This book gives great arguments that dispute biologically based sex differences. Fausto-Sterling examines contemporary theories of gender differences and carefully picks apart falsities that plague many of these theories. As in some of the essays that I read from Sex and Scientific Inquiry, biological factors have often been used to "prove" that women are less capable of doing science, they are the "weaker" sex, or they are biologically less likely to be geniuses. The fact is, none of this claims that have been made have any proof. Yet popular magazines still places these type of research articles in the popular press. Newsweek and Time magazine feature articles on how men and women are just fundamentally different, how little boys learn differently from little girls, or how their are innate differences in brain structure. Anne Fausto-Sterling looks at the research used in these types of articles - gene and brain research, evolutionary theories, or hormonal differences between men and women and she concludes that none of the research done looks at all the factors. Many factors are simply overlooked or discarded so that the researchers or reporters can get the results that they want to see.
    What I find really interesting is how these articles affect the lives of so many people. I remember reading such articles as recently as a few years ago and thinking the things they said were true. I thought that maybe it was true that women were fundamentally different from men and that we learned in different ways, and that maybe in many cases women weren't as good in the math and sciences of men. Sure, maybe there were exceptions (myself being one of them) but if we are making generalizations... But now I see those articles and I scoff; I wonder how these things continue to perpetuate. I worry for the children that see these articles - at one point in the book, Fausto-Sterling tells a story of how her friend telephones because his daughter is distraught about an article she read that said girls weren't as good at math as boys. Her dream was to be a math teacher like her father, instead she read this article and worried that she would never be able to do such a thing. Those type of stories are what scares me, for as more and more people read and believe what they see in these type of articles, the more the articles can become true - for it is essentially a self-fulfilling prophesy - especially if people are not informed that the results they are reading are controversial. Without knowing that social or environmental factors can also play a large role in determining or setting gender stereotypes, many people will be able to make what these articles say true. They will tell their little girls not to worry if they don't do well in math instead of encouraging them to try harder. When their girls do perform well they may say, well they were lucky; they were beating the odds; they are different from other girls... all very dangerous things. Many young girls (especially middle school ages) do not want to be different, they want to fit in and be liked by their peers. If they continually receive enforcement of these ideas (girls aren't good at math) then they become likely to believe them, hence fulfilling the theories.
    What I don't understand is how environmental and social factors like these are continually ignored - I've only taken one or two psychology courses and one sociology course, yet even I know about the nature versus nurture debate and how it is important to look at all the factors that could possibly contribute to the aspect that you are studying. Yet in her book, Anne Fausto-Sterling presents numerous examples of scientists and psychologists who have done just that. In my mind, it is incredibly ridiculous.
    I really liked this book though. Anne Fausto-Sterling did a good job of presenting all the theories. She also did a good job of explaining the biology behind the theories, so that even someone who had never taken a biology course could have read this book and understood the biology behind the theories, and why the terminology and conclusions they make aren't necessarily accurate. One of the sections that I particularly found well written was at the end of chapter 2, when she discusses why girls drop out of math classes. Another was the hormonal arguments in chapter 4, where she talks about the work of Money, Ehrhardt and their coworkers. Also good was chapter 7 and her discussion of athletes and her conclusion of the chapter "A Program for the Future." And the last part that I earmarked as a point that I particularly liked was her mini discussion of visual-spatial skills and throwing a baseball - how she could watch her male neighbors constantly working with their young son, instructing him in the "right" way to throw a baseball and how "years from now it will seem natural that he 'throws like a boy.'" How many studies have we seen that look at this play and how it could affect spatial ability in children? Fausto-Sterling presents interesting data and interesting questions for the reader to continue to think about: as they see various studies in popular press and as they interact in their normal daily lives.