What do you think?
Rate this book
Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences
Female and male brains are different, thanks to hormones coursing through the brain before birth. That's taught as fact in psychology textbooks, academic journals, and bestselling books. And these hardwired differences explain everything from sexual orientation to gender identity, to why there aren't more women physicists or more stay-at-home dads.
In this compelling book, Rebecca Jordan-Young takes on the evidence that sex differences are hardwired into the brain. Analyzing virtually all published research that supports the claims of "human brain organization theory," Jordan-Young reveals how often these studies fail the standards of science. Even if careful researchers point out the limits of their own studies, other researchers and journalists can easily ignore them because brain organization theory just sounds so right. But if a series of methodological weaknesses, questionable assumptions, inconsistent definitions, and enormous gaps between ambiguous findings and grand conclusions have accumulated through the years, then science isn't scientific at all.
Elegantly written, this book argues passionately that the analysis of gender differences deserves far more rigorous, biologically sophisticated science. "The evidence for hormonal sex differentiation of the human brain better resembles a hodge-podge pile than a solid structure... Once we have cleared the rubble, we can begin to build newer, more scientific stories about human development."
In this compelling book, Rebecca Jordan-Young takes on the evidence that sex differences are hardwired into the brain. Analyzing virtually all published research that supports the claims of "human brain organization theory," Jordan-Young reveals how often these studies fail the standards of science. Even if careful researchers point out the limits of their own studies, other researchers and journalists can easily ignore them because brain organization theory just sounds so right. But if a series of methodological weaknesses, questionable assumptions, inconsistent definitions, and enormous gaps between ambiguous findings and grand conclusions have accumulated through the years, then science isn't scientific at all.
Elegantly written, this book argues passionately that the analysis of gender differences deserves far more rigorous, biologically sophisticated science. "The evidence for hormonal sex differentiation of the human brain better resembles a hodge-podge pile than a solid structure... Once we have cleared the rubble, we can begin to build newer, more scientific stories about human development."
408 pages, Hardcover
First published September 7, 2010
33 people are currently reading
3903 people want to read
About the author
Rebecca M. Jordan-Young
3 books17 followersRebecca M. Jordan-Young, is an American feminist scientist and gender studies scholar. Her research focuses on social medical science, sex, gender, sexuality, and epidemiology. She is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
March 19, 2021
People tend to assume that male and female brains are different and that these hardwired distinctions explain identity, preference, and behavior. However, there is no comprehensive, replicable scientific evidence that brains are inherently sex differentiated. The persistence of this narrative is due to the purchase of biological determinism – the idea that human behavior is directly controlled by physiology – in our society. It is convenient to attribute behavioral differences solely to anatomical factors (stabilizing the status quo), rather than interrogate the social conditions that create it (challenging power).
The dominant narrative in brain organization theory maintains that early exposure to different steroid hormones leads males and females to develop different brains. Dr. Jordan-Young debunks this assumption by interviewing major researchers and reviewing hundreds of published papers. They conclude that “brain organization theory is little more than an elaboration of longstanding folk tales about antagonistic male and female essences.” Their comprehensive work exposes the assumptions, inconsistencies, and methodological shortcomings in the research, demonstrating how studies that identify an intrinsic male, female, gay, and trans brain fail rigorous standards of science.
Scientists often enter the research with the preconceived assumption (without evidence) that there are distinct “male” and “female” brains, that masculinity and femininity are mutually exclusive, and that heterosexuality is the default. They emphasize findings that reinforce this bias and ignore those that contradict it. In fact, the categories of “male brain” and “female brain” are misleading because there is “too much overlap between the sexes” of characteristics and “too much variation in traits and skills within each sex” (52).
Prescriptive ideas of gender (what men and women should be doing) are understood as definitive ideas of gender (what men and women fundamentally are). Cultural stereotypes are unquestionably adopted as the essence of what maleness and femaleness are, ignoring the wide diversity of experiences among females and males. For example, this scientific literature presumes that nurturing and self-adornment are “feminine interests” (203) and that female sexuality is “passive” whereas male interests “revolve around action, social domination, and mastery of skills” (203) and male sexuality is “dominant.”
It is impossible to isolate the brain from social/cultural/environmental conditioning. Brains develop in interaction with influence from the external world, and change and develop over lifetime accordingly. “Biology,” does not exist in isolation from “society,” and “society,” does not exist separately from “biology.” This is a false dichotomy; they are co-constructive. We should be skeptical of any narratives that attributes gender/sex/sexuality exclusively to the brain, neglecting how socially constructed ideas of gender shape the way we perceive ourselves and others. No one -- including LGBTQ people -- should not have to base their legitimacy in biological determinism to be accepted. It is a reductive, scientifically incorrect framework. Human behavior is far more complicated.
This work argues that male and female are cultural categories imposed on the body, not natural essences. It encourages us to ask: What would scientific research look like beyond the gender binary stereotypes holding us back?
The dominant narrative in brain organization theory maintains that early exposure to different steroid hormones leads males and females to develop different brains. Dr. Jordan-Young debunks this assumption by interviewing major researchers and reviewing hundreds of published papers. They conclude that “brain organization theory is little more than an elaboration of longstanding folk tales about antagonistic male and female essences.” Their comprehensive work exposes the assumptions, inconsistencies, and methodological shortcomings in the research, demonstrating how studies that identify an intrinsic male, female, gay, and trans brain fail rigorous standards of science.
Scientists often enter the research with the preconceived assumption (without evidence) that there are distinct “male” and “female” brains, that masculinity and femininity are mutually exclusive, and that heterosexuality is the default. They emphasize findings that reinforce this bias and ignore those that contradict it. In fact, the categories of “male brain” and “female brain” are misleading because there is “too much overlap between the sexes” of characteristics and “too much variation in traits and skills within each sex” (52).
Prescriptive ideas of gender (what men and women should be doing) are understood as definitive ideas of gender (what men and women fundamentally are). Cultural stereotypes are unquestionably adopted as the essence of what maleness and femaleness are, ignoring the wide diversity of experiences among females and males. For example, this scientific literature presumes that nurturing and self-adornment are “feminine interests” (203) and that female sexuality is “passive” whereas male interests “revolve around action, social domination, and mastery of skills” (203) and male sexuality is “dominant.”
It is impossible to isolate the brain from social/cultural/environmental conditioning. Brains develop in interaction with influence from the external world, and change and develop over lifetime accordingly. “Biology,” does not exist in isolation from “society,” and “society,” does not exist separately from “biology.” This is a false dichotomy; they are co-constructive. We should be skeptical of any narratives that attributes gender/sex/sexuality exclusively to the brain, neglecting how socially constructed ideas of gender shape the way we perceive ourselves and others. No one -- including LGBTQ people -- should not have to base their legitimacy in biological determinism to be accepted. It is a reductive, scientifically incorrect framework. Human behavior is far more complicated.
This work argues that male and female are cultural categories imposed on the body, not natural essences. It encourages us to ask: What would scientific research look like beyond the gender binary stereotypes holding us back?
August 10, 2020
People often assume that male and female brains are inherently different and that these hardwired differences hold explanatory power for identity, preference, and behavior. However, in this deeply researched book Dr. Jordan-Young reviews human brain organization theory research and demonstrates how these studies fail rigorous standards of science. She exposes the assumptions, inconsistencies, methodological shortcomings, and stereotypical judgments that undergird investigations of the “gay brain” and other strains of this research, effectively arguing that there is no comprehensive, replicable evidence that brains are inherently sex differentiated.
In doing so, she demonstrates that society’s understanding of biological sex is actually the product of cultural stereotypes about gender. Her research shows how prescriptive ideas of gender (what men and women should be doing) largely circulate and are understood as definitive ideas of gender (what men and women fundamentally are). For example, this scientific literature presumes that nurturing and self-adornment are “feminine interests” and that female sexuality is “passive” whereas male interests “revolve around action, social domination, and mastery of skills” and male sexuality is “dominant.” This is a lesson on how the things that we perceive as real are made real in their consequences. Sexual difference is about cultural perception, not biological fact.
Dr. Jordan-Young reminds us that the founder of phrenology – the pseudoscientific approach which maintained that the shape of the cranium was an indicator for character and mental ability – claimed centuries ago that the differences between male and female brains were so great that he could “identify the sex of a brain presented to him in water.” This debunked phrenological impulse is the predecessor to contemporary brain localization theory. Brain organization theory assumes that “masculinity” and “femininity” are mutually exclusive and that hetero-reproductive sexuality is the norm. The presumed categories of “male brain” and “female brain” are misleading because there is “too much overlap between the sexes” and “too much variation in traits and skills within each sex” for these categories to be meaningful. Ultimately Dr. Jordan-Young concludes that sex in the brain research “underplays and mis-locates the creative sources of human difference,” failing to account for how socially constructed ideas of gender shape our “materially based, lived selves, and the way we perceive ourselves and others.” Brains develop in interaction with influence from the external world, and change and develop over lifetime accordingly.
In doing so, she demonstrates that society’s understanding of biological sex is actually the product of cultural stereotypes about gender. Her research shows how prescriptive ideas of gender (what men and women should be doing) largely circulate and are understood as definitive ideas of gender (what men and women fundamentally are). For example, this scientific literature presumes that nurturing and self-adornment are “feminine interests” and that female sexuality is “passive” whereas male interests “revolve around action, social domination, and mastery of skills” and male sexuality is “dominant.” This is a lesson on how the things that we perceive as real are made real in their consequences. Sexual difference is about cultural perception, not biological fact.
Dr. Jordan-Young reminds us that the founder of phrenology – the pseudoscientific approach which maintained that the shape of the cranium was an indicator for character and mental ability – claimed centuries ago that the differences between male and female brains were so great that he could “identify the sex of a brain presented to him in water.” This debunked phrenological impulse is the predecessor to contemporary brain localization theory. Brain organization theory assumes that “masculinity” and “femininity” are mutually exclusive and that hetero-reproductive sexuality is the norm. The presumed categories of “male brain” and “female brain” are misleading because there is “too much overlap between the sexes” and “too much variation in traits and skills within each sex” for these categories to be meaningful. Ultimately Dr. Jordan-Young concludes that sex in the brain research “underplays and mis-locates the creative sources of human difference,” failing to account for how socially constructed ideas of gender shape our “materially based, lived selves, and the way we perceive ourselves and others.” Brains develop in interaction with influence from the external world, and change and develop over lifetime accordingly.
December 25, 2011
I felt like I was back in my biology classes, picking apart research to find the flaws in the popular theories. I've read the other popular brain science books lately, but none of those really picked apart the studies they were supporting (or refuting). Jordan-Young does what I have to believe is a remarkably thorough job of compiling the studies from the last fifty years in this field and basically saying, "Look, none of these are real experiments, so you have to take these results with a grain of salt." (It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist.)
LOVED the information. LOVED the layout. LOVED the idea. LOVED the dedication to thoroughness. And, really respected her for taking as unbiased an approach as she could (though I still can't understand how she could say sex-typed interests are "innate".... She fell into the "this goes without saying" trap she was freeing other authors/researchers from.).
Four stars because of how clunky the prose is. It shouldn't have taken me a month to read a book about the study of gender via brains -- the topic is extremely interesting to me and I felt like I was reading constantly. That's not to say the writing itself isn't great -- it just didn't flow like it should have (possibly due to the many in-text citations?).
LOVED the information. LOVED the layout. LOVED the idea. LOVED the dedication to thoroughness. And, really respected her for taking as unbiased an approach as she could (though I still can't understand how she could say sex-typed interests are "innate".... She fell into the "this goes without saying" trap she was freeing other authors/researchers from.).
Four stars because of how clunky the prose is. It shouldn't have taken me a month to read a book about the study of gender via brains -- the topic is extremely interesting to me and I felt like I was reading constantly. That's not to say the writing itself isn't great -- it just didn't flow like it should have (possibly due to the many in-text citations?).
January 5, 2015
This was just excellent. Usually I'm hesitant to give this type of literature review 5 stars, just in case there's something I didn't agree with in the book or if there's a risk that it's become outdated, or for whatever other reason. But this book deserves the full score. It's an exhaustive overview, well written, and I thought the figures that visually summarized the forest of available studies were just brilliant. It's a book has a clear structure when evaluating the studies of brain organization theory that you yourself could apply when critically looking at new studies in this field. I think it's critical in a constructive way, without downplaying the sensitivity of the subject.
If you don't very often read "research article English", you might find this a bit dense, especially because it really reads more like a review than a standard popular science book. But if you're interested in this subject, it's a great handbook.
If you don't very often read "research article English", you might find this a bit dense, especially because it really reads more like a review than a standard popular science book. But if you're interested in this subject, it's a great handbook.
January 31, 2016
Enormously fair minded and quietly brutal take-down of bad social science. A model of precise and useful truth-seeking.
The first nine chapters dismantle "brain organization theory" (the basket of loosely articulated theories that posit prenatal hormone exposure as the main driver of sex, gender, and sexuality, while also implying unity of those three concepts, and their one-dimensionality). The tenth chapter describes some of the author's ideas about how to do better, all of which sounded extremely interesting.
Note that in addition to the specific demolishing, this is an excellent guide for the assessor of science generally, especially in the large realms that do not have many RCTs. Economics, psychology, and many other fields are full of the kind of imperfect research dissected here, and the techniques of dissection carry over throughout.
The first nine chapters dismantle "brain organization theory" (the basket of loosely articulated theories that posit prenatal hormone exposure as the main driver of sex, gender, and sexuality, while also implying unity of those three concepts, and their one-dimensionality). The tenth chapter describes some of the author's ideas about how to do better, all of which sounded extremely interesting.
Note that in addition to the specific demolishing, this is an excellent guide for the assessor of science generally, especially in the large realms that do not have many RCTs. Economics, psychology, and many other fields are full of the kind of imperfect research dissected here, and the techniques of dissection carry over throughout.
October 17, 2010
This book is an exhaustive look at a fairly large body of scientific literature --- Rebecca Jordan-Young is trying to evaluate the evidence for the thesis that testosterone and estrogen shape distinctly male and female, and also gay and straight, brains sometime during gestation.
To do this, she looks at all the studies ever published following either of these designs: 1) using a sample of people about whom something is known of their prenatal hormone exposure (like people with disorders like congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or people whose mothers allowed researchers to test their blood or amniotic hormone levels while pregnant) and trying to gather data about their abilities, personality traits, sexuality and compliance with gender norms, or 2) getting a bunch of "gender-atypical" people, like gay, lesbian or transgender people, or straight, cisgender people who defy gender norms in some other way, like women who are engineers, mathematicians or computer programmers, and trying to gather data about their early hormone exposure.
There's a lot of that literature to go through, and she does it meticulously, though her focus is less on answering the question "Are there male or female brains?" (she doesn't think we can answer that yet) and more on determining exactly what all these studies can tell us, and how well they fit together.
Most of the book is spent delving into technical details of how each study was done, and it seems to be written for an academic rather than a lay audience. I found this book valuable, and will definitely refer back to it a lot, but I didn't enjoy reading it the way I enjoyed reading Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender, which addresses similar issues for a more general audience, and is written in a much more engaging style.
To do this, she looks at all the studies ever published following either of these designs: 1) using a sample of people about whom something is known of their prenatal hormone exposure (like people with disorders like congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or people whose mothers allowed researchers to test their blood or amniotic hormone levels while pregnant) and trying to gather data about their abilities, personality traits, sexuality and compliance with gender norms, or 2) getting a bunch of "gender-atypical" people, like gay, lesbian or transgender people, or straight, cisgender people who defy gender norms in some other way, like women who are engineers, mathematicians or computer programmers, and trying to gather data about their early hormone exposure.
There's a lot of that literature to go through, and she does it meticulously, though her focus is less on answering the question "Are there male or female brains?" (she doesn't think we can answer that yet) and more on determining exactly what all these studies can tell us, and how well they fit together.
Most of the book is spent delving into technical details of how each study was done, and it seems to be written for an academic rather than a lay audience. I found this book valuable, and will definitely refer back to it a lot, but I didn't enjoy reading it the way I enjoyed reading Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender, which addresses similar issues for a more general audience, and is written in a much more engaging style.
October 6, 2017
This book, though scientific at times, should be required reading. We need to get rid of the idea that there are innate differences in the brain between men and women and between homosexuals and heterosexuals. That the human species is a dichotomy and everybody needs to converge into their place. The point is not that there aren't any differences - because there are. But it's more likely that they arise from the complexity of all inputs we all deal with, all experiences we go through, the environment we grow in. And we should try to pursue how those subtle influences affect growth and behavioural changes instead of trying to fit everything into the familiar brain organization theory.
October 1, 2018
A thorough critique of over 300 research studies (all that were done before 2000, major ones after) on the effects of sex hormones in masculinizing/feminizing the brain of the unborn child, analyzing their methodology, definitions and findings. Very clear and straightforward writing style, and fair in its approach. The author also interviewed over 20 of the major researchers in this field to understand and clarify their findings and views. The upshot is that, although the idea that male and female brains are differentiated before birth by exposure to sex hormones has become almost a given, the data from the studies do not back up this claim as the major source of sex differences.
I will give two examples of her findings. One problem with the studies is that the definitions of what constitutes masculine and feminine behavior have changed greatly, especially after 1980, so that behaviors considered evidence of masculinization (such as masturbation, arousal by any means other than touch, multiple partners, etc, - a long list) in the early studies are since the 1980s considered gender neutral, but the conclusions of the earlier studies based on the older definitions are still cited as if the definitions have remained the same throughout. Most of the researchers she spoke with felt that what was masculine and feminine was so obvious that a commonsense understanding was good enough, although this commonsense understanding has changed radically since WWII. A second issue is that definitions of terms such as homosexual are inconsistent in a way that makes findings from various studies in fact contradict each other though they seem superficially to agree. Is a lesbian the counterpart of gay men because both are attracted to people of the same sex, or a counterpart of straight men in that they are both attracted to women? How these pairings line up in a particular study makes a difference in what behaviors are considered feminized or masculinized. Further, the author also points out that most studies that find negative results are not published, which is typical for negative results but also misleading, just as it is in drug trials for example. The author is an extremely scrupulous and detail-oriented scholar, but the book is not at all tedious if you are interested in whether and how much the human brain is masculinized or feminized by prenatal hormone exposure.
This book was referred to in Cordelia Fine's book Testosterone Rex.
I will give two examples of her findings. One problem with the studies is that the definitions of what constitutes masculine and feminine behavior have changed greatly, especially after 1980, so that behaviors considered evidence of masculinization (such as masturbation, arousal by any means other than touch, multiple partners, etc, - a long list) in the early studies are since the 1980s considered gender neutral, but the conclusions of the earlier studies based on the older definitions are still cited as if the definitions have remained the same throughout. Most of the researchers she spoke with felt that what was masculine and feminine was so obvious that a commonsense understanding was good enough, although this commonsense understanding has changed radically since WWII. A second issue is that definitions of terms such as homosexual are inconsistent in a way that makes findings from various studies in fact contradict each other though they seem superficially to agree. Is a lesbian the counterpart of gay men because both are attracted to people of the same sex, or a counterpart of straight men in that they are both attracted to women? How these pairings line up in a particular study makes a difference in what behaviors are considered feminized or masculinized. Further, the author also points out that most studies that find negative results are not published, which is typical for negative results but also misleading, just as it is in drug trials for example. The author is an extremely scrupulous and detail-oriented scholar, but the book is not at all tedious if you are interested in whether and how much the human brain is masculinized or feminized by prenatal hormone exposure.
This book was referred to in Cordelia Fine's book Testosterone Rex.
November 22, 2016
I have to review this in a hurry (off to work). For a detailed, scientific book it was pretty well written with every attempt to make it understandable. It clearly took us through the specific flaws in treating gender differences as "fact" (not to say that there are no differences but just to show that we don't really understand the full shape or cause of them). One of the most easy to grasp arguments is that anything we know about human behaviour is based on "quasi-experiments" rather than experiments because we can;t actually remove all potential interfering variables. Once this is established the holes and contradictions in the "evidence" are easy to establish.
Jordan-Young is keen not to blame scientists or claim they are "faking"evidence. It is more the case that due to time/money constraints and selective reading as well as the assumptions they hold biases can creep in, each successive person who uses the study will tend to reify the bias.
In some parts the sheer weight of the scientific evidence got to me and I had to read slowly and only partially understood. Even so I am persuaded by the parts I could understand. The author finishes with a provocative statement :"What good is a science that does not tell us anything new?" It is worth therefore taking the time to be challenged by her careful and respectful critical work that brings gender and biological sex back into the realm of possibility and choice rather than the determinism that lately it seems fashionable to try to regress to.
Jordan-Young is keen not to blame scientists or claim they are "faking"evidence. It is more the case that due to time/money constraints and selective reading as well as the assumptions they hold biases can creep in, each successive person who uses the study will tend to reify the bias.
In some parts the sheer weight of the scientific evidence got to me and I had to read slowly and only partially understood. Even so I am persuaded by the parts I could understand. The author finishes with a provocative statement :"What good is a science that does not tell us anything new?" It is worth therefore taking the time to be challenged by her careful and respectful critical work that brings gender and biological sex back into the realm of possibility and choice rather than the determinism that lately it seems fashionable to try to regress to.
October 1, 2012
"What good is a science that doesn't tell us anything new?"
This is the book-I-wish-I-had-written of the year. Jordan-Young tackles a huge literature and comes out on top. She takes us through carefully and comprehensively, clearly explaining the concepts her audience needs to understand to navigate the data on the organizational hypothesis (the hypothesis that prenatal hormone exposure shapes human sex-linked behavior).
And the message she relays is important. Not surprisingly (at least from my variation-is-everywhere point of view), studies contradict themselves, definitions change, null results aren't reported. One great example that she gives is studies that split the line between homo- and heterosexual at literally every point on the Kinsey scale. Though ostensibly finding results linking hormones to homosexuality, these studies actually inherently contradict one another.
She concludes by arguing that any search for meaning in development that ignores all of the other components of human development is flawed at the outset.
A wonderful quote, on a reaction-norm take on this research: "In short, gender can be reconceptualized as an "effect" rather than a mere fact, something that *requires explanation* rather than something that *explains* the social world."
This is the book-I-wish-I-had-written of the year. Jordan-Young tackles a huge literature and comes out on top. She takes us through carefully and comprehensively, clearly explaining the concepts her audience needs to understand to navigate the data on the organizational hypothesis (the hypothesis that prenatal hormone exposure shapes human sex-linked behavior).
And the message she relays is important. Not surprisingly (at least from my variation-is-everywhere point of view), studies contradict themselves, definitions change, null results aren't reported. One great example that she gives is studies that split the line between homo- and heterosexual at literally every point on the Kinsey scale. Though ostensibly finding results linking hormones to homosexuality, these studies actually inherently contradict one another.
She concludes by arguing that any search for meaning in development that ignores all of the other components of human development is flawed at the outset.
A wonderful quote, on a reaction-norm take on this research: "In short, gender can be reconceptualized as an "effect" rather than a mere fact, something that *requires explanation* rather than something that *explains* the social world."
January 28, 2021
Be advised: This is an incredibly dry, thorough, and academically heavy text, not a “fun read” or pop nonfiction. Even for someone who enjoys reading psychology papers, a few sections of the book are a slog, simply because they follow protocol for scientific writing and they cover a LOT of data. I’m rating it five stars based on what it attempts to be (a scientific text), not in comparison to books from other genres. Some other reviewers have blamed the prose style, “too much comparison of studies,” heavy citation, etc. for making the book difficult or unpleasant to read, but it’s just doing (and doing extremely well) what any quality psychological or neuroscientific text should do.
If you want something intended for a general audience, Cordelia Fine has written some excellent, more “engaging” (but also excellently researched) books on related topics. If you do want to read this one but don’t care about the granular details, opt for the introduction, the first and last sections of each chapter 1–8, and then all of chapters 9 and 10, and skip the endnotes.
Brain Storm is an unassailably rigorous review of nearly every significant study related to the hormonal brain-organization hypothesis of gender and sexual orientation. It’s well-structured and meticulously cited, with solid and clear analysis. The author demonstrates a degree of expertise and familiarity with the existing body of research that goes far beyond what I’ve read in nearly any other scientific text by an expert. The first several chapters consist of systematic reviews and summaries of extant studies, including synthesis of findings and critical consideration of study design and methods, from sampling to multiple comparisons. (If you’re not familiar with statistical significance thresholds and how they’re affected by multiple comparisons, I recommend looking that up; while it’s briefly explained in the text, relevant passages will be a much smoother read if you’re comfortable with those concepts.) The final chapters offer compelling proposals for alternative hypotheses and models, supporting evidence from animal and human biology, and new ways of conceiving of human traits in relation to the environment. Chapter 10 in particular is a knockout.
If you want something intended for a general audience, Cordelia Fine has written some excellent, more “engaging” (but also excellently researched) books on related topics. If you do want to read this one but don’t care about the granular details, opt for the introduction, the first and last sections of each chapter 1–8, and then all of chapters 9 and 10, and skip the endnotes.
Brain Storm is an unassailably rigorous review of nearly every significant study related to the hormonal brain-organization hypothesis of gender and sexual orientation. It’s well-structured and meticulously cited, with solid and clear analysis. The author demonstrates a degree of expertise and familiarity with the existing body of research that goes far beyond what I’ve read in nearly any other scientific text by an expert. The first several chapters consist of systematic reviews and summaries of extant studies, including synthesis of findings and critical consideration of study design and methods, from sampling to multiple comparisons. (If you’re not familiar with statistical significance thresholds and how they’re affected by multiple comparisons, I recommend looking that up; while it’s briefly explained in the text, relevant passages will be a much smoother read if you’re comfortable with those concepts.) The final chapters offer compelling proposals for alternative hypotheses and models, supporting evidence from animal and human biology, and new ways of conceiving of human traits in relation to the environment. Chapter 10 in particular is a knockout.
January 11, 2015
¿Cómo nos convertimos en las personas que somos? ¿De qué manera la corporalidad tiene una influencia en nuestras personalidades, habilidades, deseos e intereses?
Esas son preguntas que cualquier persona que se interese de alguna manera por el tema de la sexualidad ha llegado a plantearse. Si volcamos la mirada hacia los medios de comunicación, los discursos médicos y gran parte del activismo, se vuelve evidente que existe una fetichización por el discurso científico, y por científico me refiero a las ciencias “duras”: la biología, la genética y la endocrinología principalmente. Las voces con más autoridad parecen venir de ese ámbito del conocimiento. Y su discurso básicamente establece que las mujeres y los hombres tienen cerebros diferentes, de la misma manera que los homosexuales y los heterosexuales. El gen gay se ha convertido en un concepto ampliamente aceptado, aunque no comprobado.
Este libro va a los orígenes de esta percepción, y logra establecer la manera en que la teoría detrás de este discurso ha sido ampliamente incuestionada. Dicha teoría plantea que la exposición a las hormonas prenatales causa la diferenciación sexual, es decir, que dichas hormonas crean patrones masculino o femeninos permanentes de deseo, personalidad y temperamento. La autora aborda todos los estudios más importantes sobre esta teoría, alrededor de 300 desde 1960 hasta el 2008, y los analiza, llegando a exponer una gran cantidad de contradicciones, fallas metodológicas, conceptos ambiguos y experimentos cuestionables.
Esta urgencia de establecer componente biológicos fijos que marquen diferencias entre los seres humanos como una manera de justificar la diversidad, siempre me ha parecido sospechosa, sin embargo, así funcional la gran mayoría del activismo LGBT, con una suposición de que nuestros deseos están condicionados por los genes, o por algún mecanismo fisiológico misterioso. Lo increíblemente valioso de este libro es que aborda ambos lados del debate, por un lado la autora hace un análisis amplísimo del campo médico, pero al mismo tiempo tiene un manejo excelente de las teorías sociales y de género, desde el feminismo hasta la teoría queer.
En general creo que los términos en los que se coloca el debate, esta dicotomía entre "biología" vs "escogencia", son bastante limitados. Principalmente porque la "escogencia" no es el término adecuado para describir todas las posibilidades que se encuentran aparte de la "biología". Muchos factores sociales, culturales, estructurales pueden darle forma a los deseos y a las posibilidades eróticas.
Es muy problemático que solo se pueda "tolerar" o "darle derechos" a un grupo, bajo la premisa de que no tienen forma de escapar a su condición, bajo el supuesto de que sus genes determinan su subjetividad, es decir, que las variaciones en los deseos sexuales solo pueden ser legítimas si se comprueba que son innatas, "naturales" e inmutables. ¿Solamente el deseo genéticamente determinado es legítimo? Estoy convencido de que mucho de lo que se siente tan natural e incambiable sobre nuestros deseos, incluyendo los cuerpos y las personalidades que nos atraen, está fuertemente influenciado por nuestras respectivas culturas y por el contexto histórico.
Al final, el objetivo del libro no es crear una perspectiva anti-ciencia, al contrario, lo que busca es la elaboración de una ciencia más científica, más rigurosa, y por eso, lo recomiendo muchísimo.
Esas son preguntas que cualquier persona que se interese de alguna manera por el tema de la sexualidad ha llegado a plantearse. Si volcamos la mirada hacia los medios de comunicación, los discursos médicos y gran parte del activismo, se vuelve evidente que existe una fetichización por el discurso científico, y por científico me refiero a las ciencias “duras”: la biología, la genética y la endocrinología principalmente. Las voces con más autoridad parecen venir de ese ámbito del conocimiento. Y su discurso básicamente establece que las mujeres y los hombres tienen cerebros diferentes, de la misma manera que los homosexuales y los heterosexuales. El gen gay se ha convertido en un concepto ampliamente aceptado, aunque no comprobado.
Este libro va a los orígenes de esta percepción, y logra establecer la manera en que la teoría detrás de este discurso ha sido ampliamente incuestionada. Dicha teoría plantea que la exposición a las hormonas prenatales causa la diferenciación sexual, es decir, que dichas hormonas crean patrones masculino o femeninos permanentes de deseo, personalidad y temperamento. La autora aborda todos los estudios más importantes sobre esta teoría, alrededor de 300 desde 1960 hasta el 2008, y los analiza, llegando a exponer una gran cantidad de contradicciones, fallas metodológicas, conceptos ambiguos y experimentos cuestionables.
Esta urgencia de establecer componente biológicos fijos que marquen diferencias entre los seres humanos como una manera de justificar la diversidad, siempre me ha parecido sospechosa, sin embargo, así funcional la gran mayoría del activismo LGBT, con una suposición de que nuestros deseos están condicionados por los genes, o por algún mecanismo fisiológico misterioso. Lo increíblemente valioso de este libro es que aborda ambos lados del debate, por un lado la autora hace un análisis amplísimo del campo médico, pero al mismo tiempo tiene un manejo excelente de las teorías sociales y de género, desde el feminismo hasta la teoría queer.
En general creo que los términos en los que se coloca el debate, esta dicotomía entre "biología" vs "escogencia", son bastante limitados. Principalmente porque la "escogencia" no es el término adecuado para describir todas las posibilidades que se encuentran aparte de la "biología". Muchos factores sociales, culturales, estructurales pueden darle forma a los deseos y a las posibilidades eróticas.
Es muy problemático que solo se pueda "tolerar" o "darle derechos" a un grupo, bajo la premisa de que no tienen forma de escapar a su condición, bajo el supuesto de que sus genes determinan su subjetividad, es decir, que las variaciones en los deseos sexuales solo pueden ser legítimas si se comprueba que son innatas, "naturales" e inmutables. ¿Solamente el deseo genéticamente determinado es legítimo? Estoy convencido de que mucho de lo que se siente tan natural e incambiable sobre nuestros deseos, incluyendo los cuerpos y las personalidades que nos atraen, está fuertemente influenciado por nuestras respectivas culturas y por el contexto histórico.
Al final, el objetivo del libro no es crear una perspectiva anti-ciencia, al contrario, lo que busca es la elaboración de una ciencia más científica, más rigurosa, y por eso, lo recomiendo muchísimo.
October 7, 2017
This is a very good takedown of "brain organization theory", which is the idea that sex hormones in the fetus lead to changes in the brain between men and women, which is why men are better at *pick your stereotype here*.
The author does a very good job at looking at a bunch of studies which purport to show these differences and shows that a lot of them are pretty weak and even contradict each other. One funny example is that traits that were assumed to be signs of masculinization in the 1960s then became signs of feminization in the 1980s! This happened in scientific studies but apparently nobody noticed, because these were "common sense" measures that the author had to do some digging to elucidate.
Anyway, the upshot of the book is that we really need more rigorous and contextualized studies to make the kind of claims that you see bandied about. There probably are some differences, but they're small and can be easily overcome by environment or deliberate practice. (for example, the often used example that men on average are better at spatial relations - women can eliminate this gap with just a few days of practice!)
I'm not sure if it was because life has been a bit stressful or what, but it took me a long time to get through the book - it's pretty technical and dense. But overall it was a good read!
The author does a very good job at looking at a bunch of studies which purport to show these differences and shows that a lot of them are pretty weak and even contradict each other. One funny example is that traits that were assumed to be signs of masculinization in the 1960s then became signs of feminization in the 1980s! This happened in scientific studies but apparently nobody noticed, because these were "common sense" measures that the author had to do some digging to elucidate.
Anyway, the upshot of the book is that we really need more rigorous and contextualized studies to make the kind of claims that you see bandied about. There probably are some differences, but they're small and can be easily overcome by environment or deliberate practice. (for example, the often used example that men on average are better at spatial relations - women can eliminate this gap with just a few days of practice!)
I'm not sure if it was because life has been a bit stressful or what, but it took me a long time to get through the book - it's pretty technical and dense. But overall it was a good read!
August 2, 2012
Very thourough examination of sex difference studies... The language of hardwiring, blueprints, latency, permanent organization regarding on the early effect of hormones to the neural development would not fit because brains unlike genital are plastic, brain development is not completely finished at any point prior to death...... impressive
June 19, 2013
an invaluable scientific tool for dissecting gender.
October 9, 2012
Definitely a very interesting read, if not a page turner. Incredibly thought provoking about "empirical" scientific studies people use to justify gender roles
December 2, 2017
Exhaustive assessment. Detailed analysis and dedicated research with extensive notes, provides a comprehensive overview of contemporary findings. Includes some editorial comment:
“..it’s worth noting, again, that the identification of sex differences in the brain is one of the longest-standing projects of neuroscience. After more than two centuries of effort, surely any “obvious” differences would have emerged by now.”
“Historians and philosophers of science are giving increased attention to the way that gaps in knowledge, as well as knowledge itself, are actively produced and maintained. The study of this phenomenon, what Tuana calls the “epistemology of ignorance" and Proctor (2008) calls “agnotology” reveals that specific ideologies, cultural schema, and political interests systematically block certain forms of information and cause people to “forget” or fail to incorporate certain facts into the overall thinking on a subject…. subjects I have documented in this book (specifically: the pervasive tendency to ignore findings that contradict brain organization theory; failing to notice when critical definitional frames are shifted; failing to “connect the dots” regarding dose response contradictions) the systemic disregard… constitutes more than an oversight."
“..it’s worth noting, again, that the identification of sex differences in the brain is one of the longest-standing projects of neuroscience. After more than two centuries of effort, surely any “obvious” differences would have emerged by now.”
“Historians and philosophers of science are giving increased attention to the way that gaps in knowledge, as well as knowledge itself, are actively produced and maintained. The study of this phenomenon, what Tuana calls the “epistemology of ignorance" and Proctor (2008) calls “agnotology” reveals that specific ideologies, cultural schema, and political interests systematically block certain forms of information and cause people to “forget” or fail to incorporate certain facts into the overall thinking on a subject…. subjects I have documented in this book (specifically: the pervasive tendency to ignore findings that contradict brain organization theory; failing to notice when critical definitional frames are shifted; failing to “connect the dots” regarding dose response contradictions) the systemic disregard… constitutes more than an oversight."
February 22, 2023
Biology is not my field. My research is in literature, so it seemed completely antiquated for someone to debunk the "masculine"/"feminine" binary. However, it was interesting to find that this dichotomy continues to influence scientific discourse. Ultimately, this study asks us to reconsider the parameters of "science."
May 8, 2021
rjy is an absolute genius and this book is an incredibly fair evaluation of a field of research that is deeply flawed by highly cited.
Read
October 19, 2021I was interested in this but couldn't pay sustained attention to it at the moment
February 11, 2017
If 'Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality' by Fausto-Sterling is a book for the public, 'Brain Storm' is a book for scientists. Jordan-Young had brilliantly depicted a number of challenges to sexuality research, ranging from masculinity/femininity, sexual orientation, sex-typed interest and 'sexed' hormones. The whole book is organised to challenge the idea of 'sex difference' and to question the reliability of previous studies supporting the notion: 'Male and Female are different in any way'.
September 18, 2012
Jordan-Young's book, Brainstorm, is a masterpiece in scientific critique. Though dense in it's subject matter, and most likely not the best choice for those just being introduced to the language of biology, Brainstorm is a must-read for anyone who's ever had doubts about the scientific media's constant barrage of studies toting evidence about sexed differences in brains. Jordan-Young writes an elegant and comprehensive review of brain-organization theory, ultimately discrediting and upturning much of the commonly-held beliefs society holds about men, women, and intersex persons, and how the scientific community works to deliver information about those persons as a whole. Brainstorm covers an overwhelmingly large amount of information, but is definitely worth the trek to read through -- it is certainly one of the most eye-opening books I have ever had the chance to read.
April 21, 2012
Exhausting in its detail, repetitive in the extent to which it debunks from multiple angles, yet a valuable document challenging brain science by being thorough and working within the terms of Developmental Brain Science as a field. I am interested in now reading "Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine to see if it makes for a more digestible read and can make my appeals to people in casual conversation and arguments more palatable and less-idealistic sounding (trying to bring up systemic failures in research has become my M.O. without always having an exhausting list of such failures nor having diligence in myself to eloquently dispute statistical researh).
January 20, 2016
This is a very dense read (there are multiple citations after every sentence in some sections)! Even so, it contains very valuable overview of the glaring flaws in methodology, citation (citing papers that do not support or that even contradict the statement due to different definitions), media interpretation and several examples of unintentional statistical errors that are endemic to gender studies cases. This should be required reading for anyone in these fields. If you are familiar with statistical and experimental design flaws, you may already suspect many of the flaws presented here, but the actual presence of them in the most cited papers in these fields may be surprising.
March 11, 2014
Worthy but oh so boring. Too much comparing of studies and citations make it less interesting to read, unfortunately.
A bit shocking how scientists keep changing the goalposts and forgetting that they've done so, all in the name of finding the "truth" about gender interests (once being called gender roles until that sounded too 1950s - now gender interests is the preferred term). And if studies don't find the "truth" (that there are notable differences between genders) then they either don't get published or they don't get any attention.
A bit shocking how scientists keep changing the goalposts and forgetting that they've done so, all in the name of finding the "truth" about gender interests (once being called gender roles until that sounded too 1950s - now gender interests is the preferred term). And if studies don't find the "truth" (that there are notable differences between genders) then they either don't get published or they don't get any attention.
March 8, 2013
I found the information in this book provocative, but I really wish it were better written. Unfortunately, it's kind of a slog. The author takes an exhaustive look into the theory of brain organization -- which states that hormonal changes in-utero can cause predictable changes in gender expression, identity, and sexuality in adult humans -- and pretty much demolishes it. Based on her extremely thorough read-through of all of the significant studies on the subject, I'm pretty sure we're safe calling the whole thing a pseudo-science and starting over from scratch.
April 22, 2013
Read Chapter 3 and Chapter 7 and really enjoyed the reading. Jordan-Young provides a clear, accessible, comprehensive review and critique of sex/gender related brain studies in this book. Chapter 3 examines many researches done on the topic of differences between a male brain and a female brain, and Chapter 7 examines scientific studies that deal with (homo)sexuality and try to locate its biological origin. Many NYT science stars can be found in her critical reading of brain studies. And, surprisingly, this book is actually quite a page-turner.
January 2, 2015
I had a whale of a time reading this wonderful take down of the horrifyingly shoddy and positively unscientific "brain organization" literature that posits that "sex differences" are "hardwired" into the brain. As a sociologist of course I was skeptical of the research, but even I had no idea just how sloppy the academic research program has been/is in this domain. Should be required reading for every person who ever read some half-baked media report on "sex differences" that reaffirmed their own self-serving biases.
August 20, 2014
This very thorough exploration of the biases in brain organization theory seems to me to be a must read for everyone with an interest in gender research. Both the consequences of these flaws for current (popular)research and for our assumptions on sex differences in daily life are huge. Not an easy read, but well worth it, for becoming aware of these flaws and providing focus and pointers for further research and discussion.
December 18, 2012
This book meticulously and definitively documents the many reasons why one should, on purely scientific grounds, be highly sceptical of current claims of a biological (hormonal) basis for innate differences in preferences and cognitive processes between men and women. It is also fantastic story of how parts of science can be not only very wrong but also rather ridiculous.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews