Surprisingly thin and awful. Given Fuentes’s position at Princeton, I expected careful engagement with the arguments, especially the scientific ones. Instead, this brief book leans on weak strawmen. Much of the “science” reads as reverse-engineered to fit a prior commitment to a particular view of human rights rather than argued on its own terms. For context, I’m a geneticist with a PhD in psychiatric genetics, so I guess I have something to say on the matter.
The book opens with what I take to be Fuentes’s greatest strength; surveying the diversity of sex biology across the animal kingdom, but the discussion meanders. The early chapters are initially intriguing, yet they seldom ask why these patterns exist, and the extended detour will likely lose non-anthropologists.
Soon we pivot to human biology and one of Fuentes’s inspirations, Simone de Beauvoir with her famous quote “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychic, or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female takes on in society.” It’s a powerful line, culture undeniably shapes identity, but taken to mean that womanhood is wholly a social invention or performance, it collapses. What’s puzzling is that elsewhere Fuentes (rightly) says gender and sex reflect an interplay of biology and culture, yet he endorses a statement that appears to deny any biological grounding for gender. Confusing.
Other claims are either wrong or epistemically careless about what we know and don’t know. On page 3 he writes, “we now know that human brains don’t come in ‘male’ and ‘female’ versions.” - but this is wrong. if you take almost any brain on earth, you can sequence the DNA and quickly determine if it belonged to a man or woman; does this not constitute a significant difference? If this is meant to imply that chromosomal context (XX vs. XY) is irrelevant to brain biology and disease prevalence, it’s simply misleading. We may not yet have precise mappings from chromosomal/hormonal differences to specific behaviors, but that is a statement about current limits of evidence, not evidence of absence. Rather than say “we don’t know yet,” the book jumps to sweeping conclusions.
This tendency shows up again when he gestures to “brain-imaging studies,” echoing Gina Rippon–style arguments. Neuroimaging is valuable, but it is also coarse and often underpowered for fine-grained questions; it’s not the last word on sex-linked neurobiology. The book doesn’t seriously engage functional genomics or genetic evidence, nor the simple fact that the brain is the most complex organ on Earth, sometimes not finding an effect reflects our tools, not the nonexistence of the phenomenon (just as pre-germ-theory medicine couldn’t “see” bacteria).
Finally, Fuentes wades into sports, and this is the nail in the coffin for me. not because I oppose inclusion (that’s for sports bodies to decide), but because Fuentes relies on rhetorical sleight of hand. He notes that the fastest-kicked goal in the 2023 Women’s World Cup exceeded the fastest in the 2022–23 Premier League, and attributes this to "training" (!!!!). But cherry-picking a single statistic doesn’t overturn the overwhelming distributional differences between men and women. The top recorded ball speeds (roughly ~130–210 km/h by one estimate) are all by men, and any Premier League side versus a top women’s team would almost certainly be a blowout. Training matters; but it doesn’t erase gaps in sex performance.
Most grating is the repeated move where he insists there’s “rarely a perfect one-to-one correlation” between biology and gendered experience. Of course, almost nothing shows a perfect correlation. That framing dodges the substantive point - biological sex remains the strongest predictor of phenomena like menstruation and average muscle strength. Setting “perfection” as the standard is a strawman, not a rebuttal.