The Female Brain

Each chapter aligns with a typical sequential life phase, with the first focusing on prenatal and young children and the second on adolescence and puberty.

The theme of Neurological Causes of Gendered Behavior is emphasized by the identification of one or more biological causes of behavior for each age range or life phase. The gendered behavior of young children is attributed to the presence of prenatal testosterone and to infantile puberty.

The focus on biological factors demonstrates the role of Shifting Female Hormones in the text. While socialization is mentioned at times, Brizendine glosses over the impacts that culture has on gendered behavior. For instance, she declares, “This isn’t socialization,” when describing the female toddler who cuddled a fire truck, arguing, “Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys” (34). While Brizendine dismisses the pervasive gender stereotypes children are exposed to as not impactful, critics point out that gendered socialization begins before birth, and, despite attempts at gender-neutral parenting, it is nearly impossible to eliminate exposure to representations of gender stereotypes (Fine, Cordelia. Delusions of Gender. W.W. Norton, 2010).

Socialization is similarly disregarded in Chapter 2, where Brizendine presents the idea that stereotypical teenage behavior is driven by the effects of puberty. The author claims that, “During puberty, a girls’ entire biological raison d’être is to become sexually desirable” (57). This statement explicitly states that female teenagers exist solely to sexually attract males. Her statement introduces the regressive theme of Reproductive Roles of Female Humans, which reduces the women to their biological function rather taking a more holistic approach to behavior evaluation. This reduction is further developed through the assertions that irresponsible, rude, or dangerous behavior is caused by hormonal changes. Such arguments imply that these behaviors, particularly in men, are unavoidable and thus should not be punished or restricted; they thus validate damaging gender stereotypes.

While Brizendine often cites scientific studies, her claim development relies heavily on generalization, speculation, and anecdotal evidence. Brizendine promotes her education and her career experience, which she highlights in the introduction, to support her credibility and to encourage readers to accept such speculations without skepticism. Brizendine often presents her unfounded generalizations as common sense, such as when she asserts that the menstrual cycle results in irrational reactions—“Most women know that, in weeks three and four, angry impulses fall under the two-day rule. They’ll wait two days and see if they still want to act on them” (74). The phrase “most women know” posits this broadly sweeping statement as a piece of folk wisdom, rather than a sexist trope. Another example of generalization occurs when she asserts that all male teenagers are hyper-focused on sexual thoughts about female peers. Her argument here is flawed; not only does she not account for attraction to members of the same sex, but also her claim that only male teens, and not female ones, are consumed by sexual thoughts rests on the fact that male teens claimed to prefer no pubic hair on sexual partners. Her interpretation of her own anecdote ignores the fact that it was the female students who introduced the topic of pubic hair in the first place. Speculation and assumptions are used to make connections or to fill informational gaps.

Brizendine’s claims also often rely on leaps of logic and guesswork unsupported by research. For instance, she makes a speculation when she says of CAH females that “these girls’ behavior and presumably their brain structures are more similar to those of males than to females” (50). Although Brizendine admits that no such evidence exists, she justifies her speculation by arguing that performing an MRI scan on a toddler would be too difficult.

To make the text more relatable, Brizendine uses anecdotal evidence in the form of case studies—a form of evidence that is also highly subjective and typically too idiosyncratic to draw the kinds of sweeping conclusions Brizendine often makes. For example, Leila serves to demonstrate the argument that young female children are more communicative and empathetic than male peers. Brizendine attempts to avoid the implication of an anti-male bias by describing Leila’s bossy and demanding attitudes. Shana is used to demonstrate that aggressive, obsessive, and irresponsible behavior in female teenagers is driven by hormones and, as such, is unavoidable. Although the parents in both case studies feel their children’s behavior is a result of social factors—demonstrated directly through Cara and Charles expressing concern over spoiling Leila and through Lauren’s attempts to correct Shana’s behavior—Brizendine posits that the undesirable behavior is innate and caused by their biology instead.

Another troublesome aspect of the text’s pseudo-scientific argumentation is its lack of direct in-text citations. While some of the citations include identifying information, such as the name of the researcher, many are vague, constrained to such language as “Observations made during a study at Harvard Medical School” or “Another study showed” (40)—references that would be difficult for readers to confirm for themselves. Even the citations that do include identifiable information, such as Michael Meany or Deborah Tannen’s research, are unclear. The reference section includes four entries for Meany and two for Tannen. Without clear and direct in-text citations, it is difficult for readers to compare Brizendine’s interpretation of the source material to the original source.

Brizendine’s claims imply biases and limited perspectives that are carried through the text. The discussion is constrained to the supposed perspectives of cisgender heterosexual female humans—aside from a relatively short discussion of women with CAH. A cisgender bias appears in many statements, like “Let’s say the sperm that led the charge carries an X and not a Y chromosome. Voilà, the fertilized egg is a girl” (36). Such statements eliminate transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals from the discussion. The text is also limited to a middle- to upper-class perspective. Each of the patients discussed has access to high-end specialized psychiatric care, which implies they are relatively wealthy. The author’s wealth and cultural bias is also shown in her attempt to relate to her audience—“If you’re feeling a little down and have a nice glass of wine or a lovely piece of chocolate, your attitude can shift” (34). Not only is this statement likely less relatable for some religious and ethnic communities, but it also neglects those who may be experiencing mental health issues by suggesting a low mood can be remedied with alcohol or candy. The author does not directly address the biases within her work, instead presenting her information as universally applicable, which is one of the primary reasons The Female Brain is considered controversial and damaging.