Single-Sex Education and the Brain

Sex differences in the intrinsic reading neural networks of Chinese children

Sex differences in reading performance have been considered a relatively stable phenomenon. However, there is no general agreement about their neural basis, which might be due to that sex differences are largely influenced by age. This paper focuses on the sex differences in the reading-related neural network of Chinese children and its interaction with age. We also attempt to predict reading abilities based on neural network. Fifty-three boys and 56 girls (8.2–14.6 years of age) were recruited. We collected their resting-state fMRI and behavioural data. Restricted sex differences were found in the resting-state reading neural network compared to extensive age by sex interaction effect. Specifically, the interactions between sex and age indicated that with increasing age, girls showed greater connectivity strength between visual orthographic areas and other brain areas within the reading network, while boys showed an opposite trend. After controlling age, the prediction models of reading performance for the girls mainly included interhemispheric connections, while the intrahemispheric connections (particularly the phonological route) mainly contributed to predicting the reading ability for boys. Taken together, these findings suggest that sex differences in reading neural networks are modulated by age. Partialling out age, boys and girls also show the stable sex differences in relationship between reading neural circuit and reading behaviour.

●

Sex differences in reading neural networks are modulated by age.

●

Girls’ RSFCs within reading neural networks increase with age, contrary to boys.

●

Intra- and interhemispheric RSFCs predict the reading ability of boys and girls, respectively.

Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic

Whereas a categorical difference in the genitals has always been acknowledged, the question of how far these categories extend into human biology is still not resolved. Documented sex/gender differences in the brain are often taken as support of a sexually dimorphic view of human brains ("female brain" or "male brain"). However, such a distinction would be possible only if sex/gender differences in brain features were highly dimorphic (i.e., little overlap between the forms of these features in males and females) and internally consistent (i.e., a brain has only "male" or only "female" features). Here, analysis of MRIs of more than 1,400 human brains from four datasets reveals extensive overlap between the distributions of females and males for all gray matter, white matter, and connections assessed. Moreover, analyses of internal consistency reveal that brains with features that are consistently at one end of the "maleness-femaleness" continuum are rare. Rather, most brains are comprised of unique "mosaics" of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males. Our findings are robust across sample, age, type of MRI, and method of analysis. These findings are corroborated by a similar analysis of personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors of more than 5,500 individuals, which reveals that internal consistency is extremely rare. Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain.

Just like a circus: the public consumption of sex differences

The study of sex differences is a rich, productive area of neuroscience, yielding findings that inform our understanding of basic biology and hold promise for clinical applications. There is a tremendous, problematic mismatch, however, between the actual implications of this research and what has generally been communicated to the public. The message communicated by the media, popular press, and in some cases researchers is often inaccurate with respect to what can and cannot be concluded from the data. This misrepresentation of findings has led to a crisis in public education and threatens to do the same in public health. Here, I suggest a number of ways that neuroscientists might address this growing problem. First, we should acknowledge that the term 'sex difference' is usually interpreted by the media and the public as evidence for dichotomous categories that do not actually exist. Because data rarely sort so cleanly into sex-specific categories, clearer presentation of the nature and size of sex differences is warranted. The term 'sex effect' may be preferable to 'sex difference' when the effect is not large. Second, factors that covary with sex, particularly experience, should be considered as causes of sex differences before the idea of "hardwiring" is invoked. Finally, we should be more vigilant about how our own findings are conveyed to policymakers and the public and speak out when they are misrepresented.

Gender on the brain: a case study of science communication in the new media environment

Neuroscience research on sex difference is currently a controversial field, frequently accused of purveying a ‘neurosexism’ that functions to naturalise gender inequalities. However, there has been little empirical investigation of how information about neurobiological sex difference is interpreted within wider society. This paper presents a case study that tracks the journey of one high-profile study of neurobiological sex differences from its scientific publication through various layers of the public domain. A content analysis was performed to ascertain how the study was represented in five domains of communication: the original scientific article, a press release, the traditional news media, online reader comments and blog entries. Analysis suggested that scientific research on sex difference offers an opportunity to rehearse abiding cultural understandings of gender. In both scientific and popular contexts, traditional gender stereotypes were projected onto the novel scientific information, which was harnessed to demonstrate the factual truth and normative legitimacy of these beliefs. Though strains of misogyny were evident within the readers’ comments, most discussion of the study took pains to portray the sexes’ unique abilities as equal and ‘complementary’. However, this content often resembled a form of benevolent sexism, in which praise of women’s social-emotional skills compensated for their relegation from more esteemed trait-domains, such as rationality and productivity. The paper suggests that embedding these stereotype patterns in neuroscience may intensify their rhetorical potency by lending them the epistemic authority of science. It argues that the neuroscience of sex difference does not merely reflect, but can actively shape the gender norms of contemporary society.

Gendered-peer relationships in educational contexts

The goals of this chapter are to discuss the theories and evidence concerning the roles of gendered-peer interactions and relationships in children's lives at school. We begin by discussing the tendency of boys and girls to separate into same-sex peer groups and consider the theories and evidence concerning how gender segregation occurs and how peers influence children's learning and development. We then turn to the important and understudied question of why some children have more exposure to same-sex peers than others. We consider factors that contribute to variability in children's experiences with gender segregation such as the types of schools children attend and the kinds of classroom experiences they have with teachers. Finally, we review new evidence concerning the cognitive and affective factors that illustrate that children are actively involved in constructing the social world that surrounds them.