Binary thinking about the sex binary: A comment on Joel (2021)

Statistical indices of masculinity-femininity: A theoretical and practical framework

Statistical indices of masculinity-femininity (M-F) summarize multivariate profiles of sex-related traits as positions on a single continuum of individual differences, from masculine to feminine. This approach goes back to the early days of sex differences research; however, a systematic discussion of alternative M-F indices (including their meaning, their mutual relations, and their psychometric properties) has been lacking. In this paper I present an integrative theoretical framework for the statistical assessment of masculinity-femininity, and provide practical guidance to researchers who wish to apply these methods to their data. I describe four basic types of M-F indices: sex-directionality, sex-typicality, sex-probability, and sex-centrality. I examine their similarities and differences in detail, and consider alternative ways of computing them. Next, I discuss the impact of measurement error on the validity of these indices, and outline some potential remedies. Finally, I illustrate the concepts presented in the paper with a selection of real-world datasets on body morphology, brain morphology, and personality. An R function is available to easily calculate multiple M-F indices from empirical data (with or without correction for measurement error) and draw summary plots of their individual and joint distributions.

Are many sex/gender differences really power differences?

This research addresses the long-standing debate about the determinants of sex/gender differences. Evolutionary theorists trace many sex/gender differences back to natural selection and sex-specific adaptations. Sociocultural and biosocial theorists, in contrast, emphasize how societal roles and social power contribute to sex/gender differences beyond any biological distinctions. By connecting two empirical advances over the past two decades-6-fold increases in sex/gender difference meta-analyses and in experiments conducted on the psychological effects of power-the current research offers a novel empirical examination of whether power differences play an explanatory role in sex/gender differences. Our analyses assessed whether experimental manipulations of power and sex/gender differences produce similar psychological and behavioral effects. We first identified 59 findings from published experiments on power. We then conducted a P-curve of the experimental power literature and established that it contained evidential value. We next subsumed these effects of power into 11 broad categories and compared them to 102 similar meta-analytic sex/gender differences. We found that high-power individuals and men generally display higher agency, lower communion, more positive self-evaluations, and similar cognitive processes. Overall, 71% (72/102) of the sex/gender differences were consistent with the effects of experimental power differences, whereas only 8% (8/102) were opposite, representing a 9:1 ratio of consistent-to-inconsistent effects. We also tested for discriminant validity by analyzing whether power corresponds more strongly to sex/gender differences than extraversion: although extraversion correlates with power, it has different relationships with sex/gender differences. These results offer novel evidence that many sex/gender differences may be explained, in part, by power differences.

Biomechanics of Traumatic Head and Neck Injuries on Women: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Directions

The biomechanics of traumatic injuries of the human body as a consequence of road crashes, falling, contact sports, and military environments have been studied for decades. In particular, traumatic brain injury (TBI), the so-called "silent epidemic", is the traumatic insult responsible for the greatest percentage of death and disability, justifying the relevance of this research topic. Despite its great importance, only recently have research groups started to seriously consider the sex differences regarding the morphology and physiology of women, which differs from men and may result in a specific outcome for a given traumatic event. This work aims to provide a summary of the contributions given in this field so far, from clinical reports to numerical models, covering not only the direct injuries from inertial loading scenarios but also the role sex plays in the conditions that precede an accident, and post-traumatic events, with an emphasis on neuroendocrine dysfunctions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy. A review on finite element head models and finite element neck models for the study of specific traumatic events is also performed, discussing whether sex was a factor in validating them. Based on the information collected, improvement perspectives and future directions are discussed.

Sex differences in brain homotopic co-activations: a meta-analytic study

An element of great interest in functional connectivity is 'homotopic connectivity' (HC), namely the connectivity between two mirrored areas of the two hemispheres, mainly mediated by the fibers of the corpus callosum. Despite a long tradition of studying sexual dimorphism in the human brain, to our knowledge only one study has addressed the influence of sex on HC.We investigated the issue of homotopic co-activations in women and men using a coordinate-based meta-analytic method and data from the BrainMap database. A first unexpected observation was that the database was affected by a sex bias: women-only groups are investigated less often than men-only ones, and they are more often studied in certain domains such as emotion compared to men, and less in cognition. Implementing a series of sampling procedures to equalize the size and proportion of the datasets, our results indicated that females exhibit stronger interhemispheric co-activation than males, suggesting that the female brain is less lateralized and more integrated than that of males. In addition, males appear to show less intense but more extensive co-activation than females. Some local differences also appeared. In particular, it appears that primary motor and perceptual areas are more co-activated in males, in contrast to the opposite trend in the rest of the brain. This argues for a multidimensional view of sex brain differences and suggests that the issue should be approached with more complex models than previously thought.

Sex differences in the human brain: a roadmap for more careful analysis and interpretation of a biological reality

The presence, magnitude, and significance of sex differences in the human brain are hotly debated topics in the scientific community and popular media. This debate is largely fueled by studies containing strong, opposing conclusions: either little to no evidence exists for sex differences in human neuroanatomy, or there are small-to-moderate differences in the size of certain brain regions that are highly reproducible across cohorts (even after controlling for sex differences in average brain size). Our Commentary uses the specific comparison between two recent large-scale studies that adopt these opposing views-namely the review by Eliot and colleagues (2021) and the direct analysis of ~ 40k brains by Williams and colleagues (2021)-in an effort to clarify this controversy and provide a framework for conducting this research. First, we review observations that motivate research on sex differences in human neuroanatomy, including potential causes (evolutionary, genetic, and environmental) and effects (epidemiological and clinical evidence for sex-biased brain disorders). We also summarize methodological and empirical support for using structural MRI to investigate such patterns. Next, we outline how researchers focused on sex differences can better specify their study design (e.g., how sex was defined, if and how brain size was adjusted for) and results (by e.g., distinguishing sexual dimorphisms from sex differences). We then compare the different approaches available for studying sex differences across a large number of individuals: direct analysis, meta-analysis, and review. We stress that reviews do not account for methodological differences across studies, and that this variation explains many of the apparent inconsistencies reported throughout recent reviews (including the work by Eliot and colleagues). For instance, we show that amygdala volume is consistently reported as male-biased in studies with sufficient sample sizes and appropriate methods for brain size correction. In fact, comparing the results from multiple large direct analyses highlights small, highly reproducible sex differences in the volume of many brain regions (controlling for brain size). Finally, we describe best practices for the presentation and interpretation of these findings. Care in interpretation is important for all domains of science, but especially so for research on sex differences in the human brain, given the existence of broad societal gender-biases and a history of biological data being used justify sexist ideas. As such, we urge researchers to discuss their results from simultaneously scientific and anti-sexist viewpoints.