Gender Mosaic is a fascinating read that dispels the myth of “male” and “female” brains arguing rather for “intersex” brains. This book is grounded in peer reviewed science. This book does not argue that there are not any sex differences in the brain but rather than each individuals brain is a mix of female and male patterns. The strongest part of this book to me was that it did not provide a one-sided review of the neuroscience research. The book clearly had a thesis arguing against a binary brain, however, the author did so without defensiveness and citing criticisms of the work – something rarely seen in science writing. I highly recommend this book to people wanting an up to date way of thinking of gender and neuroscience. I thank netgalley and the publisher for an ARC for this book.

That was pretty much preaching to the choir here, so I’ll admit my bias from the beginning—I’m absolutely not convinced, science or no science, that gender has very legitimate foundations, and that your genitals determine how you behave, what you like, who you are, and so on. It doesn’t make sense to me that so many people insist putting everybody in a tidy little “man OR woman” box (and when you stand out of the box, you’d think it threatens the very foundations of -their- identity, which makes me think that there’s something fishy here anyway). So, I was definitely interested in reading more about this concept of gender mosaic, and… well, -this-, on the other hand, makes sense to me.

“Gender Mosaic” explores the binary perception of gender, how people in general tend to ascribe this behaviour as “masculine” and that behaviour as “feminine”, but also how we’re actually very, very seldom made of only masculine or only feminine traits. Most people have a bit of both, but due to the importance placed on gender (re: the little boxes I mentioned), what is seen as “deviations from the perceived norm” is usually also seen as something to stamp out, to hide, to reject (another of these things that make no sense to me: what does it matter that a little boy likes playing with dolls? What’s so frightening about it? That this kid will become a good father later?). Our genitals are part of our biology, sure, but they’re not the only factor that plays a part in how our brains develop: it’s not only about hormones, it’s also about external influences, social ones, stress, etc. Especially stress: this isn’t something I would have researched in relation to gender, not at first sight, and yet, in hindsight, studies that focus on this don’t look out of place.

Which begs the question: what truly affects us? Does a man behave “like a man “because he was born with a penis, or because external (social) pressures exerted on him since birth have affected him? If “boys don’t cry”, is it because they can’t (beats me why they have tear ducts, then), or because they are repeatedly told almost since birth that “real men don’t cry” (and shunned accordingly if they dare cry)? Are girls naturally better at cooking because they have a vagina, or because they’ve been traditionally stuck into staying at home and cooking? Are such differences between genders valid, or are they here in the first place because social expectations have increased them? And what of people whose traits don't lean enough towards one gender—too often, they're dismissed and conflated into the gender other people think is theirs, and this is harmful. A mosaic is a much healthier approach to this, to understanding what makes us human first and foremost.

Having a look at the various studies referenced throughout the book, I don’t think I’m an exception in leaning towards the latter explanations rather than the former ones. Said studies are also quoted in understandable, laypeople terms, and I found their relevance easy to grasp. Finally, I liked that “Gender Mosaic” discusses the scientific side, but also goes further in exploring what it means from a societal point of view: how we raise children, especially, and how so many pervasive behaviours that look “innocent” are actually deeply biased.

While I enjoyed these aspects, though, I’d also have liked seeing more clarity in terms of actual differences. “Men are like this and women are like that” arguments are all too easily used to claim that “men are superior to women” or “women make better parents”. However, science has also shown that there are physiological differences (not necessarily in brains—for instance, the way symptoms announcing impending cardiac arrest aren’t exactly the same in women as in men, causing too many of the former to be misdiagnosed, just like “male” is still too often used as the default template for “human” in many medical studies). It’s not that “Gender Mosaic” doesn’t mention it at all, but I found the line a little blurred here. For me, the problem is with gender (= the social & formative aspect, what it imposes on human beings, how it shapes them through peer pressure), which doesn’t mean that sex (the biological/genetical aspect) should be downplayed. I think the book wasn’t too clear on that, or perhaps went a little too quickly about it, and as a result, it would be easy to misunderstand it in parts.

This said, when it comes to genders, behaviours perceived as associated to genders—then, yes, my own perception of it, my own experience, definitely point me towards “this is indeed blurry, because we’re not made of all or nothing, and that blurriness is expected”.

A big thank-you to NetGalley, the author, and publisher for giving me a copy of this book for an unbiased review.
2 – Interesting, but I am concerned the veracity and objectivity of this book.
This is by far the most difficult review I’ve ever had to write and it took me hours and hours of research to get to a point where I was able to give this book a fair and unbiased critique.
I became interested in neurology while reading Robert Sapolsky’s “Behave.” Since then, I have been reading anything and everything relating to the function of the human brain, the ways in which our brains impact our behavior, and how society (aka nurture) interacts with our brain function (aka nature) to shape the human experience.
Joel’s “Gender Mosaic” offers the following thesis:
1. The human brain is a mosaic of male/female characteristics
2. Consequently, as no brain is purely “male” or “female,” most brains are “intersex”
3. Our society shapes expectations of men/women to shove them into pre-existing gender constraints, and we would be better off if we eliminated gender altogether
This all sounds reasonable and it certainly appeals to this liberal feminist. But then, as a discerning reader, I must ask myself – but is her analysis correct?
A quick disclaimer: I am not a scientist nor a neurologist. However, based on my very limited understanding of brain function, several questions came up during my reading:
- If brains are neither male nor female, how do we explain brain disfunction? Namely, why is that women have higher rates of Alzheimer’s, while men are more prone to Parkinson’s? How do we explain the fact that scientists have detected key differences in the way that male/female brains synthesize certain neurotransmitters, such as serotonin? Why are certain brain dysfunctions, such as ADD and schizophrenia, manifested in predictably distinct ways depending on biological sex?
- If society plays a key role in our binary understanding of female/male brains, how is it that primates (who are not conditioned by our gender roles) still exhibit similar behaviors in terms of aggression, dominance, nurturing, submission, etc.?
- We know that certain hormones cause different reactions in male/female brains (as per Sapolsky’s book). How does this work, if brains are neither consistently male nor female?
- If nature vs. nurture is not significant, why devote such a large portion of the book to society’s impact on gender roles?
With this in mind, I turned to literature which disagreed with Joel’s points of view. As a UCI alumna, I reached out to Larry Cahill. He is cited in Joel’s book as a supporter of the viewpoint that brains are primarily male or female. He directed me to several articles on the topic, which ultimately were quite convincing to me for the following reasons:
1. Joel argues that the viewpoint of an intersex brain is a feminist one and implies that those who disagree belong to the old-school world of measuring skulls to justify intelligence and male superiority. However, even a cursory glance at modern literature on the male/female difference in brains identifies that these scientists seek to benefit both sexes, rather than to stigmatize one or the other. Much of Cahill’s research points to the fact that, when we treat women “the same” as men in medicine, we risk endangering them by ignoring that brain dysfunctions often manifest differently between the sexes or require different types of treatment. In fact, it is more feminist to acknowledge these differences than to refute them. This goes in line with introducing more female test animals into brain research, which has primarily been concerned with the male brain.
2. While Joel’s argument ignores the impact of male/female brains as they pertain to the treatment of brain disfunction, Cahill and his supporters dive deep into the issue. They examine the impacts of sex differences in the brain within subjects like dementia, addiction, chronic stress, and learning. After reading these articles, it is difficult to see how brains can really be grouped as intersex – of course, exceptions to the rule may exist, but even Joel agrees that men and women can be seen as two distinct groups, with individual variations.
3. Cahill argues that Joel’s methodology in several of her tests is flawed and he mentions the 2013 study as an example. Here, Joel and her team use “internal consistency” to justify the existence of a male/female brain. Cahill points out that the methodology used by Joel’s team makes it impossible to attain any result other than the intended conclusion. However, he mentions that when her tests were duplicated, men and women could indeed be easily discerned in up to 77% of the time. He states, “Even higher levels of discriminability between the sexes have been reported by other teams regarding human brain structure and function, and regarding personality.” As such, despite Joel’s criticism of cherrypicking, it seems that she may be guilty of some of this herself.
This being said, I do think that Joel’s book contains two important points:
1. Regardless of whether or not there are sex differences between women/men, individuals should be treated as individuals. A woman visiting a doctor should not be screened for diseases primarily on the basis of her sex, any more than a man should be restricted from participating in traditionally “feminine” activities.
2. A society which is not primarily focused on gender binaries is healthier, as it allows both men and women (as well as individuals who may not fit into a traditional gender binary) to express the best aspects of their individual selves/abilities.
Overall, I think this book is very interesting and am glad to have read it. The reason I could not rate it higher is because I do not think that it is fit for the average reader. Most people will not take the time to look into opposing arguments. This book is meant to be a study of neurology, but in truth it is much more of a political treatise on how we should deal with the topic of gender. However, gender and sex are not the same thing. Perhaps it would be fair to call gender the nurture aspect of our experience, and sex the nature. I am concerned that readers will take this book as invitation to conflate the two, arriving at potentially erroneous conclusions. As such, I would recommend this book, but only to readers who are willing to go deeper into this topic, and to truly form an independent opinion on the gender mosaic of the male/female/(intersex?) brain.

I really enjoyed this book! What I initially thought would be a purely scientific study of the human brain, turned into a delightful discourse on gender studies and feminist theory! This book was a compelling read that really challenged a lot of the assumptions that I had personally made on the "fundamental differences" between the female and male brains. Daphna clearly broke down why those assumptions were just that and showed how studies have been adjusted to reflect societal norms. Overall, a really interesting hybrid science/society book that I just could not put down!

I'm about halfway through an ARC I received of Daphna Joel's "Gender Mosaic" book and so far it's one of the clearest explanation of the neuroscience debunking the gender binary I've found.

What a fascinating book! I really enjoyed this look at how everyone is made up of "feminine" and "masculine" components and that there truly is not "male brain" and "female brain." I especially loved how instead of just presenting this data, the author goes further and dissects the implications of this information on our society and how we raise/ talk to children. It's short, interesting, and definitely worth checking out!

This book was fantastic — one of the few I’ve read that managed to completely shift the way I thought about something because the clear evidence-based ideas made so much sense in an area that has been utterly confusing to me for a long time.

Beginning with scientific studies on the structure and function of brain components and their correlation with sex, the book proceeded to question our concepts of sex and gender and ended with a discussion of what the world would be like without gender at all. The main message: get rid of the gender binary — it’s artificial and not linked (on a group level) to anything biological. Or as the authors put it — “stop dividing people by their genitals.”

Quick definitions: sex is what you are born with: XX chromosomes (female), XY chromosomes (male), and less than 1% born intersex (a mix). Gender is a social construct — socially acceptable options used to be man and woman, but the latest number of options on Facebook is 58!

Some of the main points (each illustrated with anecdotes and substantiated with solid research findings):
• There is no such thing as a male brain or a female brain — each human brain is a unique mixture — or mosaic — of features traditionally thought of as “male” or “female.”
• While there are some structures and functions in the brain (and hormonal systems) that are on average different for males and females (for example, males on average are better at spatial rotation), individually people fall on a spectrum of values for that aspect of brain function. For example, many females will be better at spatial rotation than the average for a male and the overlap for potential spatial rotation capabilities between males and females may be quite large. Very few individuals have an “all male” or “all female” brain based on those averages.
• Brain systems are not static — many influences such as stress, competition, or even spending time with an infant can shift the level of hormones in the system — including the “big 3”: testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone.
• Bias -- often unintentional — exists. Most people do not want to be biased, and when it is pointed out to them in a non-confrontational and private way, they may even take steps to correct it.

The text is calm, measured, based on copious (and referenced) research and not political (thank you!). The examples and results from various research projects are absolutely fascinating. It is just technical enough to be interesting and sensical, but not overburdened by technical jargon that can muddy the point. The authors present a balanced view, explaining how gender norms can be problematic for both males and females, and they address many common questions and concerns that have been brought up during lectures. I really appreciated the non-confrontational approach to explaining bias and privilege.

On a personal level, I would be so much happier to get rid of thinking about gender at all rather than take on the cognitive load of trying to remember exactly which category each individual person wants to be part of for that particular day and having to use all the correct pronouns, names, and other associated gender paraphernalia. Wouldn’t it be easier to treat each person as an individual, complete with his or her (or some new pronoun) own preferences, habits, and interests? I know I was born female and never thought twice about it, but I never felt I was a “typical” woman — I hate shopping, don’t wear makeup, always paid my own way, and worked very comfortably in a male dominated field (computer science). I’m lucky that societal pressures never had much of an effect on me, but obviously it could have been much harder.

I underlined just about everything in this book, but here are some good quotes that I think get to the heart of their messages:

“Sex does affect the brain, and there are average differences between females and males in many brain features. But because of the interactions between sex and so many other factors, the effects of sex — that is, of being female or male — mix up in a unique way in the brain of each individual.”

“Even when they don’t find themselves in a shipwreck, men often get a raw deal by virtue of belonging to the group empowered by the patriarchal order. It is mostly men who die in droves in wars, are injured in work-related accidents, and feel compelled to become providers, often at the expense of following their hearts to a career in the arts or other non-bread-winning fields.”

“I hope that in the not-too-distant future, this idea will be taken for granted; that gender studies will be a history course; and that when the topic of gender comes up, children will need to ask their parents (or grandparents) to explain why on earth someone had once thought people had to be grouped by their genitals.”

“On the other hand, many people are happy to discover their own and others’ implicit biases, especially if you point these out to them in private and in a nonjudgemental manner (nasty comments on their Facebook wall are less likely to be welcomed). And if in the course of these revelations you become aware of the power or privileges granted to you by the gender system, why not use this power and these privileges to try to eliminate this system from our lives?”

“One objection that’s been raised at a lecture of mine is that even without gender, women and men would still behave differently because they differ biologically. I see no problem with that. On the contrary, if we believe that biology would drive the behavior of females and males apart, there’s surely no reason to introduce all those gender conventions to achieve the same end.”

“Gender is one of the prisons within which we live. It divides the world into things for males and things for females. And if we want things that are not on “our” side, we are punished by society.”