A priori, this is not a scoop, we are different on a biological level and certain organs are present in Madame not in Monsieur and vice versa. The same for certain hormones and reactions – for example more empathy in Madame in general than in Monsieur.
And the brain? Numerous studies have suggested differences for ages but in general the studies are criticized, a larger brain, yes often, but the volume and size of bodies also differ which reduces the conclusions of this type of approach. And in any case, there is no univocal relationship between brain size and cognitive functions or intelligence.
Recent work addresses this problem from the angle of brain activity measured by imaging. The authors measured so-called default mode brain activities, i.e. activity measured at rest when we are thinking about nothing or not much and motor skills are at rest. In this work, the authors use an approach to measure the activity of neural networks spatiotemporally to detect differences between sexes. Carried out on 1500 young adults (20 to 35 years old), the authors observed a significant difference in the activity of neural networks. With the help of an approach based on Artificial Intelligence, these differences are evident between resting activities in several brain structures and in particular the striatum and limbic structures known for their roles in emotional and motor activities (often linked to these same functions). The authors conclude that there are clearly differences in activity due to sex differences, and that sex is therefore a biological determinant of brain formation and take the opportunity to challenge the idea of a Male/Female continuum. Going further, they propose that these tools could be useful for understanding and treating psychiatric illnesses…
The problem here, as in other imaging work, is that we have a fairly indirect image of the activity and its context. How can we be sure that these people were completely at rest? and would this only show the fact that at rest, boys and girls do not think different things which does not imply “biological” differences? A central criticism of the authors’ conclusions, as is often the case, concerns the causes and consequences. Thus, if, as the authors point out, the clear differences between males and females in certain structures given their roles suggest different intersexual sensitivities concerning sensitivity to recognition, pleasure, recognition in space, etc. do the observations necessarily suggest “biological” differences in the sense engraved differently from development or resulting from decades of different education? In short, the old debate between environment and genetics – the nature or Nature of the Anglo-Saxons. I do not think that this work necessarily answers these questions. To this end, if the thesis is that these differences are biological – implying that it is innate and not acquired – it would logically be necessary to show that they exist from birth or even in boys and girls aged 5-6 when it is easier to do.
