How Neurononsense Keeps Women in Their Place - with Gina Rippon

Have new brain imaging techniques really revealed that women and men are ‘hardwired’ for their gender roles? Or has neuroscience become misappropriated to justify gender gaps? Professor of cognitive neuroimaging Gina Rippon investigates.

There is a long history of debate about biological sex differences and their part in determining gender roles, with the ‘biology is destiny’ mantra being used to legitimise imbalances in these roles. The tradition is continuing, with new brain imaging techniques being hailed as sources of evidence of the ‘essential’ differences between men and women, and the concept of ‘hardwiring’ sneaking into popular parlance as a brain-based explanation for all kinds of gender gaps.

But the field is littered with many problems. Some are the product of ill-informed popular science writing (neurotrash) based on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what brain imaging can tell us. Some, unfortunately involve poor science, with scientists using outdated and disproved stereotypes to design and interpret their research (neurosexism). These problems obscure or ignore the ‘neuronews’, the breakthroughs in our understanding of how plastic and permeable our brains are, and how the concept of ‘hard-wiring’ should be condemned to the dustbin of neurohistory.

This talk aims to offer ways of rooting out the neurotrash, stamping out the neurosexism and making way for neuronews.
Gina Rippon is Professor of Cognitive Neuroimaging at Aston University. Her research involves the application of brain imaging techniques, particularly electroencephalography, (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), to studies of normal and abnormal cognitive processes.

Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[ErgoCogita]

So she says @ around the 21:00 mark that there is no difference between the brains of male and female brains *at birth* but then utterly and inexcusably omits developmental biology and neoteny being the overriding factors. While her observation is not wrong, it is *very premature*. Hormonal influences have yet to emerge at such a young age and snipping out all the unreinforced neuronal pathways has yet to take place or even manifest in the slightest. When talking about neuronal development, we must first take into account that the brain is first susceptible to the biology of the body it is attached to and only *then* can we move on to talking about the external environment.

It's like she looked at a photograph of the beginning of a game of chess, before any pieces were moved, and feels that she can conclude what the end game looked like. It's almost as if she believes there is merit to the tabula rasa model of Human nature.

I am not impressed.

[TheFartoholic]

While I agree wholeheartedly with her parting message of treating people according to who they are as individuals as opposed to their sex, I wish she'd stop saying that there are no differences between men and women. She knows there are; she acknowledges them in this talk. And, indeed, she contradicts herself by saying that men and women don't have different brains, and then proposing that culture is responsible for gender-specific behaviour by changing our BRAINS. If she had instead said "there are differences but they are too small to warrant treating men and women differently" then I'd have no problem. I understand why she says it; she's trying to correct a balance in the sexist rhetoric coming from the other side. But I think women will be better serviced by honesty.

[tehlolzfactor]

Are the dislikes purely from the title? This talk seems to address both sides of the argument here. I don't see why someone should consider disliking a talk that scrutinizes and analyzes scientific evidence and the faults that have come to be common place in a certain field.

[Ancor]

This presentation reminded me of something a university professor once told me:

_Smart people don't necessarily believe smarter things, they're just better at defending dumb beliefs._

[DakuHonoo]

wait, are you trying to say that males and females in a sexually dimorphic species are different after all? no, that can't be true, we're all the same!

[shappo]

@17:00 "The Gender Gap, what can neuroscience do about it"
This is activism not science.

[lbzkBMF]

It doesn't matter who makes the brain imaging, what matters is who reads it...

[ExiledGypsy]

How come that most women scientists claim that there is no difference & men scientists say that there is?
And why women think that being different equates to inequality?

[dahliathereader]

As Steven Pinker once said, Even IF there are anatomical and neurological differences between male and female brains, that’s no excuse for discrimination against women

[grotmx]

Really thought-provoking talk, thank you. As a father of two young girls, the ideas expressed here help me to be aware of where I can make a positive difference to their lives, and where my own prejudices and assumptions might be detrimental to their development.

[nafizhuq]

I think this talk is a great example of how we can begin to weed out of science the potential for bias towards views that are more entrenched than established in evidence. Granted, this talk doesn't provide robust evidence to pose an alternative view, but it does brilliantly outline key questions that can be used to hold currently established thinking to scrutiny.

Neurobiology is so young, and interpretation of its evidence is so uncertain, yet these incredibly profound statements about who men and women are, are being carried forward with a gusto that I don't think is deserved - considering how so little is understood about how the brain actually functions.

To those that are unsatisfied with this talk, I would like to pose a challenge - it's one I pose myself normally, in order to make sure my outlook on an issue is not down to entrenchment exacerbated by confirmation bias.

Take her key points and try and actively find evidence and arguments that better support what she says. This isn't to do her any favours, but rather to do yourself a favour. If you truly value holding a view that is true, it's essential to challenge your own views totally and with great effort. This is to protect ourselves from our own propensity for confirmation bias. You may come out of this with exactly the same views intact, but this time you can be more confident in them. Or you might develop a more nuanced appreciation on the matter.

[insanity]

So. Much. Ideology. So. Little. Science.

[depthcharge]

most of that was just filler and highlighting other sources by none scientists.
I don't recall a physicist lecture were they spent 30 minutes highlighting books and papers in which the author was wrong. very disappointing.

[almcdonald]

The cognitive difference between men and women is based on more than neuroimaging. Happy to see so many many commentators instantly able to identify ideological authoritarian crap. Gives me hope for the future

[jugglejoolz]

Brilliant how all the people having kittens about this are men or trans-identified men!

[susanshelit]

This talk could have been a lot shorter:
The brain is plastic and permeable aka adaptive to circumstances (especially when repeated). Which means that the current stereotypical gender roles can be changed if society as a whole would work at it.

[rachael]

OK. Let me take a deep breath because I really don't want this to become a slanging match but my hopes for that are low. This is merely to point out a factual inaccuracy that is pertinent to a small number of points the speaker has made - the vast majority of the others I am unable to comment upon because of lack of knowledge in this area as I am merely an interested observer enjoying an interesting talk. Not unbiased though as I'm a transgender woman, one who would like to thank the speaker for talking so calmly and politely on a subject that inspires a lot of fury.

In the Q&A section whilst answering the question on hormones the speaker says that we are reliant on observing animal models as we are unable to alter hormones in people in a manner similar. One of the standard treatments for gender dysphoria (what causes transgender people to feel mental pain from their condition) is hormone replacement therapy which is as it sounds - trans women match their hormones to genetic women and trans men theirs to genetic men and non-binary trans people discover what matches them best. You can observe this by simply searching in youtube where many trans people document their HRT experiences. These experiences often include mood and behavioural changes. However, they are by their nature anecdotal accounts that can be explained by social factors and personal expectations so it's all questionable - but to suggest that we have no way of attempting to answer that question by studying people is inaccurate.

[jesperburns]

First 10 minutes is a masterclass in poisoning the well.
And then later, the "data" that was promised, is lacking.

Also numerous false claims that were well known when she gave this talk.

Great talk. Very insightful in the mind of "women".

[Rikmatchek]

Poor Tim Hunt. His career and name ruined by a joke that someone decided to take seriously. Its amazing they could be so keenly offended by that but miss his following statement of encouragement and jovial intent.

[loonatic]

Is it just me or is this entire talk basically "Let's just ignore the differences between men and woman and only talk about the similarities."?


Ok there's a lot more than that but it does seem that she recognises there are differences but will only show charts or examples of similarities. And of course I agree with her that similarities between men and women are far far more numerous than the differences but that doesn't mean we should ignore the differences. That's not science, darling.