A new study out of Stanford University has revealed that the natural thought patterns that occur in male and female brains are highly distinct from one another. The research further confirms a growing body of scientific evidence proving that cognitive differences between males and females are hardwired from birth, undercutting the highly influential modern theory popular in academia that gender differences are merely a “social construct” caused by “heteronormative” cultural habits.
The study, published in February, analyzed the “fingerprints” of brain activity at rest of about 1,500 young adults between the ages of 20 and 35. It found that there was zero overlap between the thought patterns of a male brain at rest and those of a female brain at rest. The research further found that the “particular patterns of connectivity within male brains that accurately predicted cognitive functions such as intelligence” had “no predictive power for cognitive functions in women,” and vice versa.
As noted by physician and psychologist Dr. Leonard Sax in a recent article for the Institute for Family Studies, an influential and award-winning movement within academia that dismissed differences between the sexes began in earnest in the 1990s, led by academics like Berkeley professor Judith Butler, who claimed that “various acts of gender create the idea of gender.” Others such as Gina Rippon have recently argued that since the subjects of the Stanford study were all from the U.S. and Western Europe, the differences in thought patterns between the sexes can be explained by the cultural behaviors formed through a patriarchal, heteronormative binary.
But as Sax has observed, this argument ignores dozens of previous studies that point to clear differences in how male and female brains are structured. The studies show differences in male/female brain connectivity while still in the womb, “as well as dramatic male/female differences in gene expression in the brains of babies prior to birth. These studies of the brains of babies still in their mothers’ wombs, and other studies like them, refute the claims made by Judith Butler and her disciples.”
For clinical psychologist, licensed therapist, and researcher Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, the domination of the social construct theory within academia is not surprising.
“Acknowledging hardwired differences is not commonplace in the academic circles that I’ve been a part of,” she told The Washington Stand. “I think the idea of the sexes being a gender construct is more the prevailing thought. … There is like a kernel of truth to the idea of a construct, but it’s obviously been way blown up and exploited. I think when you look at the heart of some of these gender ideas, it was probably in response to some of the stereotypes and pigeonholing that we do of people. But it’s gone to the other extreme where so many people aren’t acknowledging true biological differences.”
“[T]hat’s where we’re at,” she lamented. “We’re seeing that with the Olympics. … [I]t’s kind of sad in some ways that we’re at this place of having to bring these basic, fundamental ideas through some sort of scientific scrutiny just to show what most of us know through simple observation. … We need these things to point to the fact that men and women, boys and girls, we develop differently, and that’s not a bad thing. That’s actually a good thing.”
Bauwens, who serves as director of the Center for Family Studies at Family Research Council, further reflected on the biblical aspect of sexual difference and what can be gleaned from it.
“From a spiritual perspective, you look at Genesis and God created them, male and female, and he created them to have dominion over what he created, not each other,” she observed. “So when you have the fall, then you have this twisting of what God’s original intent was. You have humanity separated from God, looking to take dominion over each other. So hence we have classism, we have racism, we have misogyny, we have hatred of the sexes — all of these things that came about because we have a misguided mission. … [Gender] differences should cause a flourishing in our society rather than a war between the sexes of one trying to take dominion over the other or trying to prove that we’re just as good as you are.”
Bauwens continued, “If we were connected to God and we had that heart that Jesus said, ‘The greatest among you is the servant of all,’ if we have a heart of service rather than trying to take dominion over each other, some of these things would go away. And I don’t think we would be working so hard to show that we’re the same. Because really, sameness is about power, and it’s about not wanting to be defined as weak or inferior in some way. I think in the past, a lot of these types of observations have been weaponized. Certainly, in the race literature, there has been a historical weaponization against different racial groups with these types of studies and also with gender differences. If people felt valued, if women felt valued, if men felt valued, I wonder if some of this argument would go away.”
Bauwens went on to argue that the formulation of the idea of gender as a social construct in the 1990s helped to lay the groundwork for the explosive rise in popularity of gender ideology and resulting gender confusion within society.
“I think it gave a good foundation for gender theorists to work from because it just breaks down reality,” she contended. “Instead of pointing to the fact that there are masculine women and feminine men, and allowing that to exist and not be marginalized or criticized, instead it became the idea of ‘There really is no biological reality. It’s all imposed.’ In the 90s, too, you also have some of the gender identity diagnosis introduced, so you have a lot of things working at the same time that were really setting the stage for more of the gender ideology to become popularized in science and certainly in culture.”
Bauwens also emphasized that gender stereotyping can be counterproductive in the quest to uphold sexual difference.
“We need to make space for people to not fit all the stereotypes that we have about the sexes,” she underscored. “I don’t think it’s good to automatically think because a boy maybe looks feminine, that they’re probably gay. Let’s check our hearts before we make these snap judgments. Because that actually feeds into the gender ideology, which doesn’t even just say ‘gay.’ It goes another step forward further and promotes the whole transgender thing that, ‘Maybe you’re actually a woman.’ At a very basic level, it’s honoring a person to allow an expression of their male or femaleness that maybe is outside the norm.”
“We should really look to lift up the other sex, because there’s so many ways that we objectify each other, even in the church,” she concluded. “Let’s ask ourselves, ‘How can I start thinking differently about the opposite sex? How can I lift them up in honor?’ Because there’s so much dishonor, whether male or female, both sides. There’s so much dishonor of the body, of our biological sex. And so, I think the Lord can give us very creative ways where we can be very different in how we talk about the sexes than how the world is speaking about them.”
Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.
