Talk:Neuroscience of sex differences

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Neuromath99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariadelhoyo, Nicoleanderson98, Mitzarenee, KingEllerz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carissa92.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zelizimm, Kking1110, Njiter98. Peer reviewers: Miyeak, Kiesners, KusztybS.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello, i'm new here and not sure how to use this resource! I am a retired EEG technician. I remember being told years ago that women have larger corpora callosa than men. I looked up wikipaedia to check this and drew a blank. Is there anything in this story..?

tf@dpmms.cam.ac.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.67.199.162 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I was taught the same thing in a 1987 neuroscience class. This 2013 paper agrees with our recollections: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767965/, but it does note a competing theory from the 1990's that corpus callosa cross-sectional area increases more slowly than brain size so that the seemingly larger female corpus callosum cross-sectional area is an artifact of the smaller average female brain size. Yfff (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"...and that it is impossible to identify whether a given human brain is from an XX or an XY solely by examination of its anatomy.[4]"

I clicked the link out of curiosity and was astonished to see The Guardian. Is that the "experts" the sentence is referring to? I Googled the author, Robin McKie. Unsurprisingly, he has no research history of any kind, and only published few popular science books. Nevertheless I check out the article, after all, even an amateur can list sources and use basic logic to support their point. Unfortunately, this is the extent of Robin's argument: "As I have said, I have read this sort of thing before. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. It is biological determinism at its silly, trivial worst.". That's it. He "does not believe".

Needless to say, I postulate the "source" should be removed from the article. 46.169.90.214 (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Brain wiring comparisons of homosexuals and persons of the opposite sex show that homosexuals may be born with a predisposition to be homosexual."

Shouldn't "persons of the opposite sex " be "heterosexuals"? Abrothman (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Stress in Human Studies

I went in and added information about human studies in sex differences in sex responses (since there was only information about rat studies) to the "stress" section. The information is from a review from 2017, so it is a little more recent than the other sources.--Neuromath99 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Gender

This article is a redirect from "Neuroscience of Gender Differences" so I am planing on adding a section on gender differences in neuroscience. Neuromath99 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Neuromath99, keep in mind what has been stated on your talk page. Jytdog recently cut a lot of WP:Primary sourced data from the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is the subject of a course assignment. Because this article is a redirect from "Neuroscience of Gender Differences", our intent is to add information on neurobiological differences found between genders - sourced from three recent reviews. Yes, this is gender (as in experienced gender) versus sex (as in genetic or genitalia-defined sex). We do not intend to take over the involved project (evident in the comment thread below) of defining "gender" and "sex", but to simply add the neurobiological differences established currently. We will add it where it makes the most sense in the article now, and then when the more complete gender section is worked out, this information can be moved and integrated with that section, if that seems reasonable.Dr. Kahle (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

The section marked by NPOV lacks any references to peer/reviewed contemporary biological literature. I advise not to remove the NPOV as long as the section is not referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs)

Aristotele1982 In regards to the references, is there a particular one that you find objectionable? All of them came from peer reviewed journals and most are from 2016-2018, so I don't know how much more contemporary you can get. Please sign your comments so we can discuss the article. Neuromath99 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sentence Removed

The present debate between sex and gender aims at researching whether and to what extent the psychological sense of sexual identity is distinct from the evolved behaviour of humans. These sentence that suggests disconnecting the due terms is, therefore, suggesting a solution to the debate that has not been reached yet. Furthermore, one single reference to feminist literature is not enough to support the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs)

Aristotele1982 I didn't realize that the Journal of Neuroscience Research was considered feminist literature. I welcome any suggestions to improve the article, as long as you have evidence and sources to back up your claims. Wikipedia, as you know, is not a place for making claims that cannot be substantiated by reputable sources. If you don't have any suggestions, then I will add the sentence back in. Neuromath99 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Neuromath99, Aristotele1982 should read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Like it states, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Also with regard to WP:NPOV, being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Primary Sources Banner

Since Jytdog removed most of the primary sources and I have added more sources I propose removing the banner at the top of the page. Any suggestions/objections?Neuromath99 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Needs careful review prior to being added to article

I started to review this carefully. Due to its important location in the section, I started with PMID 26051636, and Anna Abraham paper. (It is important because it is the first ref after the extensive discussion about how flawed the existing research is.) I read the paper, and as far as I can tell there is no distinction in it between "gender" and "sex"; the terms both appear to mean "sex". The paper is useless for this section. On top of that, there is nothing about transgender or transsexual in it at all, yet the immediately preceding sentence mentions "transsexuals". This is very bad, on multiple levels. I don't trust this, and it should be carefully reviewed to ensure that the sources actually support the content before it is added back.

Gender differences

Gender is defined as a person's sense of being male, female, or an alternate gender, which may or may not be consistent with their sex assigned at birth.

A combination of numerous factors influence the many different dimensions of gender identity. Two of the models that have been developed to explain the differences in gender identity are the polygenic threshold and the culture-behavior-brain (CBB) loop model. The polygenic threshold model states that many genes contribute to complex traits. In the context of studying gender identity, it implies that no single set of genetic variants can possibly account for the differences in gender identity.Studies have shown that hundreds of thousands of genes contribute to variance in gender identity. These genes have only been linked to gender identity and have not been proven to directly create observable differences in gender identity traits. The polygenic threshold model also includes the idea that the human population exists in a spectrum of gender identities despite the fact that there may be decisive divisions of specific phenotypes in individuals.

Studies into the biological differences in transgender brains have resulted in contradictory conclusions that cannot account for the masculinization or feminization of the brain. Some studies have found differences in transgender brains in prenatal exposure to sexual hormones and genetic factors which point to distinct phenotypes in the brain for transgender men and women. However, other studies -especially those focusing on sexual chromosome deviations- have found no biological differences between transgender and cisgender brains. Studies on sexual hormone related genes have not obtained reliable results because they have not had a large enough population of transgender subjects and contained multiple testing errors. For these reasons, no clear and distinct genetic relationship with transexualism can be asserted until further testing is completed. This lack of adequate research creates the question of the origins of the differences in transsexual brains. Some experts still believe that there is an inherent difference in the brains of transsexuals from birth, while others theorize that the variance arises from culture -particularly from sociocultural factors - and the behaviors and lifestyles that come with it. Those that believe that differences in transgender and cisgender brains are not present from birth cite that human's brains are changed by behavior, thought processes, and the social world. There is a continuous interaction between genes, the brain, and the environment. The thought processes of the brain and the environment of the individual can change neural structure as well as what genes are expressed and how they are expressed.

The nervous system has a great amount of plasticity. The structure and functionality of the brain changes as a result of accepting certain beliefs and performing certain behaviors. The adapted brain then directs behaviors fitting specific cultural expectations and sociocultural environments. After the brain has changed to match certain expectations, it can revert back to its initial conditions based on biological sex.

Although sex and gender are two distinct topics, research on the neuroscience of sex and gender are interwoven and many scientists do not accurately distinguish between the two. In order for research to advance and allow meaningful conclusions to be drawn without the presence of lurking variables, the two concepts need to be untangled from each other.

References

--Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, the sex and gender distinction often is not employed, as also made clear by the Sex and gender distinction article. In research, "sex" and "gender" often (obviously not always) mean the same thing, as with sex differences in crime. Anything about neuroscience and sex differences is about biology, and a lot of it applies to what effect biology has on behavior. It's a nature and nurture thing, not a nurture vs. nurture thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

OK - then this section has no purpose? Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)}}

I'm not sure what you mean. Since the article is about the neuroscience of sex differences, and gendered behavior is an aspect of it, with researchers looking into why boys/men and girls/women, whether cisgender or transgender, behave the way they do, why would you think that we shouldn't have a section on gender differences? Causes of transsexuality is an aspect of this topic. I agree that the section needs work, but we should have a section in the article on gender differences. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I struck my reply above. The proposed content is talking about "gender" as "a person's sense of being male, female, or an alternate gender, which may or may not be consistent with their sex assigned at birth." A reference making no distinction between biological sex and gender as defined here is useless for generating content for this section. Again, this paragraph and its sources need careful review to ensure that the content is describing gender as defined here.Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That first sentence isn't needed. I can see why it was added -- so that readers understand gender identity and that assigned sex may differ from biological sex, but we typically leave the definitions for that stuff up to the main articles. A link to the Gender identity article is all that is needed. Some of the rest of the content is fine for inclusion as long as it's about neuroscience with regard to sex/gender differences and is sourced well. I agree with you about reviewing the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2018‎ (UTC)

Jytdog it seems like a gross overreaction to me that you distrust one source but extrapolate that feeling to all the other sources and delete the whole section. I do agree that the Abraham article is not the best fit for that spot on the page, but the other sources fit all the criteria for being appropriate for Wikipedia and the section of the article. I will restructure the section without the Abraham article and post it here when I am done. Neuromath99 (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There was content about the state of the research in the field that was completely unsourced, and a source that didn't support any content at all. Please make sure that content you add to WP or propose actually summarizes reliable sources, and please cite those sources so that the content can be verified. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog That is a very broad claim. In order to make improvements I need to know specific content that you have a problem with. Neuromath99 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the source for this: "Studies into the biological differences in transgender brains have resulted in contradictory conclusions that cannot account for the masculinization or feminization of the brain." ?

What is the source for this: "Some studies have found differences in transgender brains in prenatal exposure to sexual hormones and genetic factors which point to distinct phenotypes in the brain for transgender men and women."?

What is the source for this: "Studies on sexual hormone related genes have not obtained reliable results because they have not had a large enough population of transgender subjects and contained multiple testing errors. "?

Am just starting with those three. I'll also note that you went ahead and used the source that we discussed here: -- User_talk:Neuromath99#Note_on_a_source -- which both Flyer and I said is questionable. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Reformatted Gender Section

The terms sex and gender are often incorrectly used interchangeably in academic institutions and popular media. Sex is determined by biology while gender identity is primarily determined by psychological, social, and cultural influences.

A combination of numerous factors influence the many different dimensions of gender identity. Two of the models that have been developed to explain the differences in gender identity are the polygenic threshold and the culture-behavior-brain (CBB) loop model. The polygenic threshold model states that many genes contribute to complex traits. In the context of studying gender identity, it implies that no single set of genetic variants can possibly account for the differences in gender identity.Studies have shown that hundreds of thousands of genes contribute to variance in gender identity. These genes have only been linked to gender identity and have not been proven to directly create observable differences in gender identity traits. The polygenic threshold model also includes the idea that the human population exists in a spectrum of gender identities despite the fact that there may be decisive divisions of specific phenotypes in individuals.

Studies into the biological differences in transgender brains have resulted in contradictory conclusions that cannot account for the masculinization or feminization of the brain. Some studies have found differences in transgender brains in prenatal exposure to sexual hormones and genetic factors which point to distinct phenotypes in the brain for transgender men and women. However, other studies -especially those focusing on sexual chromosome deviations- have found no biological differences between transgender and cisgender brains. Studies on sexual hormone related genes have not obtained reliable results because they have not had a large enough population of transgender subjects and contained multiple testing errors. For these reasons, no clear and distinct genetic relationship with transexualism can be asserted until further testing is completed. This lack of adequate research creates the question of the origins of the differences in transsexual brains. Some experts still believe that there is an inherent difference in the brains of transsexuals from birth, while others theorize that the variance arises from culture and the behaviors and lifestyles that come with it.. Some researchers postulate that transsexualism is the result of a divergence between the sexual brain and genitals caused by androgens or genetic differences during fetal development. Those that believe that differences in transgender and cisgender brains are not present from birth cite that human's brains are changed by behavior, thought processes, and the social world. There is a continuous interaction between genes, the brain, and the environment. The thought processes of the brain and the environment of the individual can change neural structure as well as what genes are expressed and how they are expressed.

The nervous system has a great amount of plasticity. The structure and functionality of the brain changes as a result of accepting certain beliefs and performing certain behaviors. The adapted brain then directs behaviors fitting specific cultural expectations and sociocultural environments. After the brain has changed to match certain expectations, it can revert back to its initial conditions based on biological sex.

Although sex and gender are two distinct topics, research on the neuroscience of sex and gender are interwoven and many scientists do not accurately distinguish between the two. In order for research to advance and allow meaningful conclusions to be drawn without the presence of lurking variables, the two concepts need to be untangled from each other.

References

Neuromath99 (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

so this is still not good. I got as far as "Studies have shown that hundreds of thousands of genes contribute to variance in gender identity." This is a statement of fact and it has no support, at all, in the source cited. The statement about " hundreds of thousands of genes" is about polygenic traits generally. The article is mostly about heritability studies (which do not try to identify genes); it has a small section on molecular genetic studies that describes how research has mostly been on single genes, describes one study that really went hunting in a small population of transgender Chinese people, and says unambiguously "An important next step to understanding the genetic background of the development of gender identity would be a sufficiently powered Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS), as this type of design has been proven to be successful for many other complex human traits (Visscher et al. 2017). We therefore strongly recommend gathering all genetic and phenotypic data on gender identity and gender dysphoria to date in order to perform a sufficiently powered GWAS in the near future." that is the exactly opposite of the statement " "Studies have shown that hundreds of thousands of genes contribute to variance in gender identity." I stopped reading there.

Again the content needs to summarize the sources you cite. You cannot just make shit up and write it in Wikipedia.

I am going to review the edits currently in the article much more closely. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to distinguishing sex from gender, "sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first trimester of pregnancy, and sexual differentiation of the brain starts during the second half of pregnancy." Saleem F, Rizvi S W (December 24, 2017) Transgender associations and possible etiology: A literature review. Cureus 9(12): e1984. DOI 10.7759/cureus.1984 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.27.102 (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC) 208.71.27.102 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Mitzarenee, Nicoleanderson98, Mariadelhoyo and Dr. Kahle, per some statements above, you need to be sticking to WP:MEDRS-complaint sources. Read WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS discourages the use of WP:Primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing our recent additions. Please be more specific about what is not compliant about our sources. They are all secondary sources, review articles, included in PubMed,and peer-reviewed.Dr. Kahle (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 is indicating Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) should always be used in medical content--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Kahle, I did not state that every source your class has added is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. But there have been some concerns about the sourcing (and past sourcing that has nothing to do with your class), as seen in the article's edit history and above on the talk page. If you do not understand what I mean by reading WP:MEDRS, then read the discussion at Talk:Child abuse#MEDRS and a PubMed Review (WP:Permalink here). New editors and less experienced editors have confused what a literature review is before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:Due weight is also a concern. Read WP:Due weight as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I understand what you are saying. Yes, I did consult WP:MEDRS ahead of editing this article, the reviews used as sources are all actual reviews, high quality indicated by all being peer-reviewed and indexed in PubMed. I also checked directly all the primary sources reviewed in the reviews to make sure that they were summarized properly and accurately and were themselves high quality articles. In terms of due weight, the statements added to the article were straightforward neuroscientific results shown to be statistically significant, of similar detail to match the statements already in the article, with no opinions or slant added. The one conclusion statement added was based on a conclusion statement presented in the largest review article, supported by the review article's authors' comparison of results from three different studies of the same nucleus in the brain. Does this explanation help?Dr. Kahle (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Kahle. I am glad to see that you are taking care with the sourcing, and that you have considered WP:Due weight per my comment on it above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Carissa92, per above, avoid primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

LSE project

We are adding a new section on "Controversy" as part of the LSE project "Genes, Brains and Society". J.birch2 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. J.birch2, see what has been stated above about sourcing. Generally stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Do not engage in WP:Editorializing or WP:Synthesis, and do not give any one study WP:Undue weight. I suppose some of what you added can be included in a "Society and culture" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flyer 22, I was sad to see that you reverted quite a few good-faith edits while an editing project is still in progress. I fully agree the material added by students on Friday was unfinished and required better referencing and a somewhat different tone, and these are tasks we will pursue on Monday. To be clear, we will be working on this page intermittently until 15 Feb. I am happy to title the new section "Society and Culture" rather than "Controversy". J.birch2 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Replied here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! We will be editing this article for a Biology of Sex and Gender course. Kking1110 (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Kking1110, see what is stated above about sourcing and other matters. Also see what is stated here. Inform your class. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Transsexual studies on brain anatomy" section.

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for this removal, so I restored it for now. These papers are literature reviews whose broad findings are summarized in the article, so it seems reasonable to cite them to describe what early studies focused on and found. I'm also not understanding what is meant by "multidisciplinary peer review" in this context - these are broad literature reviews, though, not individual studies, so they themselves are proof that the papers they summarize have attracted at least some secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe it is inappropriate, inaccurate, and offensive to label transsexual studies as transgender studies like it is done now. I would change it back to transsexual, but am in fear of being blocked for "vandalism" (what the establishment disagrees with since they can't allow transsexual folks who reject the transgender label to speak for themselves about the matters that affect them).68.67.254.133 (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I shall change it back...mislabeling persons identified as transsexual 'transgendered' should be treated no differently than the reverse (mislabeling transgenderd self-identified persons as transsexual). Especially considering that it is well known that there are some folks that do identify as one of those labels but reject the other (as well as those who use both/either to described themselves). Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Firejuggler86, the thing is this: Transgender is the umbrella term and includes transsexual, and it (as many reliable sources state) is preferred over transsexual these days. Yes, there are some transgender people who prefer to be called transsexual, but the vast majority of trans women and trans men today don't prefer that. We also don't always know if the trans person self-identified as transsexual in these studies or whether only the researchers identified them that way. But, anyway, as long as the text makes it clear that the people are transsexual, either by using the term transsexual or noting that they have undergone hormones and/or surgery, I don't see much of an issue with the title being "Transgender studies on brain anatomy." After all, one source is titled "Transgender Associations and Possible Etiology: A Literature Review" while the other is titled "A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism." I also know that someone will come along and change it back to "Transgender studies on brain anatomy." And I'd rather not be part of a back and forth dispute regarding the title of the section.

If you reply, please don't WP:Ping me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Not regarding the title, but body.

Should the portion "some trans women were found to have female-typical putamina that were larger in size than those of cisgender males" specify whether this is for pre or post-op (i.e. transgender v. transsexual) trans women? Regarding information provided in a publicly posted lecture snippet that can be found here: (6:42 total video length) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ&t=91

In the video, Prof. Robert Sapolsky goes on to describe how a portion of the human brain that is reliably larger in the male sex was also found to be that way in individuals who were (as an example) assigned a female body at birth, but continually insisted that they were always actually male and got the wrong body. Now, of course we're talking about different brain regions here between the page entry and lecture, and I'm not sure if we explicitly have that data in the included reference (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5825045), but the point I am specifying is about this difference existing both in individuals who did take medical procedure, and those who never did. Especially given the umbrella-term nature of the topic, I felt this was important to bring up. Found-Verdict (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Peer review

Overall it seems like there isn't a lot of information available regarding the neuroscience of sex differences (or resources that work for Wikipedia articles). The "Hippocampus" section could use more explanation into what the differences are in the hippocampus are and why it is important that there isn't a significant difference in the size of the hippocampus. In general, I think there could be a lot more explanation. A lot of the information presented seems like is just a description of the section title and not how it relates to the neuroscience of sex difference or only slightly addresses it. As was mentioned earlier, a lack of information and sources regarding the topics makes it extremely difficult to put together an in-depth article so if this is the limit to the information you were able to locate then it is a decent place to start for future research. Miyeak (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review KiesnerS

The lead section is really minimalistic. It covers the article in a very broad sense, but could probably be flushed out a little more without it being redundant in regards to the information covered in the article. The sources used appear to be good choices to gather information from (reliable journals). The article appears to be neutral in how the information is presented and both sides of the argument are mentioned when applicable, at least to the outside reader. The separations of sections is pretty solid and straight forward and helps direct the reader. I also think that the order of sections is logical and builds off of the previous section.

Some of the endings to different sections could stand to be rewritten, just for a little more clarity in what is actually being said and better flow. For example in the lateralization section: "It is unclear whether this is due to a difference in lateralization, however.", this sentence would likely flow nicer if it led off with "however,", I do understand that there are several other sentences that start this way, but ending with however makes the sentence feel like it was left unfinished. There are also sentences with parentheses in them, I think that sentence flow might be stronger if the content in the parentheses was integrated into the sentence instead of it being set apart. Having the parentheses is slightly distracting while trying to understand what the main point of the sentence actually is. I think the hormone section could use more overlap between sexes, both male and female sexes have levels of testosterone and estrogen but only the main sex is discussed.

Overall, a lot of material was covered (a little quick in some sections, like the hippocampus) to help illuminate the neurological differences between sexes. After reading this article I think it might be useful to expand a bit more on the historical aspect of my own topic. Kiesners (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Samara's Peer Review

In general, this page appears to be well developed, which is a good thing. However, there are a few things that could be improved upon.

One of the things that were prominent in this is the assumption of sides. This can be improved upon by acknowledging that other opinions may be known, even if the concept may be agreed upon to one way of thinking of something.

Another thing that bothered me while reading it is that, when sections had multiple paragraphs, there isn't anything connecting the two paragraphs together. An easy way to fix this issue is to, possibly, add a sentence to connect the paragraphs together to make it flow a bit nicer, while also making it easier to read and understand.

I liked that you had referenced several articles/studies to support your claims. However, more data from these studies would be beneficial to further support the facts being made.

Overall, this is a great start to the page, but there is still work that can be done to further improve the quality of the article to make it a bit easier to understand while also making it more information-rich.

The organization is also very well done, especially how everything is organized nicely to be able to find what is needed. However, some of the sections can be fleshed out more to give more information regarding what is being talked about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KusztybS (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hippocampus Size

The entry on the size of the hippocampus appears to contradict claims that after adjusting for brain/body size, there remains a size difference. "Adjusted for total brain size (men’s are bigger), a woman’s hippo­campus, critical to learning and memorization, is larger than a man’s and works differently." https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html#:~:text=Brain%2Dimaging%20studies%20indicate%20that,a%20man's%20and%20works%20differently

Another study claims that after adjusting for hippocampal volume, "Males have larger parasubiculum, fimbria, hippocampal fissure, and presubiculum" and "Females show larger volumes for the hippocampal tail." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920302688 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:EC7F:93C0:8162:8A1E:B83C:FC41 (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS, we need to go by literature reviews, meta-analyses, and similar sources. If there is another such source that gives a different view from the current one, then please feel free to add it. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Same size

The article says "Males and females differ in some aspects of their brains, notably the overall difference in size, with men having larger brains on average (between 8% and 13% larger), but there are areas of the brain that appear not to be sexually differentiated". First it says there are differences in size. Then follows a "but", "that appear not to be sexually differentiated" which I read as some parts of the brain has the same size. Why else should there be a "but"? Under amygdala it says you can just "normalizing for brain size" (male/female); but the consequence would be that what I just quoted would be sexually differentiated (if they have the same size). This article contradicts itself Christian75 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)