Slashdot Mirror


The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really That Different, Study Finds (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: 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 (abstract) 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.

163 comments

  1. The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really Diff... by msauve · · Score: 3, Funny

    Zombies agree, they're both tasty.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  2. This is not in the least surprising by sirwired · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought it was long-known that what might be true on a general basis has poor predictive value on an individual basis when it came to just about anything dealing with the brain.

    1. Re:This is not in the least surprising by rapierian · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I'm not sure why yet another study confirming this is a big deal, or why it's a big deal when people such as Larry Summers make statements that, yes, there are tendencies for gender differences when talking about brains on a general basis, even if you can't make a specific prediction about any one individual based on that general tendency.

    2. Re:This is not in the least surprising by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There've been lots of studies finding "psychological differences between the sexes". But when you look into them the statistical correlations are usually terribly weak, barely above statistical significance. And you have to question how much you can trust them anyway. Remember that metastudy that showed that half of all psychological studies can't be reproduced? I downloaded their study data. Every topic related to gender differences was in the "couldn't be reproduced" category. Now, of course that's a tiny fraction of all research that they attempted to reproduce. There surely are psychological differences, even ones that aren't pure upbringing/society related. But its important not to overplay the amount or degree of them.

      --
      I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
    3. Re:This is not in the least surprising by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      There've been lots of studies finding "psychological differences between the sexes". But when you look into them the statistical correlations are usually terribly weak, barely above statistical significance. And you have to question how much you can trust them anyway. Remember that metastudy that showed that half of all psychological studies can't be reproduced? I downloaded their study data. Every topic related to gender differences was in the "couldn't be reproduced" category. Now, of course that's a tiny fraction of all research that they attempted to reproduce. There surely are psychological differences, even ones that aren't pure upbringing/society related. But its important not to overplay the amount or degree of them.

      I'm not surprised, really.

      Everyone basically starts out a female from conception - the X chromosome asserts itself during the first 5-6 weeks before the Y chromosome (only in males) starts to activate, at which point the SRY gene activates that inhibits certain genes in the X chromosome and to start turning you male. The developing ovaries descend and become the testes, the clitoris transforms into the penis.

      And with that in mind, it should be obvious why there are trans-gendered or bisexual people as well - a fallout of the natural process of gestation and sometimes, things don't always go completely as planned.

      Life is complicated. And differences really are fairly minor.

    4. Re:This is not in the least surprising by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The differences in brains genetically will not be that different, the differences in brains developmentally ie how they change over time will be more significantly different. So differences in hormones produces changes in behaviour and thought and this results in different brain development, some bits get exercised more than other bits and hence develop further over time whilst less exercised bit tend to diminish over time. These tendencies will vary with social environmental conditions and hence further distortions in measurable differences will occur, for the same reason, some bits get exercised more than others bits based upon your interactions. That change does occur over one cycle but basically at the speed of thought over many years, so billions upon billions of thought cycles and that developmental difference is balanced between genetics and psychological environmental conditions and physiological condition (you are also in part what you consume, whether intentionally or not ie lead poisoning making you less moral, less caring and less thoughtful and hundreds of millions suffering from that to varying degrees). Of course if you brain is missing a bit, it will never develop ie psychopaths and a conscience, just can't happen and over time poor behaviour grows more pronounced due to lack of development. So it is the hormonal rewards which reinforces behaviours and causes different brain development over time.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:This is not in the least surprising by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      There've been lots of studies finding "psychological differences between the sexes". But when you look into them the statistical correlations are usually terribly weak, barely above statistical significance.

      Personally, I believe most of the differences stem from hormonal differences and environment, not from structural differences. If we could have two childs, both with different sex, but the same hormonal levels and the exact same environment while growing I doubt there would be much of any difference.

    6. Re:This is not in the least surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will you morons stop with that fucking lie? We do not all start out female. We start out as neither male or female.

    7. Re:This is not in the least surprising by Rei · · Score: 2

      I think the point of that statement is that the virilization pathway requires additional action, an additional trigger, while female is "default" in the absence of said trigger.

      --
      I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
    8. Re:This is not in the least surprising by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Gestational testosterone levels are the best indicator, even when you filter out the sexes. Male with low testosterone, very likely to be feminine. Female with high testosterone, very likely to be masculine. Not just how one acts, but what one finds interesting.

  3. Whoop-de-doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    So the researchers found out that human brains have human characteristics, with minute differences between the sexes (aka neural sexual dimorphism). I think only troglodytes thought that a male brain is completely unlike a female brain. Heck, we all probably have about as much in common with the great apes.

    It's the small differences that make us distinct. To say that there is no overlap is to say that the shortest man is taller than the tallest woman (obviously not true).

    1. Re:Whoop-de-doo by sycodon · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, suggesting that male and female brains are NOT wired differently is like saying two identical PC, one with Windows 7 and the other with Windows 10 are exactly the same.

      The physical structures are the same, sure, but the programming is vastly different.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Whoop-de-doo by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The physical structures are the same, sure, but the programming is vastly different.

      You may not realize it, but you've just given us the feminists' best argument, that men and women are programmed differently.

      http://thealternativein.c.pres...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Whoop-de-doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like saying two nearly identical PC, one with an UHD camera at 240 fps, and the other with an 11 channel 192KHz/24 bit per channel audio card going to a 10KW amp and speakers.

    4. Re:Whoop-de-doo by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's a silly assumption to make. Why assume that it's not pre-programmed to some extent? Alas, they're probably not going to let us run experiments on a few hundred children to get meaningful data. Either way, that's a silly assumption to make an even sillier would be to use it as an argument. Are you drinking tonight? The word programmed doesn't mean user-controlled, nor does it mean (to butcher the analogy even further) that the source is open to modification.

      There's intrinsic differences which this study actually finds. This doesn't mean that one is better than the other. Just that we've probably inherent traits that make us more likely to be better suited for different tasks. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. The study confirms that there are differences. It doesn't conclude that they're the same and that you'll get equal outcomes.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Whoop-de-doo by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Why assume that it's not pre-programmed to some extent?

      As the fella once said, it's not predictive. Think for a second: would you have wanted your future to be determined on by a "set of traits"? Of all people, I'd think you would reject that notion. Remember when black people had a "set of traits" that meant they "weren't suited" to be competitive swimmers or ice hockey players? Or a "set of traits" that prevented them from having "the tools" to be an NFL quarterback or a major league manager? Or to be taught to read and write?

      And considering all the software programming we throw at kids from the time they're born, why would you assume the "pre-programming" is anything but trivial?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Whoop-de-doo by KGIII · · Score: 2

      If I had to wager, given what we currently know, I'd submit that it is probably a bit more pre-programmed (or influenced by chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen) that you seem to think and less predictive than others are inclined to think. I strongly suspect that there's straight up differences in trait strengths and weaknesses. To use your example of black people, they are - indeed, physically different as a general rule. This doesn't make them less than or better than however, it does mean they have dominant traits more frequently than others.

      Denying this does nothing to further humanity. Using it as an excuse to limit, prejudge, or separate does hinder our further humanity. It's not too painful to admit that we're different. It's okay. In fact, it's a wonderful thing to accept and be aware of diversity and to break those boundaries is a great thing. Not each and every person is going to be the same and some may well be exceptional. That doesn't mean that we're not different as a general rule. It's quite likely that one gender will be more adept at various things (see spacial awareness with me) than another. To think otherwise isn't very smart.

      Equal opportunity is an important thing to have but that doesn't necessarily result in equal outcomes. To be more specific, this doesn't mean that women can't do tech. To assume that it means that is just silly. It might mean that men are predisposed to it on a more frequent basis than women are. That's okay. Let people reach for the clouds but make sure they know that the higher they reach the harder the fall. Accept that failures happen and that we're not all the same. Expecting equal outcome is absolutely silly - to the point where it's irrational. What matters is that we've equal opportunity.

      The headline is misleading. "It's not really that different" translates to "it's different." It doesn't mean one is better than the other. It just means they're different. There's no reason to read more into it than that. Some are just going to have traits at a greater frequency than others, they're pre-programmed to excel in certain areas. This doesn't prohibit them from working to excel in other areas, it just means that they must work to do so.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Whoop-de-doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the fella once said, it's not predictive. Think for a second: would you have wanted your future to be determined on by a "set of traits"? Of all people, I'd think you would reject that notion.

      What we want is irrelevant to the search for what is. It would be certainly be predictive if we could reverse engineer the program, then read it. Which will be impossible if we continue to believe that the program does not exist.

      The nature/nurture component of our development is an inextricable feedback loop where one informs and refines the other (and vice versa). I don't understand the insistence from so many people that everything of consequence must fall entirely in one column or the other.

    8. Re:Whoop-de-doo by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      And feminists use this as an argument because they are stupid. It completely contradicts their "all men are inherently evil" narrative.
      There is some plasticity, but our general likes and dislikes are pretty much predetermined by the time we are born.

    9. Re:Whoop-de-doo by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It completely contradicts their "all men are inherently evil" narrative.

      It is extremely rare to find anyone with an "all X are Y" narrative. I have never encountered a feminist who thinks all men are inherently evil.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Whoop-de-doo by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Have you never read any of the feminist propaganda at all?

    11. Re:Whoop-de-doo by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Have you never read any of the feminist propaganda at all?

      Give us an example or STFU.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Whoop-de-doo by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Try their facebook page, then their homepage, and I don't care which sect of them you try, you will find it in all of them. If you don't immediately see a large portion of direct hatred for men then you are incapable of recognizing real hate.

    13. Re:Whoop-de-doo by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Try their facebook page, then their homepage, and I don't care which sect of them you try, you will find it in all of them. If you don't immediately see a large portion of direct hatred for men then you are incapable of recognizing real hate.

      So, you're saying that you don't have a single example of feminists saying that men are inherently evil?

      I didn't think so.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Whoop-de-doo by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying you are too damn stupid to recognize it when they do. Either that, or you know how bad the problem is and you support their hatred.

  4. Structural differences only by poity · · Score: 2

    This is about structural differences. I imagine the chemical/hormonal differences remain... different?

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:Structural differences only by xtronics · · Score: 2

      Exactly - these scans can't see how they are interconnected - only the gross physical structure.

      The actual DNA information for making a brain isn't that much - it is the interconnections that are formed that make it the úber complex structure that it is. These connections are effected by hormones as well as stimulus.

      Also - MRI images are not very useful - they can't see a lot of things. Diffuse damage from ME is invisible, yet the damage is there. Just because it uses a computer, is complex, white lab coats etc does not mean it is 'all knowing'.

    2. Re:Structural differences only by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      But still, on most any mesure, on average, when you find that men are more something than women are, you also find that some women are more that thing than some men are. And vice versa.

    3. Re:Structural differences only by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You mean female brains are bathed in estrogen and males in testosterone and that has an effect? Only if you disregard politics.

    4. Re:Structural differences only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly - these scans can't see how they are interconnected - only the gross physical structure.

      Not even that.

      I repeat. Not. Even. That.

      They show electrical ACTIVITY in the brain. They completely disregard basic anatomy known to ancient Greece about the physical differences between a male and female brain.

    5. Re:Structural differences only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is about structural differences. I imagine the chemical/hormonal differences remain... different?

      You are talking about biological determinism. There is very little evidence for it. The human brain is so immensely adaptable (plasticity) that relatively minor variations between sexes are not significant factors in behavior. Sociological pressures account for orders of magnitude more differences in behavior as result of having molded that plasticity.

    6. Re:Structural differences only by rl117 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not electrical activity, it's even less direct. MRI is essentially measuring fluid (blood) flow, the assumption being that areas with higher flow are more active, due to having higher metabolic demands. Which is quite a reasonable assumption, but it's not a direct observation. It's not actually measuring flow, it's sampling the spin of nuclei aligned in a strong magnetic field; if it's solid the relaxation time will be slower than for molecules like water in a freely moving fluid. There's obviously much more to it than this basic description, but that's essentially what it's measuring in most typical applications.

    7. Re:Structural differences only by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Not even that.

      I repeat. Not. Even. That.

      They show electrical ACTIVITY in the brain. They completely disregard basic anatomy known to ancient Greece about the physical differences between a male and female brain.

      I have to admit, I've been pretty accurate at determining gender for a long time, and not once did it involve looking at a person's brain.

      Maybe this is where slashdotters go wrong.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Structural differences only by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Tell that to teachers. They've been trying to treat boys lite girls for a while now, and it's creating issues with boy's ability to learn.

    9. Re: Structural differences only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does. Just go to shop and start wearing women clothes. You can do it - but there is a strong pressure to act otherwise.

  5. All that's proven here... by siphonophore · · Score: 2

    ...is that we lack the measurement tools to discern the brain structures that influence macro phenomena.

    --
    Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
    -Scott Adams
  6. Function of knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Usually when knowledge about a subject is low the statement is: "Oh, this looks simple".
    As knowledge grows so does the intricacies.
    To me, this statement tells me that we still don't know much still about the human brain.
    Any brain-scan with the resolution in the million of neurons category is not going to tell you much.
    It's like viewing "Mona Lisa" through a 16 pixel display; remarkably similar to the "Isleworth Mona Lisa".

  7. That's the hardware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...any guy who claims the *software* isn't, clearly has never met a woman...

  8. Even doctors can't tell! by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain.

    Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Now that brain that you gave me. Was it Hans Delbruck's?

    Igor: No.

    Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Ah! Very good. Would you mind telling me whose brain I DID put in?

    Igor: Then you won't be angry?

    Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.

    Igor: Abby someone.

    Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby someone. Abby who?

    Igor: Abby... Normal.

    Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby Normal?

    Igor: I'm almost sure that was the name.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  9. Definitions by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

    How about we agree on what is meant by "male" and "female" before going off on some wild study? If the study *had* shown a discernable difference, which gender would it have expected Caitlin Jenner's brain to show up as?

    1. Re:Definitions by msauve · · Score: 1

      "which gender would it have expected Caitlin Jenner's brain to show up as?"

      You're begging the question. Brains seem to be missing from the Kardashian/Jenner gene pool.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jenner is the gender which gets away with murder. That's all anyone really needs to know.

      Note I didn't use pronouns or anything but the surname. No need. Murderer Jenner is a sufficient title.

    3. Re:Definitions by quietwalker · · Score: 1

      Their definition of male and female is indicated to be 'sex' - that is, biological gender, as opposed to the social concept of gender. Pretty clearly stated.

      What they're attempting to do is find out if there are any consistent trends within each group of biological genders that contrast with each other, that can be used to indicate a difference between biological genders. As they found none, speculation on what a trans-woman's brain would be, if they had found it is as useful as speculating on the type of hat a tyrannosaurus rex would prefer, if they had access to hats and the desire to wear them.

      That is to say, completely pointless, on a number of levels.

    4. Re:Definitions by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      You say that as if you didn't know that T rex showed an affinity for subtle plaids, especially in its eveningwear. Heck, I thought even amateur paleontologists knew that!

      --
      That is all.
    5. Re:Definitions by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Now there you go again: trying to put human beings into just one of two gender categories. That's like trying to put a round peg into a vertical hole...

    6. Re:Definitions by Leslie43 · · Score: 1

      MRI scans of transgender people have consistently shown that transgender peoples brains show the same patterns as those of the gender they identify as, Caitlyn's patterns would show up as female on a scan.

      If they focus on just sexuality section, that too follows the same pattern, gay men and straight women show up the same.

    7. Re:Definitions by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Is "ugly and creepy" a gender?

      I'm not particularly gay but he was much better looking when he was Bruce.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Definitions by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Informative
      Want to try again? Here, please educate yourself

      In the 1990s, scientists began to compare these sexually dimorphic regions in the brains of transsexuals and the rest of humanity. Early work in this area required the examination of brains postmortem; recent studies use images of the living brain.

      The results show that when individuals of Sex A—despite having the chromosomes, gonads and sex hormones of that sex—insist that they're really Sex B, the gender-affected parts of the brain typically more closely resemble what's usually seen with Sex B.

      Consider an obscure brain region called the forceps minor (part of the corpus callosum, a mass of fibers that connect the brain's two hemispheres). On average, among nontranssexuals, the forceps minor of males contains parallel nerve fibers of higher density than in females. But the density in female-to-male transsexuals is equivalent to that in typical males.

      As another example, the hypothalamus, a hormone-producing part of the brain, is activated in nontranssexual men by the scent of estrogen, but in women—and male-to-female transsexuals—by the scent of androgens, male-associated hormones.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Definitions by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MRI scans of transgender people have consistently shown that transgender peoples brains show the same patterns as those of the gender they identify as, Caitlyn's patterns would show up as female on a scan.

      If they focus on just sexuality section, that too follows the same pattern, gay men and straight women show up the same.

      The story you're posting on is literally fucking claiming that MRI scans show barely any difference between the brains of men and women.
      Yet you're literally fucking claiming that MRI scans can match transsexual brains to one of two distinct genders.

      You can't have it both ways, SJWs.
      If you want to push your narrative that transsexuals have a brain of the gender they want to be but they're trapped in the wrong body, you have to define and differentiate the brains of men and women.
      If you want to push your narrative that women aren't into science and math as much as men NOT because of a difference in interest but because of oppression, you have to show that the brains of men and women are the same.

    10. Re:Definitions by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So stay ignorant ... not my problem that you're anti-science ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You can't have it both ways, SJWs.

      Of course they can have it both ways! When did facts ever deter that?

      And YOU, my friend, will be wrong both times! Naturally...you male, chauvinist PIG! ;-)

    12. Re:Definitions by Leslie43 · · Score: 1

      You read a blurb of a summary or the summary, and a bad one at that.
      The author did a disservice titling the article as he/she did, and falsely makes the claim that they could not identify a male or female brain as that is not what the study found.

      From the actual study's own abstract:
      “Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain. “ This doesn't mean you cannot look at an MRI scan of brain patterns and not say it's male or female, just that that you cannot look at (most) individual traits by themselves as evidence of gender. What they found was that people are a hodgepodge of stereotypes mixed together, however you can still identify a definite male or female bias. You can Google the MRI scans if you want.
      br> In relation to your last points,
      Conveniently, the study actually tackled that as well, I'll let them summarize.

      “These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.”

    13. Re:Definitions by erapert · · Score: 1

      So they discovered a possible physiological reason for the sexual identity problems that transexuals suffer from.
      When someone has a brain tumor do we humor them and play along with any hallucinations they may be having or do we try and cure their brain tumor?

    14. Re:Definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do you try to cure a physiological issue in the head? Invasive brain surgery?

    15. Re:Definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but this is as male as it gets, regardless of what your brain is telling you.

      I'm glad if "Caitlin" is happier living as a woman, and comfortable with his identity, but there's a certain element of "let's pretend" here that I and a lot of other people can't get past. "Bruce is pretending he's a woman, let's all pretend with him."

      If you define "gender" to be the same as "gender identity," then it's possible to change your gender. But if you define "gender" to be the same as "sex" physiologically, you can modify your body all you want, it still makes you a modified man, not a woman.

    16. Re:Definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    17. Re:Definitions by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      We can't change the brain (and if we could it would be unethical, because the person would not be the same person), so we change the body, which is also a lot safer, works, and leaves the persona intact.

      Your equating a mismatch of gender and somatic sex as a "hallucination" has been abandoned except for the lunatic religious fringe, who see it as an offense to their God. Unfortunately, this does include a few doctors who let their religious beliefs dictate what they see and don't see.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    18. Re:Definitions by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Where did anyone say that sex == gender? Not me, that's for sure.

      As for "playing along", that's not how it works.

      Most of the time, sex and gender align. Sometimes they don't. And, since we're supposed to care more about what a person is like than how they look (and you're not interacting with the way someone's body looks, but with the person inside that body), why not change the body to match if possible? We give near-sighted people glasses, we replace the lenses of cataract patients, we give people who have lost a limb an artificial one, we place teeth with fakes, we pull the large intestine out and let people poop in a bag, we replace hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers, we fix broken bones, etc. We don't do this for the benefit of the body, but of the person inhabiting that body. That's why we pull the plug when someone is brain dead.

      The part of your body that determines who and what you are is only your brain. Replace any other part, and you're still you. And if your brain says you're a woman, and you can't replace that part of the brain that says it, why not reduce the incongruity by adjusting the body accordingly? After all, the only part that's really not expendable, and defines who you are, is your brain.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    19. Re:Definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "'Gender' is a grammatical term. It is not a substitute for 'sex.' But then, what is?"
        - Edwin Newman

    20. Re:Definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You know, this skyscraper really has a nautical feel to it. It feels more like a ship. Why don't we upend it, make it watertight, slap some engines and a rudder on it and call it a ship? Surely that's easier than accepting it as a ship-like skyscraper."

    21. Re:Definitions by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The last I looked, skyscrapers and ships didn't have feelings. Tsk tsk.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    22. Re:Definitions by erapert · · Score: 1

      Prove that it's a mismatch of the body and not a mental problem.
      Considering that they have either XY or XX it sounds to me like the body isn't wrong.

    23. Re:Definitions by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Prove that it's a mismatch of the body and not a mental problem. Considering that they have either XY or XX it sounds to me like the body isn't wrong.

      Already been proven:

      Also, obviously I've discussed it with specialists, and it's no longer classified as a mental problem per se - but the stresses imposed by the mismatch are capable of causing untoward stress, not just with living with it, but the reaction from people such as yourself. So, you're part of the problem :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  10. It's the software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I don't mean just the different upbringing, but also the different hormonal setup. We're not jarheads, you know. There's an entire body attached to our brains. If you need help finding the differences, just ask.

  11. Re:Neither are the brains of humans and some prima by malditaenvidia · · Score: 3, Funny

    The only documented exception being Steven Ballmer.

  12. Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender."

    Penis = Male
    Vagina = Female

    Failing that:
    XX = female
    XY = male

    Failing that:
    Into the volcano you go!

    See? Simple.

    1. Re:Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Penis = Male
      Vagina = Female

      And what about somebody who loses their penis in an accident? Are they no longer male? Do they become female, or do they become some unspecified third option? What about a transsexual who gets sex reassignment surgery - the penis is removed, but they don't have a "real" vagina, it's man-made. What about people with undifferentiated or underdeveloped sexual organs, or hermaphroditic characteristics?

      Failing that:
      XX = female
      XY = male

      And what about XX males, XY females, and the multitude of XXY, XYY, and other syndromes that break this mold?

      It's not as simple as you try to make it out to be, friend - we're 6000 years into human history - we'd have it figured out by now, if it was.

    2. Re:Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are called MUTATIONS.

      You don't re-organize the 99% to accommodate the 1%.

      If you HAD a penis, but no longer have it, you are still a male.

    3. Re:Gender by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Actually science has isolated the individual gene that's responsible for sex differentiation in humans. Technically it's possible for it to end up on an X chromosome or be absent from a Y chromosome, but it's very unlikely which is why such things aren't seen often. Also, many of the aberrations from the XX / XY dichotomy result in sterility, which does go a rather long way towards suggesting humans and mammals in general are sexually dimorphic and that while it's possible to exist outside of that binary, it's not viable from a reproduction point of view so those traits aren't passed on. A lot of those are either responsible for or comorbid with other undesirable medical conditions which would probably make them less viable even if they didn't result in sterility.

      If you have a the SRY gene you're male, if you don't, you're female. It's that simple. It says nothing else about you. Even though sex and gender are strongly correlated, there's plenty of scientific evidence that suggests that being transgender is a legitimate condition and not something that people are making up. Interestingly enough, the studies determined this by looking at the brains of transgender individuals and comparing them against the areas that differ based on sex and found that in many ways a transgender person has a brain that looks more like the brain of the sex they feel like they should be than the brain of the sex that they are.

    4. Re:Gender by gweihir · · Score: 1, Troll

      This gender-BS is now pervasive. Of course what these people want is not attainable as it is nonsense. That does not stop them from predicting/claiming/demanding that they are right at every occasion.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Gender by sexconker · · Score: 1

      If you can't breed you're sexless.
      From prepubescents to crones to the victims of unfortunate smelting accidents to the majority of ants and bees to the majority of Slashdot posters.
      If you can't breed you're sexless.

    6. Re:Gender by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      But you're the one trying to reorganize things. XX vs. XY is a thoroughly modern way of dividing the genders, and one which doesn't even match the other proposed criteria of vagina vs. penis. This is a proposed reorganization to introduce errors in natural language that didn't exist before, and which is much, much more difficult to verify experimentally!

      Besides which, when it said define gender, they were clearly talking about neurological differences between the genders. It appears, according to this summary, that the differences were less than previously thought, with more overlap.

      The study itself was using people that were presumably unambiguously men and women, using both the "genitals at time of birth" criteria and the "what they feel to be true in their innermost selves" criteria, so they are very much acknowledging your distinction. I highly doubt they did a genetic test to make sure they were XX and XY, vs. an XY female, or XXY, or a chimeric individual with half their cells XX and half XY, or any other edge-cases exists.

    7. Re:Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't breed you're sexless.

      Speak for yourself. I had a vasectomy so I can't breed. I haven't had more sex in my life. Why? Because I can no longer breed! Women are more likely to give it up when they know they can't get pregnant.

    8. Re:Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a the SRY gene you're male, if you don't, you're female. It's that simple.

      According to your definition, a CAI (Complete Androgen Insensitivity) XY person with an SRY gene is a man.

      Yet, as long as you haven't looked at her genes, you're likely more than willing to stick you d*ck in her vagina.

    9. Re:Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are called MUTATIONS. You don't re-organize the 99% to accommodate the 1%.

      When your rules for gender are trivially demonstrated to be idiotic, then perhaps you re-organize your rules in a way that doesn't require an either/or dichotomy?

      I mean, rather than say "everybody who doesn't fit this rule is a fucking freak who deserves to die?"

      If you HAD a penis, but no longer have it, you are still a male.

      Really? Why? What if everything about a person, including a surgical removal of their penis, says they are a woman? I've met some extremely passable transsexual women in my life, and I'm certain that most of you idiots wouldn't demand that somebody take a genetic test to "prove" they're not a man before fucking them. Gender is NOT simply binary opposites, and your refusal to understand that is far more of a problem than any non-polar gender model you care to rail against.

    10. Re:Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they don't deserve to die. Freaks are people too!

  13. Untrue according to the study by gorim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The study identified several regions of the brain that are "male" vs "female" in nature. Hence, there are variations in structures in those regions that do tend to dominate on one gender vs another. However, what the study found is that there is no one "combination" of such regions that statistically dominates to define a definite male or female brain, and that each individual person possesses variation between the two types.

    1. Re:Untrue according to the study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study identified several regions of the brain that are "male" vs "female" in nature. Hence, there are variations in structures in those regions that do tend be more common on one gender vs another. However, what the study found is that there is no one "combination" of such regions that statistically dominates to define a definite male or female brain, and that each individual person possesses variation between the multiple types.

      FTFY.

    2. Re:Untrue according to the study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah this is spin. Slashdot went from being a site that loved hardcore science to one that now worships at the altar of political correctness, and this is super politically correct.

      Another way of saying "the brains of men and women aren't really that different" is to say "the brains of men and women are different". But the latter will get you dirty looks from a lot of issue advocates.

    3. Re:Untrue according to the study by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Slashdot went from being a site that loved hardcore science to one that now worships at the altar of political correctness, and this is super politically correct

      You don't think the National Academy of Science is "hardcore science"?

      Here is the supporting information from the peer-reviewed article, and this dope doesn't think it's "hardcore science".

      http://www.pnas.org/content/su...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Untrue according to the study by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      What's utterly fascinating is that the brains of transgender people look like and work like the gender they self-report. It's consistent with the early onset and fixity of their gender identity if it's confirmed to be a brain setting.

      If you follow only one link from this bibliography, make it the one to Zhou et. al.'s Nature article.
      http://aebrain.blogspot.com/p/...

      That said, the remarkable thing about male and female brains is how similar they are. It's a curious phenomenon how hard people will work to "find" differences that aren't actually there.

    5. Re:Untrue according to the study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peer review is just a glorified spell-checker.

    6. Re:Untrue according to the study by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's a partial-information argument--cherry picking. Not just for what you said, but for the methodology used: it's as if they claimed male and female bodies aren't really different because they all have heads, arms, and legs.

      Neurological studies have examined the way information transmits across the brain--front to back or side to side--and found enormous differences between male and female humans. They research the difference in development of various areas of the brain, which can be either genetic or influenced by experiences; experiences can be influenced by hormones (genetic factor: you developed ovaries instead of testicles, you got less testosterone). More emotional and less intellectual? The emotional part of your brain gets a bit bigger, the prefrontal cortex doesn't. London cab drivers's hippocampi (involved in encoding long-term visual memory) grow by roughly 7% due to all the spatial information they memorize.

      To say the gross structure looks the same is just anatomy.

  14. Why would this change society's opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AFAIK this has been common knowledge for most of my life. Why would anybody's sexist opinions change now?

  15. That can mean only one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Men can not figure out men.

  16. I guess it's true what they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Women are from omicron persei 7
    Men are from omicron persei 9

  17. xx, xy, or xyy by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    and the New and Improved xyyy.

  18. Brain hardware vs. software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you might find is that most of the neurological/electrical activity in the brain is influenced by hormones and other such things. The "reward" structures might just be software. Once the lights go out you just have a dead brain - mostly the same machine as everyone else with nothing running on it. Maybe there's the odd different video card and some people have SoundBlasters installed, but mostly just the same brain.

    Or I might just be talking out of my arse.

    1. Re:Brain hardware vs. software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or I might just be talking out of my arse.

      Yeah, let's go with that option - that seems really likely.

  19. What would be interesting is... by microbox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gee... these measures vary continously between A and B. Therefore there is no A and no B. /barf. What would be interesting is if there were no way predict sex (greater than chance) from brain structures. That is a strong result. This is just junk dressed up as a strong result, but it isn't strong at all.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:What would be interesting is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can. Any bronze-age anatomist could with 99% accuracy with the help of a sharp saw. There are subtle, yet distinct physical differences.

      This is a fairly good write-up on some of those observations:
      http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/7/1550.full
      They'd have to show how each of the studies cited, as well as this study itself, were false before claiming that theirs has legitimacy.

      What these assholes were doing is looking at the brain ACTIVITY within those regions and calling those "biological structures" like a bunch of fucking idjit primates. Then they have the gall to say "huhr duhr... greater variety within the sexes than between!" like it's some fucking proof or some shit -- like they think that averages don't ALWAYS play out that way.

      >There are some men that are 7'3 and some men that are 4'6
      >There are some women that are 7'1 and some women that are 4'0
      >That means that there is no observable size difference between men and women, because some men are WAY TALLER than other men!!!!
      Or even further down this road:
      >Some turkey sandwiches are really good, some are really bad.
      >Some ham sandwiches are really good, some are really bad.
      >Therefore, there's no BIOLOGICAL difference between a turkey and a pig, because they both make a range of good-to-bad tasting sandwiches!!!

    2. Re:What would be interesting is... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      They've been playing that tune with regards to race for over a decade now.
      I've heard people literally argue that race doesn't exist because there is more variation (across ALL things) within a race then there is between races (across the ONE thing, race).

    3. Re:What would be interesting is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard people literally argue that race doesn't exist

      The argument isn't that race doesn't exist, rather that it exists only as a largely arbitrary social construct that has little or nothing to do with biology.

    4. Re:What would be interesting is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What would be interesting is if there were no way predict sex (greater than chance) from brain structures.

      What it sounds like they're saying, based on skimming the abstract, is that there isn't, for a large proportion of brains.

      Gee... these measures vary continously between A and B. Therefore there is no A and no B.

      More like "A and B correlate statistically with X and Y, as do C-D, E-F, and G-H, and I-J, but compared all at once, A-B, C-D, E-F, G-H, and I-J don't correlate with one another reliably."

    5. Re:What would be interesting is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's important to note that this does NOT mean there are no biological differences between people of "different races," or that there are no differences between populations of people. Any idiot can see there are many variations and they follow patterns.

      What it does mean is that there's no biological basis for lumping all "black" people together, all "white" people together, all "Asian" people together etc. on the basis of a few arbitrarily-chosen common physical characteristics. If you do this, you have to explain why you choose to ignore other equally genetically valid characteristics in your grouping.

  20. Re:Neither are the brains of humans and some prima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only documented exception being Steven Ballmer.

    One of these days he's gonna get that American Tourister open...

  21. This just killed 80% of comedy acts by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    Now they'll have to open with "What's the deal with airline food?"

    1. Re:This just killed 80% of comedy acts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, is airline food even a thing anymore?

  22. Re:Neither are the brains of humans and some prima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you seen the news? I shall fling my poop at you in protest!

  23. I don't think there are huge sections.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... set aside for reason, accountability, and logic

  24. Wait Science Said Otherwise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SCIENTISTS UNCOVER A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SEXES
    Sex does matter: key molecular process in brain is different in males and females

    - See more at: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/08/scientists-uncover-a-difference-between-the-sexes.html#sthash.kQJxCnEr.dpuf

    1. Re:Wait Science Said Otherwise... by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      Hush.... There's an agenda at play.

    2. Re:Wait Science Said Otherwise... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes but this study looks at brain structure, not brain function. There are two types of brain scan, one gives you information on brain structure the other gives you information on brain activity. Gender determines the hormonal soup your neurons swim in.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  25. Proving a negative by TheCreeep · · Score: 1

    I find this work dubious for the fact that it's conclusion is (or can be reformulated as) a negative: there's not much difference between male and female brains. All this suggests is that the authors were unable to find a consistent algorithm for deciding whether a brain is male or female. Now there are whole disciplines which can come up with different ways to differentiate the two (most notably data science), so I propose releasing the data, and then we'll whether someone finds that algorithm, and how well it works. While the case can not be definitively proven to be that there's no difference, the degree to which male and female brains are different would give rise to some interesting discussion.

    If accuracy is above 90% we can conclusively say that the two categories are pretty different. If it's around 66%, we would say the difference is minimal. Furthermore, the algorithms themselves would yield some interesting insights.

    So if the authors are reading this, can we have the data please?

    1. Re:Proving a negative by codeAlDente · · Score: 1

      This data is not sufficient to conclude that the difference between male and female brains is minimal, no matter how you analyze it.

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
  26. helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can use this information to provide additional food, energy, and resources...

    Oh this is a fluff piece and it's stupid?

    Color me shocked!

  27. A spectrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So basically its a spectrum with some brains that are very much "male" and some that are very much "female" and some stuff in between, and this is surprising why?

    Most humans also fall somewhere in that spectrum, with some people with a penis being very much "male" and some much closer to "female" in both behavior as well as looks. While it means that some brains of males can look almost female, this doesn't mean that the notion of male or female is suddenly totally gone. There is still a difference to be found and only a limited number of brains are hard to categorise. Sure the "male" and "female" choice is kind of arbitrary. But actually splitting them up is very helpful in many situations. One is physically stronger, in general, the other in emotionally stronger, in general and so on and so on. Categorizing everything is just something we do to make sense of the world. Some things are chairs, some things are certainly not chairs and some things just are in between, which you can sit on but wouldn't really look at as a chair or they look like a chair but could never be comfortable. In the same way there is a gender I would fuck and a gender I would not fuck, and then there are people who look in between, which might mean either fucking them could produce something but I have no interest or I am interested enough to fuck them but it could never lead to another human.

    While it might suck or be great to be in the middle of the spectrum, it also shouldn't give you the right to demand how I chose to categorize you. I should not fail to see you as another human, which in some cases some people seem to forget, but the opposite, that, for example, if I don't feel an attraction to you even though just looking at the genitals, you would be called a certain gender, that is not a form of racism/sexism or whatever.

  28. Re:Neither are the brains of humans and some prima by Beck_Neard · · Score: 2

    I hate replying to trolls, and I hate replying to ACs, and you're both. But anyway, for the benefit of those who might actually think you're serious...

    The brains of humans and other primates are very different. Humans have much larger cranial capacity, for one (about 3 times that of chimps, our closest ancestors), whereas the difference in cranial capacity between men and women is only a few percent, and that is explained mostly by body size (men and women of the same weight & height have no statistically significant difference in brain size). Human brains have much larger frontal lobes than other primate brains. There are a bunch of other differences too.

    Anyway, similarity is relative. A chimp brain is way more similar to a human brain than, say, a rat brain.

    --
    A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  29. Really dumb study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is like looking at the outside of two CPU's and saying "hey, they look pretty similar to me!" without looking at the logic inside. Since we don't understand how the brain works, even "minor" differences in structure can mean a lot.

    1. Re:Really dumb study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. It's more like watching Netflix on two different computers and assuming the innards are the same because you can't find any difference in the movie.

  30. Wrong. by quietwalker · · Score: 1

    It doesn't prove that. It doesn't disprove it either. It makes no claims on that whatsoever.

    Interestingly, this phrase shows up early in the article: “Nobody has had a way of quantifying this before,” which indicates that previous claims were invalid, based on supposition and assumption rather than data. They were at best, theories, in the scientific sense of the word, but lacked a mechanism to test.

    Should you assume that previous claims were valid, even without proof, I can see how you might come to the conclusion that we lack the tools to derive differences. If you ignore the idea that these things could be impacted more by chemical, environmental or cultural factors, and that brain structure contains an inherent representation of male-like vs female-like brains, it is a pretty reasonable assumption.

    Except that the article then goes on to point out that all the things previously claimed to indicate gender did not have reliability: there was no inherent consistency or commonality between results, except when you zoom out far enough to indicate a generic trend (one that cannot be used to reliably identify a brain as 'male' or 'female'). Again from the article:

    "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."

    So, the previous claims are considered invalid, and the assumption - assuming I'm not painting a straw man - requires them to be true, and reliable. Instead, they are not, and while it doesn't discount the assumption, it does make it more unlikely to be true. ... personally speaking, I believe 'genderness' as it relates to social norms rather than biological ones, is predicated primarily on those same social norms and cultural values, rather than biological, which serve as a tertiary influence after cultural and environmental factors. If that were not the case, then it would be unimportant for a trans-individual to look and dress in a stereotypical gender-specific way, except to serve as a label to others. There's nothing that says you're not unless you dress like your culture's stereotype of , except insecurity and social pressures. Nothing except what an individual allows inside themselves.

    Is there really a problem with it being primarily a psychological state? It's equally valid, isn't it?

    1. Re:Wrong. by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      âoeNobody has had a way of quantifying this before,â which indicates that previous claims were invalid

      No it does not indicate that.

      Previously, "In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain."

      To show that that claim is invalid, you have to demonstrate that those researchers had a high failure rate using a disembodied brain to determine an individual's sex.

      The existence of a new measurement tool is insufficient to invalidate that claim - what if you check their prediction rate and find that it's 100% correct? That would validate and justify their claim.

  31. Re:The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really Diff. by penguinoid · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now we just need the followup study that finds that the women who's brains looked more male were more interested in in things like programming, while the men who's brains looked more female were more interested in things like complaining that somebody on the internet said something sexist.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  32. Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. And I can tell whether a computer is used as a games machine, a cad station, a web server, file server, app server or whatever just by looking at it.

  33. It's not the brains, its the crotches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't you have 'Health' class in 7th grade?

  34. So you're telling us by MouseR · · Score: 1

    They're doing this on purpose????

  35. How society defines gender? by nwaack · · Score: 1

    This is junk science that makes a lot of assumptions on how the brain is supposed to be, then uses it's pointless conclusion to try to create social change. Sounds more like propaganda than science to me.

    1. Re:How society defines gender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...makes a lot of assumptions on how the brain is supposed to be...

      In science, we call this a "hypothesis." Typically we try to have one of these on hand when we intend to begin sciencing. YMMV.

      Sounds more like propaganda than science to me.

      Sounds like someone's suffering from PNAS envy.

  36. Tel Aviv University by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    Exactly. I'm not sure why yet another study confirming this is a big deal, or why it's a big deal when people such as Larry Summers make statements that, yes, there are tendencies for gender differences when talking about brains on a general basis, even if you can't make a specific prediction about any one individual based on that general tendency.

    This one is from Tel Aviv University. Maybe it is a more useful study for people to cite who are having gender policy discussions within various Jewish communities.

    (Although it will not be enough to change certain Orthodox policies, like IIRC women don't count when determining if you have a quorum for a prayer.)

  37. Genders, its a fad ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless this will get Tumblr to stop recognizing things like "catkin" and "Apache helicopter" as valid options, I think we've already changed how we define gender enough.

    Its a fad. Its like when the Mac and dot matrix printers first came out. Some people had to use a bunch of wildly different font types and font sizes on the same page for no apparent reason. Just because they could. Eventually the novelty wore off and the font and size changes started to be more meaningful. Someday in the not-so-distant future the gender list will coalesce, to something more than two items, but items with a more medical/scientific rationale (genetic, psychological, etc), not so much the political because-I-declare-myself-to-be.

  38. An old Parlor Trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain.

    Simple - While you're disembodying the brain, you just sneak a peek into their pants.

    At least, that's how I do it.

  39. Re:The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really Diff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well put, sir/madam !

  40. Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I was sure I had a brain penis!

  41. little differences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Each human cell normally contains 23 pairs of chromosomes. Twenty-two of these pairs look the same in both males and females. The 23rd pair, the sex chromosomes, differ between males and females. Such a small difference on a cellular level that expresses large differences on a macro level.

  42. Click me I'm clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I can assure you that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence

  43. Shhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but this seems like a sneaky attempt to back certain political positions. Those positions happen to match with numerous fabricated statements by various politicians who promote a myth of an abusive patriarchal society where all white males are evil, and have everything handed to them because they are males and white..

    I'll become less cynical when people become honest about their manipulating for personal gain.

    Unfortunately the sock puppets and shills who push this agenda and fund the "study" mentioned here will also downmod this post, so it's made anonymously.

    ps. If you wish to make an attempt to claim that white males have it made, please show me my fucking check for being one. I came from poverty and worked my dick off to get out of poverty. Just like any race and/or gender can do.

  44. The Brains of Men and Women ARE Different by piRSqrd · · Score: 1

    Every cell in the brain of a man has an x and a y chromosome. Every cell in the brain of a woman has two x chromosomes. Also, every brain of a woman is inside the head of a woman. While every brain of a man is inside the head of a man.

    --
    I put the 'Physics' in 'Physical Attraction'
    1. Re:The Brains of Men and Women ARE Different by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      Also, every brain of a woman is inside the head of a woman. While every brain of a man is inside the head of a man.

      Every now and then, the thinking part of a man is inside the body of a woman.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:The Brains of Men and Women ARE Different by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      And is enveloped by the thinking part of a woman. Easy to play that game.

    3. Re:The Brains of Men and Women ARE Different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pussy is wise.

    4. Re:The Brains of Men and Women ARE Different by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      And is enveloped by the thinking part of a woman. Easy to play that game.

      Nope, as a true Slashdotter I can assure you that playing "that game" is not easy. It's taken me years to get any.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  45. Re:The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really Diff. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Too much cholesterol in both.

  46. Re:The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really Diff. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    If you were a scientist you would not come up with your conclusions before having the data.

  47. Re:The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really Diff. by msauve · · Score: 2

    Good thing zombies don't need to eat heart-healthy.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  48. Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to get over the notion that 'we are our brains'. Our brains are just a tool through which thoughts flow, and instructions are processed. There are also the considerations of biology, physiology, body chemistry, etc. This 'study' is beyond sophomoric and absurd.

  49. Complex system defies simple classification system by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    Well duh!

  50. Re:Neither are the brains of humans and some prima by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Your entire post is wrong. The most glaring error is this:

    chimps, our closest ancestors

  51. Re:The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really Diff. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    A lot of people say, "What's that?" It's Pat!
    A lot of people ask, "Who's he? Or she?"
    A ma'am or a sir, accept him or her
    or whatever it might be.
    It's time for androgyny.
    Here comes Pat!

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  52. Re:Neither are the brains of humans and some prima by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

    Alright, closest living ancestors.

    What part of my post is wrong?

    --
    A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  53. Re:Neither are the brains of humans and some prima by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

    I meant closest living RELATIVES. Just caught my error now, sorry.

    But anyway, what other part of my post is wrong?

    --
    A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  54. dah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How to define gender.

    Got a dick? You are a boy
    Got a pussy? you are a girl.

    There is nothing complicated about this. I know some people are confused as to what they are, but all they need is a little 1st grade education to know.

    It is sad that money is spend on a study like this, of coarse there are some things the same, and some are different between male and female brains, they are both human brains after all.

  55. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This conflicts with previous findings on the subject.

    I think it would be a good time for peer review on this along with studies to determine whether the observed differences (or lack thereof) between Male and Female neurology is a result of nature or nurture, genetic or environmental causes, pre-destination or cultural influences.

    That is a gordian knot that I think will take a few careers of work to tease apart.

    Chop Chop!

  56. Re:The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really Diff. by antdude · · Score: 1

    I don't even have a brain! :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  57. A whole book has been written on this topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cordelia Fine wrote an amazing book on this topic, Delusions of Gender.

    http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244

    She thoroughly and methodically dissects and debunks the high-profile studies that suggest there is a difference in male and female human brains.

    It's nice this study can come and support one of the best books I've ever read. :)

    1. Re:A whole book has been written on this topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here is a book that claims to describe the creation of the universe and a guide of morality. Both created with an agenda and confirmation bias.

  58. Another Feminist Leaning Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you're done, go over to The Register. Everyone's been going there and abandoning slashdot.

  59. They may look the same by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    But God knows they don't react the same. Women, generally act/think with the emotional side of the brain. Men, generally act/think with the logical side of the brain. Now before all the women's lib people start in, I SAID GENERALLY.

    1. Re:They may look the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you're talking about "left-brain" vs. "right-brain" dominance. That is a myth irrespective of sex. People are not "left-brained" or "right-brained" like they are left-handed or right-handed.

  60. In Putin's Russia . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    women fail to understand . . . you!

  61. If women and men's brains were the same . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    Then how do you explain:

    Pacific Rim (the robot pilots have to "share their inner-most thoughts and feelings")

    The Hunger Games

    those Twilight movies

    . . . 50 Shades of Grey?

  62. Read the details before being mislead by these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...phony quasi-science junk studies.

    They studied a bunch of brains without knowing which were ACTUAL male or female brains!!! They sorted them by self-identification of the "gender-orientations" of the people - in other words: some of the "male" brains they said were like female brains actually WERE female brains, and some of the "female" brains they said were like male brains actually WERE male brains. It's no wonder they got the results they desired - that they could not see differences along gender lines! Homer Simpson would have achieved the same results sans any degree.

    There might well be good results to a similar study, conducted honestly - and indeed one might even get similar results. Somebody should actually try that experiment. That's NOT what this pile of tripe was. This is scientific malpractice at its absolute worst, designed to manipulate the public by applying a thine veneer of "science" over a probable mountain of public policy preference, political ideology, or perhaps social preferences. I'll not pretend to know the actual workings of their minds, but it clearly was NOT science and was tailored to achieve some non-scientific ends.

  63. Changing Gender Roles by jameswesty12 · · Score: 1

    Well it used to be that men were the 'breadwinners' and were there to protect their women which led to older guys being partnered to younger women Ive noticed the opposite starting to happen ok not across the board but just look on tv with shows like cougar town and sex in the city where it is increasingly the older women dating younger guys and being the provider. Its even happening on dating sites not just tv shows like http://www.freecougarcontacts.... - basically older women looking for younger guys, bot exactly in your 'kept' category but shows the same twist of changing roles between the sexes...

  64. The study is an example of bad science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The conclusion has no relationship with the results from the study, they have to re-interpret the results passing them through their ideological funnel to reach the answer they wanted to get in the first place, which is a wrong one. They even acknowledge that neuroscientists are still able to spot the difference between a male and a female brain in plain sight, and because this is a hard fact, the entire argument that there are no substantial differences in the brains between the sexes becomes moot and dis-proven.

    What this study has found, is that very few people have "canonical" male brains or female brains. But this is not news, because very few people have canonical male or female bodies to begin with. The percentage of people that have the same proportions than the Vitruvian Man is almost not existent.

  65. Gross Brain Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The study is based on gross brain features (see phrenology)

  66. No, really? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Get over it, idiots.

                            mark

  67. And in other news by Baldrson · · Score: 2

    19th century scientists claimed they could identify the sex of a person based solely on their disembodied genitalia.

    However, as 21st century gender scientists know, sex reassignment surgery would utterly befuddle such no-nothing pseud-scientists from the bad old days.

  68. Re:The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really Diff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you be here if you did..?