http://pwq.sagepub.com/Psychology of Women Quarterly

http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/36/4/504The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0361684312461775 2012 36: 504Psychology of Women Quarterly

Nicole Meredith Else-QuestBook Review: Brainstorm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for the Psychology of Women

can be found at:Psychology of Women QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://pwq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://pwq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Nov 26, 2012Version of Record >>

at EHESS on February 24, 2014pwq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at EHESS on February 24, 2014pwq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Book Reviews

Book Reviews

Rebecca M. Jordan-YoungBrainstorm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 2010. 408 pp., $35.00 (hardcover). ISBN:9780674057302

Reviewed by: Nicole Meredith Else-Quest, University of Maryland,Baltimore, MDDOI: 10.1177/0361684312461775

For several decades, many undergraduate and graduate

psychology textbooks have presented brain organization the-

ory as fact. Broadly, the theory argues that the brain (viz., the

hypothalamus and corpus callosum) and reproductive

structures undergo sexual differentiation as a result of prena-

tal sex hormone (viz., testosterone) exposure. Testosterone

masculinizes the brainhow exactly, and to what effect,

remains unclearas well as the internal reproductive struc-

tures and external genitalia. The female pathway of external

genitalia and internal reproductive structures has been pre-

sented as the default in development; that is, unless fetal tes-

tosterone is present and detected by the body, natures

impulse is to create a female. Without adequate prenatal

exposure to testosterone, an individual develops a clitoris

instead of a penis, labia instead of a scrotum, the sexual and

romantic attraction to men instead of women, preference for

dolls instead of football, and communication skills instead

of spatial skills.

Evidence from intersex individuals, particularly genetic

females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), genetic

males with androgen insensitivity, and genetic females

exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) prenatally has provided

the foundation for this theory because these cases serve as

quasi experiments on the effects of atypical sex hormone

exposure during prenatal development. My training in

developmental psychology taught me to be skeptical of

claims that any one event could produce sweeping effects

in traits or behavior; insofar as the human brain is plastic

and psychological development is shaped by multiple fac-

tors, it is often an oversimplification to claim that a single

factor could result in major, permanent changes. Sure, pre-

natal development is a unique period in the life span, and the

human brain is also very sensitive at this time, as we know

from evidence of teratogens and birth defects. Thus, I

eagerly read Brainstorm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex

Differences, in which Rebecca Jordan-Young reviews and

evaluates the decades of research on brain organization

theory and attempts to provide some comprehensible con-

clusions from the findings.

About midway through this book, it becomes clear that the

goal of producing such conclusions is a lost cause, not

because Jordan-Young does a poor job (just the opposite, in

fact) at reviewing the evidence, but because the state of the

literature is so heterogeneous and disparate that one begins

to think the task involves comparing apples, oranges, and

bananas. For example, in reviewing the evidence that prenatal

testosterone might result in more masculine interests and

traits, Jordan-Young describes in detail considerable incon-

sistencies in operational definitions of masculinity and femi-

ninity that have been largely ignored by those within the

field. How researchers examined, measured, and tested the

effects of prenatal sex hormones rested on their definitions

and conceptualizations of masculinity and femininity, which

were described to Jordan-Young by several researchers as

common sense (p. 58). Of course, femininity and masculi-

nity have undergone tremendous evolution since this research

began, prior to the Sexual Revolution and second Wave of

feminism. In particular, Sandra Bems (1974) pioneering

model of gender, which presented masculinity and femininity

as orthogonal dimensions rather than as a unidimensional

bipolar construct, forced a shift in what constituted masculi-

nized and feminized behaviors. Beginning around 1980,

defeminized was no longer the same as masculinized, and

demasculinized was no longer the same as feminized.

Yet, researchers continued to interpret behaviors such as

higher sexual activity, erotic dreams, and orgasmic experiences

and greater number of sexual partners among women

whether DES-exposed, CAH, or typical-developingwith

the goal of supporting brain organization theory. That is,

such behaviors were sometimes provided as evidence of

masculinizationwhich follows logically if one believes that

femininity involves being more romantically inclined than ero-

tically inclinedand sometimes as evidence of feminization

but only if the sexual behavior involved penilevaginal

intercourse, which was held up as proof of heterosexuality.

These conflicting constructions of masculinity and femininity

obfuscate the meaning of any differences found between nor-

mally developing women and DES-exposed or CAH women,

who would be more masculine according to the theory.

It appears that this methodological flaw stems from several

factors, including an acceptance of outdated sexist and hetero-

normative stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, as well as

a lack of theoretically grounded and empirically supported

understanding of gender differences in sexuality based on

Psychology of Women Quarterly36(4) 504-511 The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://pwq.sagepub.com

at EHESS on February 24, 2014pwq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

normative samples throughout the decades of research

reviewed. We now understand that there are many domains

of sexuality in which men and women are quite similar (e.g.,

frequency and incidence of intercourse), some in which they

are quite different (e.g., masturbation incidence and pornogra-

phy use), and others in which they are becoming more alike

(e.g., attitudes about premarital sex; Petersen & Hyde, 2010).

Sexuality is not purely based on sex hormones; it is, to a large

extent, socially constructed and extremely plastic. Unfortu-

nately, the lack of coherent and consistent methodologies in

brain organization research is but one of the many challenges

in interpreting the decades of data. Brainstorm documents the

numerous methodological flaws in this literature in over-

whelming detail, including interviews with key researchers

in the field (most of whom remained anonymous for the book).

In addition, Jordan-Young thoughtfully presents the

sociopolitical context of this research and its implications

early in her book, maintaining that the stakes involved in

prematurely promoting this theory to a fact of human devel-

opment are high, both for the advancement of science and for

social debates that draw on science (p. 3). Researchers must

always consider the social, cultural, and political meaning

and relevance of their findings and present them carefully

so that they might not be misinterpreted or misused in ways

that contribute to the marginalization or discrimination of

certain groups or individuals. Although many of us have been

taught otherwise, science is not value free.

Lest we throw out the baby with the bathwater, what can

we reasonably conclude about the data on brain organization

theory? At the very least, we can conclude that we need higher

quality research. We can also conclude (if we have not

already) that gender differences are shaped by a combination

of interacting hormonal, genetic, social, cultural, and

cognitive factors. Finally, we can conclude that we ought to

revise our textbooks and lectures on brain organization theory.

References

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155162.

Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of

research on gender differences in sexuality: 1993-2007.

Psychological Bulletin, 136, 2138.

Bio

Nicole M. Else-Quest is Assistant Professor of Psychology at the

University of Maryland, Baltimore County. She conducts research

in adolescent development and gender differences in math attitudes,

and teaches courses in the psychology of women, research methods,

and developmental psychology.

Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.)Reproductive Justice: A Global Perspective. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger,2012. 318 pp. $58.00 (hardcover). ISBN 978-0-313-39339-6

Reviewed by: Linda J. Beckman, Alliant International University,Alhambra, CADOI: 10.1177/0361684312461352

This excellent edited volume is not for the faint of heart. It

covers many weighty topics, in the process demonstrating

that reproductive justice for women has a long way to go.

There is much to be learned from the book, even for those

who already consider themselves knowledgeable about

womens reproductive health.

Its international focus is one of the strengths. American

psychology has been rightly criticized for its emphasis on

U.S. and other English-speaking populations. The book

provides a glimpse into the experiences, cultural contexts, and

reproductive health of the other 95% of the worlds womenrecognizing the economic, physical health, legal, and

educational disparities of women from different countries and

regions and the associated variations in gender roles, values,

behaviors, and cognitions (Arnett, 2008). Authors also

highlight the problematic aspects of globalization on women

and girls, including the increase in human trafficking and

economic exploitation. Chapter 3 (on power in relationships)

and Chapter 5 (on sexual trafficking) are especially compelling

because of vignettes describing womens actual experiences.

The book broadly defines womens reproductive health.

In addition to chapters on sexually transmitted infection pre-

vention, sexual assault, contraception and abortion,

infertility, and prenatal care, it covers topics such as choice

of marital partner, female genital cutting, sexual exploita-

tion, birthing, breastfeeding, and female infanticide.

Authors adopt a feminist approach that understands that the

establishment of reproductive justice requires that we

address broader socioeconomic inequalities, as well as sex-

ual and racial/ethnic discrimination.

A concisely written, masterful introduction presents

important ideas that are woven through many of the chapters.

Chrisler asserts that the conventional rhetoric that assumes

that a womans body is her own to control is individualistic

and culture-bound. Whereas a few privileged women in

Western countries may enjoy reproductive choice, most

womens power to control their own bodies is greatly

limited by poverty, racism, sexism, and lack of access to

resources. Even a decision that appears to involve an

individual choice may be largely contextually determined; for

example, the termination of a pregnancy because a woman

cannot afford to raise a child. More egregious are instances

where women clearly have no choice, where they are forced

Else-Quest et al. 505

at EHESS on February 24, 2014pwq.sagepub.comDownloaded from