杏吧原创

ONE of the best things about science is its ability to correct itself, spot flaws, poor evidence and bad claims, track the myths they spawn to their roots 鈥� and axe them. This process is vital, especially in areas such as race, IQ and gender, where false steps derail fields for years.

Take fruit fly experiments by British biologist Angus Bateman in the 1940s. These ended up underpinning many claims about evolved psychological differences between the sexes. One such was a theory by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, which claimed a bigger parental investment by females than males. Claims such as these fuelled myths such as men being more competitive or bigger risk-takers than women.

Psychologist Cordelia Fine questions these myths. In her new book, Testosterone Rex, she tackles the biggest myth of all: that every difference can be traced to testosterone. This she labels the Testosterone Rex world view, where differences are touted as 鈥渘atural鈥� rather than cultural. But if we look harder at the evidence, it doesn鈥檛 stack up, says Fine.

Take risk-taking. Girls/women can and do take risks and compete to the same degree as boys/men, says Fine. Seeing sex differences turns out to depend on what you ask women to compete at and which women you ask. So women are more likely to compete within 鈥渕ore neutral鈥� or 鈥渇eminine鈥� competitive contexts such as dancing, verbal ability or fashion knowledge. And cultural background and level of economic development seem linked with greater competitiveness; for example, Han Chinese or Armenian girls are as competitive as their male counterparts.

Fine doesn鈥檛 deny testosterone鈥檚 effects on brains, bodies and behaviour, but it is 鈥渘either鈥� king nor鈥� kingmaker鈥�. Testosterone isn鈥檛 鈥渢he potent, hormonal essence of competitive, risk-taking masculinity鈥� we assume it to be, she says: it is just part of a complex bio-cultural mix.

Fine shows how new studies can upend earlier research by unearthing those confirmation biases on which many myths of sex differences precariously perch. Back with Bateman鈥檚 fruit flies, Fine shows his data 鈥渉ad been biased towards counting the offspring of males鈥�, in part due to less sophisticated methods used in the 1940s, but also because people tend to look for what they want to find without realising it.

鈥淲hether or not you see sex differences in risk taking turns out to depend on what you ask and who鈥�

Aside from research design biases, Fine also notes how social constructions of gender shape the situations people encounter, and their subjective meaning. She throws out a challenge: 鈥淲e鈥檙e used to thinking of testosterone as鈥� a cause of gender鈥� what if the direction of that familiar pathway also needs to be reversed?鈥�

To answer, Fine lays out some of the more recent research. Take University of Illinois psychologist Dov Cohen and his colleagues, who showed how male testosterone levels can increase in reaction to a small challenge to status. Then there is the behavioural endocrinologist Richard Francis and his colleagues and their work on cichlid fish, which shows how social events regulate the gonads. Or recent findings by Marie-Louise Healy and her colleagues at St James鈥檚 Hospital, Dublin, that one in six elite male athletes have testosterone levels below the normal reference range.

Another key tenet of the Testosterone Rex world view is the emphasis on differences between male and female thinking and behaviour. Instead, Fine stresses the similarities. Differences, for her, are idiosyncratic mixes of 鈥渕asculine鈥� and 鈥渇eminine鈥� characteristics and gendered qualities. It may be that some differences compensate for others, and end up making the sexes similar, not different.

Ultimately, Fine leaves us clear that Testosterone Rex鈥檚 old stories are unjustified. What happens next is 鈥渁 question for our values, not science鈥�, says Fine, arguing for a world where cultural and gender norms sit with evolution, genetics and hormones to take account of all the influences. Then comes the hard work, as she calls on us to imagine the society we want to create. But no fruit flies this time.

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淯nravelling gender myths鈥�