Actually, there were three sources for this story - one of them being an entire book about this topic - which goes into great detail about how most of these claims of binary brains are wishful thinking done with poor methodology and shoddy science. Your poor attention to detail and what I’ve actually said is a big part of your problem. I didn't say all your citations were faulty - I simply said I didn't have the time to evaluate them, and that a lot of this sort of thing is not done with good methodology or sample size. There's aren't two sides to this story - brains are either binary or they're not, and even by your own accounting, they clearly aren't. The fact that there are gender differences has already been stipulated to — but that’s not the same thing as being binary.
It seems that this commenter is unwilling to look at any evidence that contradicts his biases and likes to find reasons to be condescending and pedantic. In addition, he enjoys picking a fight about assertions that have not been made and refusing to entertain nuance or even basic common sense.
"The supposedly larger female corpus callosum, a claim built on shaky foundations, is under no less serious dispute.18 This research has been thoroughly examined and critiqued by Brown University professor of biology Anne Fausto-Sterling who, in Sexing the Body, explains the challenges of establishing the size of a particular structure in the brain. And a meta-analysis conducted by Katherine Bishop and Douglas Wahlsten in 1997 concluded that “the widespread belief that women have a larger splenium than men and consequently think differently is untenable.”19 Summarizing this literature in a 2008 review, cognitive neuroscientist Mikkel Wallentin concluded that “the alleged sex-related corpus callosum size difference is a myth.” The culprit? Look no further than “the possibility of ‘discovering’ spurious differences when using small sample sizes,” says Wallentin.20"
One particularly funny and telling study involved showed emotionally charged images to dead salmon."
"The researchers conclude not that this particular region of the brain is involved in postmortem piscine empathizing, but that the kind of statistical thresholds commonly used in neuroimaging studies (including Witelson’s emotion-matching study) are inadequate because they allow too many spurious results through the net."
Fine, Cordelia. Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference (p. 150). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
If you care to read Fine's book and then present me with things that you think refute it, great, but until that time comes, I'm done here.
