Interesting article. McGill University is the Canadian equivalent to Stanford in the US ... It's an excellent place of higher learning. This concept seems entirely logical and reasonable to me. The physiology of men and women are functionally different to the extent their respective roles are different in passing their genetic traits on to the next generation. It must require different brain organization (both physiologically and chemically) because of the differences in the function of male and female bodies.

I once heard it jokingly expressed that physiologically, functionally, neuro-chemically and biologically, men and women are different enough to be classified as separate kinds of primates in a symbiotic relationship with each other. Each requires the other to have and raise their respective male and female children. While I appreciate the joke, I don't go that far. I enjoy the similarities and embrace the differences. Vive la difference!

Jon, how could I possibly respond to you but that we both get it, more often than not, and celebrate in our uniqueness?

Thanks for giving this post your consideration.

We have to be very careful about the conclusions we draw from media summaries of research. Frequently the press seizes on crass generalizations about research without actually reading the articles.

While research on sexual differences has generally shown some slight differences, every piece of research I have seen thus far suggests that the degree of difference between the genders is small and that individuals will fall in different ranges of a continuum. (i.e differences between men and women are far smaller than differences between species, for example).

Notice that Cahill is quoted as saying that size difference "suggests" a difference in functionality - (He is making an assumption here) - this size difference does not however seem to take into consideration the efficiency of the "wiring", other aspects of the subjects' circumstances, etc and yet many after reading this will jump on such a statement and see it as scientific <b proof /b> that.... (blah, blah, blah). Natalie Angier (a science writer for the New York times has written quite an interesting and very publicly accessible book on the ways that people jump to conclusions about the nature of femaleness in <i Woman: An Intimate Geography /i> (Warning there is a lot about sexual organs and their functioning in this book and some might not feel comfortable reading it.)

<b having problems with html tags, sorry

Now, if the article above is looking at complexity in the areas mentioned, that may be different, although one must also ask to what extent the way the brain develops is governed by the environment in which the person grows up, since we now know that the brain continues to develop over many years and probably our entire life. (This means we can not determine (as usual) what is biologically determined and what might be environmentally determined). This means because of social conditioning it is possible women may be in situations that require development of different parts of the brain. (Just as playing video games a lot will undoubtedly cause different parts of the brain to develop, compared to people who play Tennis professionally or who spend time taking (and remembering) orders at restaurants. Everytie we learn something we are chemically modifying our brains!

Hormone output too, can be a result of environmental stresses - so (ultimately) this is all a big complex conundrum.)

I've broken my comments up in to three sections because nobody ever seems to read the entirety of really long responses (which is too bad, since in my opinion (mostly) long quotes (like Jon Deisher's excellent ones) show nuance and careful thinking about complex issues. If anyone has read all three of my comments all the way through, I thank you sincerely.

I read them, WS. Thoughtful posts reflect thoughtful people and are worth reading. This is a complex issue, but I agree that while male and female differences are obvious, so are the similarities. The latter being more substantial than the former.

As for journalists writing about science ... you've said it as well as I could.

If one accepts that the foundation for the difference between the genders begins with the sexual nature of our being, then the respective "organs and their functioning" are a natural part of who we are. Being uncomfortable with reading about or discussing such things is, in my mind, being uncomfortable with who we are ... but that's me.

Think of it. Beneath our respective drapery, we are all naked! (Ooppz. Better not go there! The imagination is a dangerous place ... but it was Einstein that said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge.")

Any man who's lived with a woman for any length of time knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens walk the earth.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on...

Dutch