the trans rights They are included in both major parties’ political platforms. They are the subject of ongoing litigation in the federal courts and of highly contentious legislation on Capitol Hill. And they are a pivotal issue in the culture wars between left and right playing out around dinner tables, on campuses and school boards, on op-ed pages, and in corporate handbooks.
Doriane Coleman challenges both sides to chart a better way. In a book that is equal parts scientific explanation, historical examination, and personal reflection, she argues that denying biological sex and focusing only on gender would have profound and detrimental effects on women’s equal opportunity, on men’s future prospects, and on the health and welfare of society generally. Structural sexism needed to be dismantled—a true achievement of feminism and an ongoing fight—but going forward we should be sex smart, not sex blind.
This book is a clear guide for reasonable Americans on sex and gender—something everyone wants to understand but is terrified to discuss. Coleman shows that the science is settled, but equally that there is a middle ground where common sense reigns and we can support transgender people without denying the facts of human biology. She livens her narrative with a sequence of portraits of exceptional human beings from legal pioneers like Myra Bradwell and Ketanji Brown Jackson to champion athletes like Caster Semenya and Cate Campbell to civil rights giants like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Pauli Murray. Above all, Coleman reminds us that sex not only exists, but is also good—and she shows how we can get both sex and gender right for society.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published May 21, 2024
10 people are currently reading
357 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 5, 2024
Reading this book was almost a complete waste of my time. This book is not a “commonsense approach.” It’s a legal approach. The author is a law professor, and is approaching the subject from a legal point of view, not a common sense point of view.
The author’s interest is in keeping women’s sports restricted to people with female bodies. So she emphasizes the physical differences between male bodies and female bodies. She therefore underfocuses on the cultural demands and expectations placed on people due to the sex of their bodies, which is the heart of the gender problem today.
The author’s interest is in keeping women’s sports restricted to people with female bodies. So she emphasizes the physical differences between male bodies and female bodies. She therefore underfocuses on the cultural demands and expectations placed on people due to the sex of their bodies, which is the heart of the gender problem today.
May 24, 2024
On Sex and Gender is an exceptional read that navigates complex topics with clarity and wisdom. This book is perfect for readers who want a thorough understanding of the implications of replacing sex with the concept of "gender identity" in law, language, and public policy. Highly recommended.
June 12, 2024
4.5 - a thought out and logical approach to sex, gender, being sex blind and sex smart.
Don't necessarily agree, but well written.
Hard hitters in this book: feminism, transgender, female/male/enby, selective inclusivity, trans folks in sports
Don't necessarily agree, but well written.
Hard hitters in this book: feminism, transgender, female/male/enby, selective inclusivity, trans folks in sports
August 14, 2024
While Coleman and I have a few subtle differences, this book is BY FAR the MOST compassionate, masterfully argued, impartial and sane treatment on this fraught topic. There IS life on this planet, after all. Who the hell knew! I am so heartened by what Coleman accomplished in this book.
September 30, 2024
Wow, where to begin. For starters, DNF. I made it 200+ pages and it was hard going. So I cannot vouch for the last 100 pages.
The kindest thing I can say is that this might have been an interesting book if it was just the (cited) research about the history of sex and gender. Luckily, those books exist already. If you want to read a book based in science and research, this is not it.
I am a research scientist and statistician and it is good form to present trends and data points in tandem with uncertainty, to specify when statements are your own theories and not proven, to not use superlative statements unless an overwhelming portion of researchers in a field agree on something. This book does not do that. It is more of a stream-of-consciousness about the author's impressions of the world with somewhat-related facts scattered around it.
I am not sure what to call the logical fallacy of issuing unknowable/omniscient/superlative statements, like "The world is not ready for xxx legislation," or "xxx thing has always affected xxx people more than xxx people," or putting a quotation, then making claims about the speaker's underlying intentions and presenting them as facts. I want to call it false omniscience?
But my point is that this book is absolutely full of sweeping speculations and omniscient statements and superlatives, all presented as truths--when these are, in a very technical way, unknowable and therefore only opinions and impressions. When I say these statements are presented as truths, I mean that they are placed in-between historical facts and trends and real results of research studies.
This is just a random example, flipping through right now. This quote comes after a paragraph about sex-linked differences in brain development like overall mass, density, amygdala and hippocampus size.
"Related to these sex differences, although both males and females can be aggressive, males the world over are more likely to be physically aggressive. From the onset of puberty, males are more likely than females to ride solo, to be less communicative, to be risk takers, and to have higher libido. From that same point, females the world over are more likely than males to be interested in socializing in groups, in staying physically healthy and safe, in being communicative, and in engaging in empathetic behaviors like caregiving and cooperation. Beginning at puberty, when menstrual cycles effect jarring changes in the chemistry of the brain on a regular basis, females experience higher degrees of mood-related disorders including depression and anxiety, and they have double to triple the rate of migraine. Tracking their related sex-linked traits, males are more likely to suffer from substance abuse and antisocial behaviors, and to die by suicide."
All the things in this paragraph might be true, but putting societal trends in a chapter about biological differences is strange and uninformative. Each of the claims above could be the subject of a dozen different dissertations and large-scale research projects--and we would still not be able to tease apart the influence that biological sex has, if any, on social inequalities in a misogynist society.
A misogynist society has, by definition, misogynist and oppressive effects on the people within it. Chalking those up to biology is dangerous and sloppy, and feels like an appeal to complacency and distinctly anti-feminist. Saying females have higher depression and anxiety in a sex-linked connotation is devaluing the devastating effects of misogyny. Systemic trends cannot be boiled down to one lens, and unmeasurable sex-linked traits seem like a poor lens when gender-based oppression exists. And saying males die by suicide because of brain physiology is such a strange claim in a society that isolates men, where masculinity is tied to loneliness. I do not understand why the author is making these claims about sex-linked biology.
And this is from the following paragraph:
"As I learned from our dog Rafa, you can breed the wolf out of the shih tzu, but as the little guy is looking to situate himself for the night, like the wolf making a bed for himself in the ground, round and round the pillow he goes. It’s because nature remains a powerful force on the brain that it’s a mistake to ignore biological explanations for differences in how males and females experience important endogenous and exogenous phenomena."
Every time I read that last line it gets worse. I do not love being compared to a dog, but the logical leap here goes from dogs spinning around before they go to sleep (my dog does not do this) to nature being a "powerful force" we can't ignore because it has unmeasurable, unknowable effects on human society. That statement doesn't offer any useable information. There are lots of things it's a "mistake to ignore," and that doesn't mean they are worthwhile topics to focus on, or write books about. I do not see the point of this statement, or this book in general, except to justify misogyny and muddy the water of feminism with misleading and vague opinions, and unscientific ramblings.
Sorry this is more long-winded than I intended, but TLDR: This book advertises itself as a place to learn about sex and gender, but it strikes me as just a place to learn of *one* person's *opinions* about sex and gender. It is not scientific, though it references science as if it is scientific. Much of it is devoted to discussions of genitals that did not, to me, seem to prove any particular points except that people have them. The logic is messy, the valid information buried under opinions, and it reads like the stream of consciousness of an amateur/aspiring genital phrenologist. I do not think there is much utility to this book existing and would not recommend it to anyone.
The kindest thing I can say is that this might have been an interesting book if it was just the (cited) research about the history of sex and gender. Luckily, those books exist already. If you want to read a book based in science and research, this is not it.
I am a research scientist and statistician and it is good form to present trends and data points in tandem with uncertainty, to specify when statements are your own theories and not proven, to not use superlative statements unless an overwhelming portion of researchers in a field agree on something. This book does not do that. It is more of a stream-of-consciousness about the author's impressions of the world with somewhat-related facts scattered around it.
I am not sure what to call the logical fallacy of issuing unknowable/omniscient/superlative statements, like "The world is not ready for xxx legislation," or "xxx thing has always affected xxx people more than xxx people," or putting a quotation, then making claims about the speaker's underlying intentions and presenting them as facts. I want to call it false omniscience?
But my point is that this book is absolutely full of sweeping speculations and omniscient statements and superlatives, all presented as truths--when these are, in a very technical way, unknowable and therefore only opinions and impressions. When I say these statements are presented as truths, I mean that they are placed in-between historical facts and trends and real results of research studies.
This is just a random example, flipping through right now. This quote comes after a paragraph about sex-linked differences in brain development like overall mass, density, amygdala and hippocampus size.
"Related to these sex differences, although both males and females can be aggressive, males the world over are more likely to be physically aggressive. From the onset of puberty, males are more likely than females to ride solo, to be less communicative, to be risk takers, and to have higher libido. From that same point, females the world over are more likely than males to be interested in socializing in groups, in staying physically healthy and safe, in being communicative, and in engaging in empathetic behaviors like caregiving and cooperation. Beginning at puberty, when menstrual cycles effect jarring changes in the chemistry of the brain on a regular basis, females experience higher degrees of mood-related disorders including depression and anxiety, and they have double to triple the rate of migraine. Tracking their related sex-linked traits, males are more likely to suffer from substance abuse and antisocial behaviors, and to die by suicide."
All the things in this paragraph might be true, but putting societal trends in a chapter about biological differences is strange and uninformative. Each of the claims above could be the subject of a dozen different dissertations and large-scale research projects--and we would still not be able to tease apart the influence that biological sex has, if any, on social inequalities in a misogynist society.
A misogynist society has, by definition, misogynist and oppressive effects on the people within it. Chalking those up to biology is dangerous and sloppy, and feels like an appeal to complacency and distinctly anti-feminist. Saying females have higher depression and anxiety in a sex-linked connotation is devaluing the devastating effects of misogyny. Systemic trends cannot be boiled down to one lens, and unmeasurable sex-linked traits seem like a poor lens when gender-based oppression exists. And saying males die by suicide because of brain physiology is such a strange claim in a society that isolates men, where masculinity is tied to loneliness. I do not understand why the author is making these claims about sex-linked biology.
And this is from the following paragraph:
"As I learned from our dog Rafa, you can breed the wolf out of the shih tzu, but as the little guy is looking to situate himself for the night, like the wolf making a bed for himself in the ground, round and round the pillow he goes. It’s because nature remains a powerful force on the brain that it’s a mistake to ignore biological explanations for differences in how males and females experience important endogenous and exogenous phenomena."
Every time I read that last line it gets worse. I do not love being compared to a dog, but the logical leap here goes from dogs spinning around before they go to sleep (my dog does not do this) to nature being a "powerful force" we can't ignore because it has unmeasurable, unknowable effects on human society. That statement doesn't offer any useable information. There are lots of things it's a "mistake to ignore," and that doesn't mean they are worthwhile topics to focus on, or write books about. I do not see the point of this statement, or this book in general, except to justify misogyny and muddy the water of feminism with misleading and vague opinions, and unscientific ramblings.
Sorry this is more long-winded than I intended, but TLDR: This book advertises itself as a place to learn about sex and gender, but it strikes me as just a place to learn of *one* person's *opinions* about sex and gender. It is not scientific, though it references science as if it is scientific. Much of it is devoted to discussions of genitals that did not, to me, seem to prove any particular points except that people have them. The logic is messy, the valid information buried under opinions, and it reads like the stream of consciousness of an amateur/aspiring genital phrenologist. I do not think there is much utility to this book existing and would not recommend it to anyone.
February 11, 2025
A very difficult but necessary conversation to have - by no means do I agree with everything the author has discussed but if you have an interest in viewing this from a legal lense, it's worth the read.
December 9, 2024
“A Commonsense Approach,” or in other words- some lady’s opinions mixed with “just trust me bro” science/data.
August 8, 2025
some interesting parts and good points but got a vibe of anti trans and dismissive of intersex people
September 2, 2025
need to think on a bit more to flesh out my thoughts, but first impressions are:
1) some useful legal context & I appreciated the authors perspectives & honesty about what has shaped those.
2) I thought would have a lot more 'data' ie information presented considering the content. felt a lot more like the authors' opinions stated mixed with my friend anecdotes & some research sprinkled
3) some weird presentations of ideas. some abrupt 'this is the way it is' centeredness without fully exploring the content & nuances? especially felt like misrepresentation of certain movements - ie not distinguishing the most radical of certain movements from the wider movements
4) gives a bit of that dude that says he's not left or right holier than thou vibes at moments
5) the defense of jk Rowling without exploring the behaviours being criticized um
6) I appreciated the exploration into the complexity of balancing individual vs group rights in a democracy. however it felt like the author lacked critical empathy for all parties involved. I guess it felt a bit standing a foot away, with self-reflection & unpacking of social norms often present but not really explored
7) I especially wanted to learn more about the research regarding sports & inclusion of transgender women but felt like I didn't gain that despite it being discussed?
1) some useful legal context & I appreciated the authors perspectives & honesty about what has shaped those.
2) I thought would have a lot more 'data' ie information presented considering the content. felt a lot more like the authors' opinions stated mixed with my friend anecdotes & some research sprinkled
3) some weird presentations of ideas. some abrupt 'this is the way it is' centeredness without fully exploring the content & nuances? especially felt like misrepresentation of certain movements - ie not distinguishing the most radical of certain movements from the wider movements
4) gives a bit of that dude that says he's not left or right holier than thou vibes at moments
5) the defense of jk Rowling without exploring the behaviours being criticized um
6) I appreciated the exploration into the complexity of balancing individual vs group rights in a democracy. however it felt like the author lacked critical empathy for all parties involved. I guess it felt a bit standing a foot away, with self-reflection & unpacking of social norms often present but not really explored
7) I especially wanted to learn more about the research regarding sports & inclusion of transgender women but felt like I didn't gain that despite it being discussed?
September 18, 2024
Doriane Coleman is a former track star (one of the early beneficiaries of Title IX) and a distinguished law professor at Duke University. She focuses her discussion of sex and gender on sport both because of her expertise and because it is an arena in which, if the physical is ever going to matter, it will be there. She does not believe that sex is an arbitrary assignment that doctors make; one's physical sex determines how one's body will develop, and, by teenage, males can best adult women's world's records (think Katie Ledecky and 16 American high school boys). It's well worth reading.
September 19, 2024
Idk why I read this but I was intrigued tbh and learned more than I thought I would
February 7, 2025
Very legal - covers interesting ideas and topics
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews