Skip to main content

male and female brain differences

You may not be all that surprised to learn that male and female brains are actually not as different as previously thought. I attach the contents of an article in Sciencemag which summarizes the results of a recent study which yielded some interesting results:

“In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain. But a new study finds that human brains do not fit neatly into “male” and “female” categories. Indeed, all of our brains seem to share a patchwork of forms; some that are more common in males, others that are more common in females, and some that are common to both. The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender.

“Nobody has had a way of quantifying this before,” says Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist at Chicago Medical School in Illinois who was not involved in the study. “Everything they’ve done here is new.”

As soon as scientists could image the brain, they began hunting for sex differences. Some modest disparities have been reported: On average, for example, men tend to have a larger amygdala, a region associated with emotion. Such differences are small and highly influenced by the environment, yet they have still been used to paint a binary picture of the human brain, “even when the data reveal much more overlap than difference between males and females,” Eliot says.

So in the new study, researchers led by Daphna Joel, a behavioral neuroscientist at Tel Aviv University in Israel, tried to be as comprehensive as possible. Using existing sets of MRI brain images, they measured the volume of gray matter (the dark, knobby tissue that contains the core of nerve cells) and white matter (the bundles of nerve fibers that transmit signals around the nervous system) in the brains of more than 1400 individuals. They also studied data from diffusion tensor imaging, which shows how tracts of white matter extend throughout the brain, connecting different regions.

The team found a few structural differences between men and women. The left hippocampus, for example, an area of the brain associated with memory, was usually larger in men than in women. In each region, however, there was significant overlap between males and females; some women had a larger or more male-typical left hippocampus, for example, while the hippocampus of some men was smaller than that of the average female.

To accommodate this overlap, the researchers created a continuum of “femaleness” to “maleness,” for the entire brain. The male end zone contained features more typical of males, and the female end zone contained the version of the same structures more often seen in females. Then, the team scored every individual region-by-region to find out where they fell on that male-to-female continuum.

The majority of the brains were a mosaic of male and female structures, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Depending on whether the researchers looked at gray matter, white matter, or the diffusion tensor imaging data, between 23% and 53% of brains contained a mix of regions that fell on the male-end and female-end of the spectrum. Very few of the brains—between 0% and 8%—contained all male or all female structures. “There is no one type of male brain or female brain,” Joel says.

So how to explain the idea that males and females seem to behave differently? That too may be a myth, Joel says. Her team analyzed two large datasets that evaluated highly gender stereotypical behaviors, such as playing video games, scrapbooking, or taking a bath. Individuals were just as variable for these measures: Only 0.1% of subjects displayed only stereotypically-male or only stereotypically-female behaviors.

“There is no sense in talking about male nature and female nature,” Joel says. “There is no one person that has all the male characteristics and another person that has all the female characteristics. Or if they exist they are really, really rare to find.”

The findings have broad implications, Joel says. For one, she contends, researchers studying the brain may not need to compare males and females when analyzing their data. For another, she says, the extreme variability of human brains undermines the justifications for single-sex education based on innate differences between males and females, and perhaps even our definitions of gender as a social category.

The work “contributes in an important way to the conversation,” says Margaret McCarthy, a neuropharmacologist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, who studies gender biases in neurological and mental health disorders. But she disagrees that it might not be useful to consider sex as a variable when studying the brain. She looks at rodent models to evaluate, for example, why males are five times as likely to develop autism, or why females are twice as likely to suffer from depression. “By studying male versus female brains, we have a great tool for exploring the biological basis of those differences,” she says. “[Joel’s] call for us to abandon the monikers of male and female or men and women I think is too far.”




Comments

  1. I heard Dr. Joel speak at Stanford about a year ago, and exchanged several emails with her. I actually found her work to be full of holes. Now I am no neuroscientist of course, but here's where I am coming from:
    1. I think it is undeniable that a large percentage of trans people are born this way. We just see too many very young children expressing their needs and awareness too clearly to be ignored. Thus, I also conclude that cis boys and girls are comfortable in their gender. If we then accept that there really are two genders then there must be something in the brain that spawns this thinking and awareness.
    2. Joel said that she looked for differences, found some, but then found that those characteristics weren't consistent or didn't correlate with gender. She thus concluded that those differences (her "mosaic") don't add up to the differences we are looking for. Fine.
    3. She then started trying to find tiny differences using MRI. The problem she faced was that she could not scan everything. Too much time, data, cost. So she tried to choose some likely areas. And when she didn't find any differences she claimed that male and female brains are not different.
    She then gets a lot of press.

    I pointed out to her that if we accept point #1 there must be at least something that causes that different, gender related thinking. Thus, either she looked in the wrong places, or her diagnostic tools don't have sufficient resolution and accuracy. She should keep looking.

    She was remarkably kind in our email discussion but I'm not sure if I convinced her. I think she has her own cognitive bias that she wants to support.

    Emma

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Emma if anything what this study helps prove is that we are indeed looking for a needle in a haystack. We used to think we could conclusively see differences that we now know are not all that defined. Thus Dr Joel may just have further confirmed just how complex and intricate our brains truly are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent point! And, truly, had Joel made that point in that way I would have appreciated her work much more. Maybe I was too harsh; I'll have to look at her presentation and conclusions again. I do try to be fair.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

how times change

How times have changed.

Whereas transition was something not to even contemplate for us, here is a young trans person who felt the opposite pressure. She looks and sounds extremely passable but decided it wasn't for her despite the social media presence of young transitioners potentially inspiring her to.

We are all different and I happen to think she's rather a smart cookie as well...


indoctrination

As transgender people, organized religion hasn't really been our friend however on the other hand it has often had little to do with true spirituality. I needed to learn this over time and much of what I was taught growing up was steeped in the judgmental superstition of society instead of what some creator would demand of me.

Regardless of your belief system, you are a child of the universe and have been endowed with uniqueness and goodness of spirit. You have probably never wished anyone ill will and you have tried your best to live within the absurd coordinate system of humanity. Yet somehow belonging to the LGBT community was entirely your fault.

As I have grown older this inherent irrationality became increasingly evident to me. I knew I was a fundamentally good person and yet I was different in a way which was not of my choosing. Hence with this comprehension my self appreciation and esteem grew in proportion.

Religion for me today seems forever trapped in the misinterpretat…

let's please read carefully

This post is prompted by a recent comment I received to one of my older posts and I wanted to address it.

I used to wonder why some transgender people accepted Blanchard’s work until I think I figured out why: they may not have examined it closely enough. They would experience cross gender arousal and then accept it was Autogynephilia without properly understanding what the term meant and what the theory said: it is an invented sexual “illness” which makes people transition. In other words, it is the arousal itself which causes this desire and not a pre-existing gender identity which does not align with birth sex. Of course, Blanchard has no explanation for the origin of his proposed “illness” only that it is a form of sexual deviance.

My counter proposal? we transition despite this arousal. In other words, the transgender identity is pre-existing and the arousal is the result of the mismatching of burgeoning sexual feelings towards females and this misaligned identity; it is not per…