Have you ever wondered if neurological sex differences lead to gendered behavior differences? This is a paper I wrote that addresses this question according to Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender.
Has Research Really Proven a Correlation between Neurological Sex Differences and Sex Behavior Differences According to Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender?
There is a difference between asking if there are sex differences/similarities between men and women and asking if there are gender differences/similarities between men and women. Sex refers to biological differences between men and women while gender refers to a social construction, so the big question is whether sex determines gender, and if so to what extent? Or is gender solely a social construct? To this day there is research being done on whether physical and hormonal differences in the body can be the precursor or causes to behavior differences between men and women. Research has been done on songbirds and rats to see if increased brain regions have an effect on behavior, as well as the effects testosterone has on newborn babies. Despite all the research that has been done there is still no hard evidence that proves that behavioral differences between men and women are innate because as Cordelia Fine addresses in Delusions of Gender there is a lack of connection between the actual research found and the conclusions being made and the effects of outside influences on gendered behavior.
One of the strongest arguments Fine addresses in Delusions of Gender is about the connection between the research and the conclusions based on this research. She references the “Fetal Fork” argument that talks about the presence and effects of testosterone in the fetus (Fine 99). The belief is that the extra testosterone secreted in the eighth week of gestation in a male fetus kills off some communication cells and increases the growth of sex and aggression centers. This surge of testosterone thus causes masculine characteristics in a boys whereas in girls where there is no extra surge of testosterone reversely causes feminine characteristics. Consequently, this argument creates a domino effect between a surge of testosterone and the idea that women are innately submissive, emotional and oversensitive where in actuality there is no real correlation. Fine clarifies that actually for most of the time a male and a female fetus have about the same amount of testosterone except for these sudden surges of testosterone that are only known to make primordial gonads into testes and to form external genitalia in males. Currently no one really knows what the post birth surge does to males (Fine 100-101).
These testosterone surges do not have enough understanding to support a strong explanation about female versus male behavior. Besides just knowing that there is a testosterone secretion the assumed adaption to differences in behavior is a leap. This “leapfrog” effect is also addressed in the rat study; Fine, with the support of Melissa Hines, explains the problem with extrapolating from rats (Fine, 102). Fine argues that comparing male and rat genitals is acceptable due to similar function and mechanism of production however that is not always the same for comparing brains. Finding conclusions in neurological tests for rats should not automatically be interpreted as human conclusions due to the differences in brain development and complexity. There are crucial differences between how early hormones affect rats and humans however despite these differences some beliefs are based on interpretation from this rat research which can be problematic because it creates these fallacies in gender differences (Fine 103). The rat research, although not a foundation argument for sex differences, can be valuable when considering other aspects of this phenomenon.
Celia Moore, a developmental psychobiologist at the University of Massachusetts, used rats to test the effects of early hormones on behavioral differences between males and females. Moore discovered that the rat mothers licked the anus and genitals of their newly born pups however they licked the male pups more than the females because they were attracted to the high levels of testosterone in the male urine. This anogenital licking had an effect on the rats’ brains by increasing the nucleus in the brain stem. When a female rat’s anogenital region was stimulated artificially with a paintbrush the penis innervating nucleus in the brain stem also got bigger like the males however never as big. When the mother’s nose was blocked she licked both sexes equally. This provided evidence that sex differences in nucleus size are not only due to neonatal testosterone but also influenced by maternal treatment (Fine 104-105). This outer influence supports how inaccurate, as Fine describes it, the “leapfrog” effect can be in gender studies because not only does it create weak conclusions but it may miss other aspects that contribute to these sex differences.
While Fine also addresses other fallacies in the methods of research such as the pools of babies being observed and the “intuition” factor (where the expectation to certain results can blur one’s judgment on conduction of the experiment and the interpretation of the data) this acknowledgment of outside actors, like the mother rat’s difference in behavior between baby females and males, is essential to the understandings of the data. This strong actor in this gender research is society, which includes parents, family, friends, teachers, schoolmates etc. Fine explains the struggle with studying the pure linkage between hormonal influence and postbirth behavior is because socialization occurs as soon as the baby is born like the colors the baby wears to the toys it plays with. Despite the lengths parents may go to in order to keep everything gender neutral, (Fine describes the extremes parents Sandra and Daryl Bem go to in order to promote gender neutrality, but how they are still defeated by socialization), these uncontrollable players are inevitable (Fine 214). Gender associated phrases and treatments in a family and/or school settings such as “pink is for girls” or rough playing with boys can create these early gender binaries that act as a continuum as they grow up. Due to this early introduction of gender norms it makes it difficult to study the true linkage between neurological differences created before birth to actual behavior differences after birth.
The inability to isolate social construction from the effects it may have on the connection between neurological to behavioral differences and the unknown linkage between prenatal hormones, brain changes and behavioral changes shows that these gender questions are still unanswered. There is no hard evidence that shows that gender is innate. However misconceptions fostered by this research create binaries between men and women that do not actually biologically exist. Misconceptions include behaviors and skills each sex innately portrays. This “neurological” and thus “scientific” explanation of the connection between sex and gender essentializes gender making it innate, unchangeable and universal. The binaries justified by this sex dichotomy between men and women then lead to behavioral misconceptions about each sex. Each sex is defined within these binaries, which causes an inequality between the sexes since some traits become favored more than others in various aspects of society.
A popular misconception between men and women which leads to an inequality from an international relations perspective is the belief that men are realists, who favor practical and usually aggressive tactics while women are idealists who favor impractical, peaceful approaches to state issues. (Fukuyama). This argument is used as a foundation for proving a woman’s incapability of leading a state especially up against other male-ruled states (Fukuyama). This shows how stretches in neurological research nurture even larger stretches of belief in world affairs. These non-biologically supported gender characteristics create problems for women in leadership positions and their ability in functioning in “real world” international relations (Tickner). Biologically linking women to peace disenfranchise women by making them seem unfit to go against other state actors by portraying them as too weak and incapable of matching other states’ aggressive approach. This causes security fears in the population who then favor men over women to control their state security. The association between women and peace also consequently idealizes peace and makes it seem unrealistic since there are fewer women in leadership positions to fight for it. This again is a misleading notion because there is nothing that proves that men are too aggressive to want peace too; for example Sweden is male run and still very peaceful (Tickner). These gender associations create this dynamic that prevents all players from equally participating and being represented in international relations.
In addition to international relations, misconceptions of neurological research also contribute to numerous sex inequalities that exist in the work place, at home, at school etc. Since there continues to be these beliefs that each gender innately characterizes certain behaviors and skills, there is sex preference that comes with different positions. Men are seen as better candidates for manger, CEO and leader positions while women are seen to biologically carry skills for the family, children and household. These beliefs however have not been proven but only interpreted. As Fine portrays in Delusions of Gender research proves that yes there may be some neurological differences however the influence these differences have on actual postbirth behavior, if any even exist, is still unknown.
Fine acknowledges various research done on sex differences however more importantly addresses fallacies. The lack of linkage between hormones, brain development and postbirth behavior, and the inability to isolate the effects of gender socialization lead to many open-unanswered questions in sex and gender studies today. These unanswered questions and explanations should not be overlooked, or used as credible research to build even bigger gender conclusions because it promotes these socially constructed gender binaries without real scientific explanation. The universality of sex and gender influences so many aspects of life that overseeing the value and legitimacy of certain research can actually encourage misconceptions that construct the power imbalance between men and women that still exist today.
Work Cited
Fine, Cordelia. Delusions of Gender. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2010.
Fukuyama, Francis. “Women and the Evolution of World Politics,” Foreign Affairs
78, 1 (1998).
Tickner, Ann J. “Why Women Can’t Run the World: International Politics According
To Francis Fukuyama,” International Studies Perspectives 1,3 (1999)
womenintheworld 
One Response to “Neurological Sex Differences and Sex Behavior”