# Pseudoscience gender book "Testosterone Rex" Royal Society's science book of the year



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

*Pseudoscience gender book "Testosterone Rex" Royal Society's science book of the year*

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-cordelia-fine?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience

The Royal Society is supposed to be one of the most respectable scientific organizations and has been around for 350 years. It isn't just random fringe nuts who've bought this nonsense. Three cheers for Lysenkoism!

Science book of the year. Man.

Cordelia Fine's "Testosterone Rex" — A Review - Quillette

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/old-t-rex/


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

How about we read a non-biased thread written by somebody who is either black, LGBTI, non-cis orientation/queer or non-traditional gender representing rather than this one?

What is your skin color, MBTI type, what is your orientation, what gender are you starting off with and how do you represent gender expectations? Otherwise shut up, you have no right to talk until you answer so. You will not post anymore things here.

I wish all racists/transphobes/homophobes/whatever had their teeth smashed in.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

Defender of Light said:


> How about we read a non-biased thread written by somebody who is either black, LGBTI, non-cis orientation/queer or non-traditional gender representing rather than this one?
> 
> What is your skin color, MBTI type, what is your orientation, what gender are you starting off with and how do you represent gender expectations? Otherwise shut up, you have no right to talk until you answer so. You will not post anymore things here.
> 
> I wish all racists/transphobes/homophobes/whatever had their teeth smashed in.


I am actually a depressed autistic other-abled nonbinary Maori/Uyghur trans-lesbian hijabi with AIDS.. didn't you see the gray circle thing under my name? Don't assume, BIGOT.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Defender of Light said:


> How about we read a non-biased thread written by somebody who is either black, LGBTI, non-cis orientation/queer or non-traditional gender representing rather than this one?
> 
> What is your skin color, MBTI type, what is your orientation, what gender are you starting off with and how do you represent gender expectations? Otherwise shut up, you have no right to talk until you answer so. You will not post anymore things here.
> 
> I wish all racists/transphobes/homophobes/whatever had their teeth smashed in.


This is actually the only racist/sexist thing in this thread.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I'd have to read the book before I can give a real opinion on it, but the idea that there are no fundamental differences between the sexes is obviously absurd and I am not sure why so many people seem to think they have something to gain politically by saying that. It's going to help a small subset of the population, probably, but it will be harmful to most of society.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Defender of Light said:


> How about we read a non-biased thread written by somebody who is either black, LGBTI, non-cis orientation/queer or non-traditional gender representing rather than this one?
> 
> What is your skin color, MBTI type, what is your orientation, what gender are you starting off with and how do you represent gender expectations? Otherwise shut up, you have no right to talk until you answer so. You will not post anymore things here.
> 
> I wish all racists/transphobes/homophobes/whatever had their teeth smashed in.


 Did you just assume their gender? *has trigger seizure*








Stop triggering me!

But in all seriousness, you seem too be a very sexist and racist person, and you obviously are one of those lunatics who thinks everything is racist and sexists. Please go and find somewhere else too spread your illogical beliefs.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> I'd have to read the book before I can give a real opinion on it, but the idea that there are no fundamental differences between the sexes is obviously absurd and I am not sure why so many people seem to think they have something to gain politically by saying that. It's going to help a small subset of the population, probably, but it will be harmful to most of society.


The problem is that many people assume/project/greatly exaggerate the consequences of biological gender differences that don't actually have much scientific basis and regularly use these to apparently explain differences social-cultural behaviour and outcomes.

Unfortunately, overall the science is not terribly high quality beyond the superficial findings that are trivial to measure. Current fMRI testing for example cannot tell the difference between genders with anything even resembling reasonable accuracy.

Ideally we should be agnostic about gender differences unless there is strong evidence.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

These are some very badly written articles, and they don't seem to support your idea that the author's work is pseudoscience. "Pseudoscience" is unscientific work, as in something having little or no scientific basis, not just work that suffers from mistakes, omissions, inaccuracies, and the like.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

Anon Pervathon said:


> These are some very badly written articles, and they don't seem to support your idea that the author's work is pseudoscience. "Pseudoscience" is unscientific work, as in something having little or no scientific basis, not just work that suffers from mistakes, omissions, inaccuracies, and the like.


There is little or no basis for the notion that men and women are basically the same and culture is what has made them who they are. It's part of the broader pseudoscience concept of the blank slate.


----------



## Panorama (Jul 19, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money 

John Money was a NZ (1970's) psychologist who reassigned gender in dysphoric children with disastrous results. 

But yes, please tell us more about this 'blank-slate', socially inscribed performance 'theory' and those _evil _males.


----------



## spylass (Jan 25, 2014)

Believing that men + women are different or even "opposites" has been an idea that's existed for centuries. Everyone wants to prove this age old notion, including many scientists.

Everyone wants to say "it's absurd to say there aren't differences!" But this is just an idea that's been hammered into us and that's hard to shake. In many areas it's already been disproven- like the dichotomy of "men are sexual" and "women are not sexual" which everyone firmly believed... until several studies measuring sexual arousal/response discovered hey wait women are sexual too. 

So far the most we've found is that there are some trends across groups for which brain structures are more active. BUT if you look at an individual brain- you usually find that they have a mix of male/female structures. 

"Your Brain Is a Mosaic of Male and Female" 
https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

the guardian review didn't do fine's book justice...this is a review from a science magazine...in it, you see that her thesis is quite narrow, namely, to debunk the idea testosterone accounts for all the gender differences normally attributed to it, like competitiveness, risk-taking, etc


newscientist.com *

Unmaking the myths of our gendered minds*

By Mel Rumble

From risk taking to competitiveness, we need to take an axe to powerful myths about sex differences, argues Cordelia Fine in her book _Testosterone Rex_









Testosterone is just one of many factors shaping our identitiesLaurent Vautrin/Picturetank

ONE of the best things about science is its ability to correct itself, spot flaws, poor evidence and bad claims, track the myths they spawn to their roots – and axe them. This process is vital, especially in areas such as race, IQ and gender, where false steps derail fields for years.

Take fruit fly experiments by British biologist Angus Bateman in the 1940s. These ended up underpinning many claims about evolved psychological differences between the sexes. One such was a theory by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, which claimed a bigger parental investment by females than males. Claims such as these fuelled myths such as men being more competitive or bigger risk-takers than women.

Psychologist Cordelia Fine questions these myths.* In her new book, Testosterone Rex, she tackles the biggest myth of all: that every difference can be traced to testosterone. This she labels the Testosterone Rex world view*, where differences are touted as “natural” rather than cultural. But if we look harder at the evidence, it doesn’t stack up, says Fine.

Take risk-taking. Girls/women can and do take risks and compete to the same degree as boys/men, says Fine. Seeing sex differences turns out to depend on what you ask women to compete at and which women you ask. So women are more likely to compete within “more neutral” or “feminine” competitive contexts such as dancing, verbal ability or fashion knowledge. And cultural background and level of economic development seem linked with greater competitiveness; for example, Han Chinese or Armenian girls are as competitive as their male counterparts.

*Fine doesn’t deny testosterone’s effects on brains, bodies and behaviour, but it is “neither… king nor… kingmaker”. Testosterone isn’t “the potent, hormonal essence of competitive, risk-taking masculinity” we assume it to be, she says: it is just part of a complex bio-cultural mix.*

Fine shows how new studies can upend earlier research by unearthing those confirmation biases on which many myths of sex differences precariously perch. Back with Bateman’s fruit flies, Fine shows his data “had been biased towards counting the offspring of males”, in part due to less sophisticated methods used in the 1940s, but also because people tend to look for what they want to find without realising it.

“Whether or not you see sex differences in risk taking turns out to depend on what you ask and who”

Aside from research design biases, Fine also notes how social constructions of gender shape the situations people encounter, and their subjective meaning. She throws out a challenge: “We’re used to thinking of testosterone as… a cause of gender… what if the direction of that familiar pathway also needs to be reversed?”

To answer, Fine lays out some of the more recent research. Take University of Illinois psychologist Dov Cohen and his colleagues, who showed how male testosterone levels can increase in reaction to a small challenge to status. Then there is the behavioural endocrinologist Richard Francis and his colleagues and their work on cichlid fish, which shows how social events regulate the gonads. Or recent findings by Marie-Louise Healy and her colleagues at St James’s Hospital, Dublin, that one in six elite male athletes have testosterone levels below the normal reference range.

Another key tenet of the Testosterone Rex world view is the emphasis on differences between male and female thinking and behaviour. Instead, Fine stresses the similarities. Differences, for her, are idiosyncratic mixes of “masculine” and “feminine” characteristics and gendered qualities. It may be that some differences compensate for others, and end up making the sexes similar, not different.

Ultimately, Fine leaves us clear that Testosterone Rex’s old stories are unjustified. What happens next is “a question for our values, not science”, says Fine, arguing for a world where cultural and gender norms sit with evolution, genetics and hormones to take account of all the influences. Then comes the hard work, as she calls on us to imagine the society we want to create. But no fruit flies this time.

_This article appeared in print under the headline “Unravelling gender myths”_


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

How has no one made a Predator or Borderlands 2 reference already?


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Amine said:


> I am actually a depressed autistic other-abled nonbinary Maori/Uyghur trans-lesbian hijabi with AIDS.. didn't you see the gray circle thing under my name? Don't assume, BIGOT.


I'm going to assume you're a piece of shit. Sure, I'm a bigot, but at least I'm not your sort.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Cal said:


> Did you just assume their gender? *has trigger seizure*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually it's truthful that a person who is part of a privileged group cannot empathise with or see the struggles of another. I'm just asking to see what level of experience they possess, I already acknowledge and apologise that I have cis privilege for example?

What's probably more ridiculous is when 'masculine minded' people such as another person other than yourself the other day try to say that my policies or ideas will supposedly lead to 'the destruction of civilization' if they take hold.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Defender of Light said:


> Actually it's truthful that a person who is part of a privileged group cannot empathise with or see the struggles of another. I'm just asking to see what level of experience they possess, I already acknowledge and apologise that I have cis privilege for example?
> 
> What's probably more ridiculous is when 'masculine minded' people such as another person other than yourself the other day try to say that my policies or ideas will supposedly lead to 'the destruction of civilization' if they take hold.


Not even going to bother using logic with you, since you obviously only think with your petty emotions.


----------



## Elspeth (Jan 24, 2013)

Well, this looks like a great book. I'm going to ignore all the posturing in this thread. Since no-one here has actually READ the book yet, as it's not published until February, none of you know what this woman is talking about.
I shall buy it when it comes out. Years ago at college, I and my whole class read Brain Sex, which is referred to in one of the reviews. It had the simple assumption that men are men and women are women because of their gentitals. Which is what this book fights against. It reinforced stereotypes that I and many others were brought up with; our Pastoral Theology tutor (a woman and NOT a feminist) believed it was gospel. So did the rest of the class.
And I would like to say THANK YOU to the OP for pointing out the publication. The fact that it's won this prize is interesting. Maybe we can finally hope society will eventually take notice.
By the way, Psychology IS a science. This is not pseudoscience


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Elspeth said:


> Well, this looks like a great book. I'm going to ignore all the posturing in this thread. Since no-one here has actually READ the book yet, as it's not published until February, none of you know what this woman is talking about.
> I shall buy it when it comes out. Years ago at college, I and my whole class read Brain Sex, which is referred to in one of the reviews. It had the simple assumption that men are men and women are women because of their gentitals. Which is what this book fights against. It reinforced stereotypes that I and many others were brought up with; our Pastoral Theology tutor (a woman and NOT a feminist) believed it was gospel. So did the rest of the class.
> And I would like to say THANK YOU to the OP for pointing out the publication. The fact that it's won this prize is interesting. Maybe we can finally hope society will eventually take notice.
> By the way, Psychology IS a science. This is not pseudoscience


Good for you! :teapot:


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

spylass said:


> Believing that men + women are different or even "opposites" has been an idea that's existed for centuries. Everyone wants to prove this age old notion, including many scientists.
> 
> Everyone wants to say "it's absurd to say there aren't differences!" But this is just an idea that's been hammered into us and that's hard to shake. In many areas it's already been disproven- like the dichotomy of "men are sexual" and "women are not sexual" which everyone firmly believed... until several studies measuring sexual arousal/response discovered hey wait women are sexual too.
> 
> ...


I find this article to also be pretty interesting too.
https://www.webmd.com/brain/features/how-male-female-brains-differ


----------



## Elspeth (Jan 24, 2013)

Ah ok, I discovered that it IS published here, in hardback at least. But I wonder if anyone here has read the book?
Fascinating subject, brainz. 
And thanks for that Cal, a good article. Though we still don't really know what the various parts of the brain DO, in terms of how we think.


----------

