Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Viewpoints

Neuroscience and Sex/Gender: Looking Back and Forward

Melissa Hines
Journal of Neuroscience 2 January 2020, 40 (1) 37-43; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0750-19.2019
Melissa Hines
Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3RQ, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Melissa Hines
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Phoenix et al. (1959) reported that treating pregnant guinea pigs with testosterone had enduring effects on the sex-related behavior of their female offspring. Since then, similar enduring effects of early testosterone exposure have been found in other species, including humans, and for other behaviors that show average sex differences. In humans, the affected outcomes include gender identity, sexual orientation, and children's sex-typical play behavior. The evidence linking early testosterone exposure to sex-typed play is particularly robust, and sex-typed play is also influenced by many other factors, including socialization by parents and peers and self-socialization, based on cognitive understanding of gender. In addition to influencing behavior, testosterone and hormones produced from testosterone affect mammalian brain structure. Studies using human autopsy material have found some sex differences in the human brain similar to those seen in other species, and have reported that some brain sex differences correlate with sexual orientation or gender identity, although the causes of these brain/behavior relationships are unclear. Studies that have imaged the living human brain have found only a small number of sex differences, and these differences are generally small in magnitude. In addition, they have not been linked to robust psychological or behavioral sex differences. Future research might benefit from improved imaging technology, and attention to other brain characteristics. In addition, it might usefully explore how different types of factors, such as early testosterone exposure and parental socialization, work together in the developmental system that produces sex/gender differences in human brain and behavior.

Introduction

The Society for Neuroscience was founded in 1969, during a time of great change, not least in the roles of men and women in society. From the beginning, neuroscience was interested in these changes, and in the causes of variability in sex-related behavior more broadly.

Phoenix et al. (1959) reported that treating pregnant guinea pigs with testosterone masculinized the reproductive behavior of their female offspring. They called these early influences of testosterone on later behavior organizational effects, suggesting that, during early development, testosterone had influenced the organization of the brain. They also contrasted these enduring, organizational influences with what they called activational influences of hormones in adulthood: effects that waxed and waned as hormone concentrations rose and fell. They speculated that the organizational effects of testosterone on the brain were likely to be subtle “reflected in function rather than visible structure” (Phoenix et al., 1959, p 381).

Subsequently, however, researchers identified sex differences in rodent brain structure that also were influenced by testosterone during early development. For example, female rats were found to have more nonamygdaloid synapses on dendritic spines in the preoptic area (POA) than male rats, and treating female animals with testosterone during early development reduced spine numbers, whereas castrating male animals at birth increased them (Raisman and Field, 1973).

Soon thereafter, researchers found dramatic sex differences in the brains of canaries and zebra finches, species where males sing and females do not (Nottebohm and Arnold, 1976). Volumes of three brain nuclei known to be involved in song were larger in male than in female birds. A fourth region was more developed in male than in female canaries, and, although well developed in male zebra finches, was not recognizable in females.

Several reports of volumetric sex differences in the rodent brain followed. The first, and perhaps best known, is in the POA of the rat brain (Gorski et al., 1978, 1980). This region, called the sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN) of the POA (SDN-POA), is several times larger in male than female rats, and the sex difference is so dramatic that it can be seen with the naked eye in Nissl-stained sections. Testosterone was also found to influence development of the SDN-POA. Treating females with testosterone early in life increased SDN-POA volume, and removing testosterone from males reduced it (Jacobson et al., 1981; Dohler et al., 1984). Subsequent research identified similar sex differences and hormonal influences in the POA of other species, including gerbils, ferrets, guinea pigs, sheep, and rhesus macaques (Commins and Yahr, 1984; Hines et al., 1985; Tobet et al., 1986; Byne, 1998; Roselli et al., 2004), as well as in other brain regions, including the encapsulated and medial anterior regions of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BST), the posterodorsal region of the medial amygdala, and the anteroventral and parastrial regions of the POA (Murakami and Arai, 1989; del Abril et al., 1990; Hines et al., 1992; McCarthy et al., 1993; Sanchis-Segura et al., 2019). These sex differences also are influenced by early testosterone manipulations (Hines, 2004). In addition, among sheep, animals of particular interest because ∼8% of rams prefer male sexual partners, the volume of the SDN-POA has been found to be larger in rams who prefer female partners than in rams who prefer male partners (Roselli et al., 2004).

Reports of dramatic sex differences in brain structure were exciting, in part, because they promised to allow identification of the mechanisms underlying the enduring influences of early testosterone exposure on the brain. Subsequent research has returned on this promise. For example, testosterone and its metabolites have been found to influence cell survival and neurite outgrowth (Hines, 2004). More recent research has documented a varied array of molecular mechanisms involved in these structural changes that differ from one brain region to another (McCarthy et al., 2015). This variety and regional specificity have led to the conclusion that brains are unlikely to be uniformly male or female (Joel and McCarthy, 2016).

Research in rodents also suggests that experience can influence brain structure, and that these influences can interact with sex. For example, rats reared in complex environments, with cage mates and objects that are changed daily, show different patterns of neural sex differences than those reared in simple environments, with no cage mates and no objects. Female rats reared in complex environments, but not those raised in simple environments, have more myelinated axons in the posterior fifth of the corpus callosum than males (Juraska and Kopcik, 1988). Similar environmental manipulations have been found to influence patterns of sex differences in dendritic growth in hippocampus and visual cortex as well (Juraska, 1991, 1998). More recent studies have found that stress can change patterns of sex differences in spine density and density of cannabinoid receptors in the hippocampus of the rodent brain (Shors et al., 2001; Reich et al., 2009).

Although early conceptions of hormonal influences on sex differences in the rodent brain assumed that testosterone influenced brain structure only very early in life, we now know that brain structure can change later in life to a much greater extent than was thought in 1969. In addition to the changes in myelination, dendritic growth, spine density, and density of cannabinoid receptors, mentioned above, neurogenesis and gliogenesis continue into adulthood in some brain regions (Frisen, 2016) and pubertal hormones have been found to cause new cells, including neurons, to be born in the SDN-POA and other brain regions that show sex differences in rats (Ahmed et al., 2008). Puberty seems to be an additional critical period for gonadal steroids to influence sexual behavior in rodents (Schulz and Sisk, 2016).

Translating research from nonhuman mammals to humans

The influences of testosterone on brain structure and later behavior occur during critical periods of development. Consequently, testosterone must be present during a particular developmental window to have its effects, and the effects persist after the hormone is gone. In mammals, the critical periods correspond to times when testosterone is higher in male than female animals. These periods begin prenatally, when the SRY gene on the Y chromosome causes the gonads to differentiate as testes, and they begin to produce testosterone. In humans, the fetal testes become active at approximately week 7 of gestation, and testosterone is markedly higher in male than in female fetuses from approximately gestational weeks 8–16 or 24 (Smail et al., 1981). After birth, there is a second surge of testosterone that is larger in male than in female infants, particularly from approximately weeks 4–12 postnatal (Fig. 1) (Forest et al., 1973; Kuiri-Hanninen et al., 2011). These two periods are the presumed critical periods when testosterone might influence the development of sex differences in human brain and behavior.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Concentrations of serum testosterone in boys from conception to puberty.

The behaviors that are affected by early testosterone exposure in nonhuman mammals include reproductive behaviors, as well as other behaviors that differ on average for male and female animals. For example, male and female rats differ on average in juvenile sex-typed play, physical aggression, parenting behavior, and performance in spatial mazes, and all of these behaviors have been found to be influenced by early manipulations of testosterone (Hines, 2004). Similarly, the female offspring of rhesus macaques who were treated with testosterone during pregnancy show more male-typical patterns of juvenile play, as well as reproductive behaviors (Wallen, 2005).

Because early testosterone exposure influences characteristics that show sex differences, it was important to identify human behaviors that differ by sex. It also was important to determine the sizes of the differences because larger differences would be more likely to show effects of testosterone exposure than smaller differences. The metric typically used for size is Cohen's d, the difference between mean values for males and females divided by the SD (Cohen, 1988). Conventionally, d values of ∼0.2 are considered small, those of 0.5 medium, and those of 0.8 large. Decades of research, often using meta-analytic techniques that allow results of numerous studies to be combined to get reliable estimates of effect sizes, suggest that most sex differences in human behavior/psychology are small to negligible in size (Hyde, 2005). However, large sex differences in human behavior (d ≥ 0.8) have been documented for some characteristics. These include scores on some specific measures of empathy (higher in females), physical aggression, and social dominance, and for performance on a specific 3D mental rotation task (all three higher in males). The sizes of these sex differences, in SD units (d) (Cohen, 1988) are shown in Figure 2. This figure also shows the size of the sex difference in height (d = 2.0), providing a familiar comparator. Although these differences are large by Cohen's standards, they are only approximately half the size of the sex difference in height.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Effect size (d) values for human behaviors/psychological traits that show large sex differences. The effect size for the sex difference in height (d = 2.0) is included as a familiar comparator.

Figure 2 also shows the effect sizes for other behaviors that show sex differences as large, or larger, than that in height. For example, a population study using a questionnaire measure of children's gender-related play found a sex difference of d = 2.8 (Hines et al., 2002; Golombok et al., 2008). Children's sex-typed toy preferences (e.g., for dolls vs vehicles) also show large sex differences (d ≥ 1.8). In addition, sexual orientation and gender identity show large sex differences, with males more interested in female sexual partners and more likely to identify as men or boys, compared with females. Both of these sex differences are very large (d > 6.0 and d > 10.0, respectively) (Hines, 2015).

All three of the human psychological/behavioral characteristics that show particularly large sex differences (childhood sex-typed play, sexual orientation, and gender identity) have been found to relate to early testosterone exposure. Sex-typed play has been studied more extensively than any other human behavior in this context, and at least 10 independent research groups have reported a link to prenatal testosterone exposure (Hines, 2015). For example, girls with classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a genetic disorder, experience elevated testosterone exposure prenatally, and they have consistently been found to show increased male-typical, and reduced female-typical, play. These findings have been reported in studies that observed toy choices in a play room and in studies that used questionnaires or interviews. They also have been found in studies using unaffected female relatives as controls and in studies using matched controls. In addition, the severity of the CAH disorder in terms of either phenotype or genotype predicts the degree of behavioral change. Studies of the children of women who were treated with hormones during pregnancy also suggest androgenic influences on sex-typed play. Similarly, XY individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have functioning testes but a cellular inability to respond to testosterone, and they show female-typical play patterns. Thus, although this evidence comes from studies of clinical populations, rather than experiments involving random assignment to testosterone or placebo treatment, the findings converge on the conclusion that prenatal testosterone concentrations influence children's sex-typed play behavior. Regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, findings similarly suggest increased male-typical outcomes in females with CAH and reduced male-typical outcomes in XY females with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Similar evidence regarding other characteristics that show sex differences, including performance on mental rotation tasks, has been largely inconsistent, perhaps because these measures show smaller sex differences.

Although it is well established that children's sex-typed play is influenced by early testosterone exposure, there also is extensive evidence that the social environment and children's cognitive understanding of gender play a role in the same outcomes (Hines, 2015). For instance, parents, peers, teachers, and strangers reward children for playing with sex-typical toys and engaging in sex-typical activities. In addition, after children learn that they are girls or boys, they value engaging in the activities that they identify as appropriate for their sex, and they self-socialize based on social information as to what is sex-appropriate behavior.

These findings raise the question of whether external socialization or self-socialization is altered for girls with CAH. When they are observed in a laboratory playroom, with access to a range of sex-typed and sex-neutral toys, parents of girls with CAH encourage them to engage with female-stereotyped toys, such as dolls, more than they do their unaffected daughters (Pasterski et al., 2005). Parents of girls with CAH also report, however, that they encourage them to engage in male-typical activities in their day-to-day life (Wong et al., 2012). This probably occurs because parents tend to encourage their children to engage in the activities the children enjoy, and girls with CAH like male-typical activities. Nevertheless, this encouragement may further masculinize the girls' behavior. Self-socialization also has been found to be altered in girls with CAH. They are less likely than other girls to model the behavior of other females, and they are less likely to engage with toys that they have been taught are “for girls” (Hines et al., 2016). These findings suggest that prenatal androgen exposure may influence children's toy preferences not only by influencing brain development prenatally, but also by changes in postnatal socialization, including parental socialization, and children's self-socialization, of sex-typed behavior.

Developmental systems perspective

Developmental scientists view outcomes, such as gender-related behavior, as the product of a developmental system that involves numerous factors interacting over time to produce stability or change. In the case of gender, the influences of interest include sex chromosome genes, early testosterone exposure, socialization by external forces (such as parents and broader society), and self-socialization based on cognitive understanding of gender (Hines, 2015). Some current research aims to evaluate how different elements of the system related to sex/gender differences in brain and behavior interact. The studies of parental socialization and self-socialization in girls with CAH are examples of this approach. Individuals with CAH are not numerous, however, and it would be useful to assess individual variability in early testosterone exposure in typically developing individuals. For instance, some studies have related testosterone during the early postnatal surge, sometimes called mini-puberty, to later behavior. Mini-puberty is of particular interest because it provides an opportunity to take repeated measures directly from developing individuals, at a time of rapid brain development, as well as social influence.

One study found that testosterone measured in repeated urine samples obtained approximately monthly across the first 6 months postnatal (during mini-puberty) predicted later sex-typed play (Lamminmaki et al., 2012). Another study found that penile growth during the first 6 months postnatal, which correlates with testosterone during mini-puberty, predicted later sex-typed play in boys, even when prenatal testosterone exposure, as measured by anogenital distance at birth, was controlled (Pasterski et al., 2015). Testosterone during mini-puberty has also been found to relate negatively to sex-typed language development in boys and in girls (Kung et al., 2016), and positively to 3D mental rotation performance in boys (Constantinescu et al., 2018). In contrast, parental attitudes to gender, specifically disapproval of cross-gendered behavior, negatively predicted 3D mental rotation performance in girls (Constantinescu et al., 2018). If independently replicated, these findings could provide a foundation for studies of interactions between hormonal influences and socialization during early development as they operate within the developmental system that shapes human sex/gender development.

Sex/gender and the human brain

Sex differences in behavior necessitate sex differences in the brain. Perhaps the most obvious sex difference in the human brain involves its size. Men's brains are ∼11% larger, on average, than women's brains (Pakkenberg and Voigt, 1964; Luders et al., 2005; Ruigrok et al., 2014). As noted above, men are also taller than women, however, and a larger brain may be needed to run a larger body.

Based on the findings regarding the SDN-POA in rodents, researchers also looked for a similar sex difference in the human brain, using autopsy material. Several independent research groups reported that the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH-3) was larger in men than in women and appeared to be the human equivalent of the SDN-POA (Allen et al., 1989; LeVay, 1991; Byne et al., 2000, 2001). INAH-3 also is larger in heterosexual men than in men who are not heterosexual, a finding that also has been independently replicated (LeVay, 1991; Byne et al., 2001).

Similarly, the central region of the BST (BSTc) has been reported to show a sex difference and has been related to gender identity. An initial study reported that BSTc was smaller in control women and in a group of 6 trans women than in control men (Zhou et al., 1995). A subsequent study evaluated the BSTc across the lifespan, including during fetal development (Chung et al., 2002). Surprisingly, the sex difference did not appear until after puberty. In contrast, animal models of sex differences, such as the SDN-POA, find that the differences are present from early in life. In addition, most trans people report thinking from childhood that they were assigned to the wrong sex. The findings may suggest, therefore, that the sex- and gender identity-related differences in the human BSTc result from experience, rather than causing variability in gender identity. Alternatively, the sex difference may not have been evident in the brains of children because of small sample sizes.

The emergence and growing access to technologies that allow visualization of the living human brain shifted researchers' focus from subcortical structures, such as INAH-3 and BSTc, to structures that could be visualized using these technologies. These studies are less closely connected to the animal models of testosterone and brain organization than are studies of INAH-3 or the BST. The broad hypothesis that testosterone influences brain structures that differ by sex, however, contributed to a search for reliable sex differences in the living human brain. One difficulty in attempting to identify such sex differences relates to the sex difference in brain size. The studies that identified INAH-3 as the human equivalent of the rodent SDN-POA adjusted INAH-3 volume by calculating its size as a ratio to total brain volume. This ratio procedure mitigated the possibility that INAH-3 was larger in males only because it was scaled to the larger male than female brain. This ratio procedure worked in this case, where a brain region remained larger in males after adjusting for their larger overall brain size. It can be problematic, however, because it can cause brain regions to appear larger in female than male brains, simply because of adjusting for the larger male brain by calculating a ratio. Currently, researchers generally agree that it is appropriate to adjust for the sex difference in brain size, as well as to report unadjusted values. They have, however, found adjustment procedures, such as including total brain volume as a covariate, that do not create spurious differences (Sanchis-Segura et al., 2019).

In addition to the problem of brain size, early research on sex differences in the human brain was hampered by the use of small samples and a tendency to publish significant, but not nonsignificant, results. Recent years have seen larger and more systematic studies, however, involving hundreds or even thousands of participants and examining sex differences across the whole brain, using nondistorting procedures to adjust for brain size. These studies have generally reported that most brain regions are similar in size in males and females, and that, where differences are seen, they tend to be small.

For example, the largest of these studies to date (Ritchie et al., 2018) involved several thousand participants, 45–75 years of age. Like previous studies, it reported a large (d = 1.41) sex difference in total brain volume. After using nondistorting procedures to adjust for the larger male brain, sex differences in gray matter volume, area, and cortical thickness were observed in some of the 68 subregions examined. These differences sometimes favored females and sometimes favored males, and they were generally small, though significant in this large sample. Regarding white matter, the study reported that, for all 22 fiber tracts evaluated, men averaged higher values for fractional anisotropy (average d = 0.19), a measure that is thought to relate to white matter integrity, whereas females averaged higher values for orientation dispersion (average d = 0.30), a measure thought to relate to white matter complexity. The greater values for fractional anisotropy in men were reduced by adjustment for total brain volume, and this adjustment produced a significantly higher fractional anisotropy score for women in one white matter tract. In contrast, the brain volume adjustment produced few changes to the sizes of the orientation dispersion differences. They continued to be of moderate size in the 22 tracts.

The use of larger sample sizes, more complete reporting of results, and nondistorting procedures to adjust for brain size represents progress. Other issues could be addressed, too. One problem that has received relatively little attention is sampling bias, particularly related to the sex difference in volunteering: women are more likely than men to volunteer to participate in research (Rosnow and Rosenthal, 1976; Senn and Desmarais, 2001). Other factors, including education and socioeconomic status, also relate positively to volunteering for research (Rosnow and Rosenthal, 1976). Thus, somewhat different selection biases may lead men versus women to participate. For instance, male volunteers may be more educated or intelligent than female volunteers. Consistent with this possibility, Ritchie et al. (2018) found, to their surprise, that their male participants averaged higher scores than their female participants on a measure of verbal-numerical reasoning. Although this sex difference was small (d = 0.18), it is similar in size to the brain differences observed. It also suggests that the differences observed in this study, and perhaps others that did not measure or match for intelligence, could relate to intelligence differences instead of sex differences. One approach to this problem, particularly when looking at sex differences in the cerebral cortex, might be to match male and female participants for intelligence.

Studies of children are likely to be less affected by the associations between sex and volunteering. Because parents volunteer their children to participate, and because they have male and female children, they are probably equally likely to volunteer boys and girls. Several studies have examined sex differences in the brains of children younger than 2 years. An initial study of 74 infants found that the male brain is already larger than the female brain in the first few weeks postnatal (d = 0.75), a difference similar in size to the sex difference in birth weight (d = 0.71) (Gilmore et al., 2007). Another study of a larger sample of neonates also found a similar sex difference in intracranial volume and body weight, and a positive correlation between intracranial volume and body weight (Knickmeyer et al., 2017). A review of sex differences in the brain across childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood concluded that patterns of sex differences are not static but appear to differ at different ages, often in a nonlinear manner (Kaczkurkin et al., 2018).

Other research suggests that, in regard to brain characteristics that show sex differences, the adult human brain is not uniformly male-typical or female-typical. As suggested by research in rodents, where numerous tissue-specific molecular mechanisms are involved in masculinization of different brain regions, most people have brains that are a mixture of characteristics that are generally more typical of men and characteristics that are generally more typical of women. For example, a study of >1400 adult brains found that, for the brain regions that showed the largest sex differences, most brains did not show a consistent sex-typical pattern in all regions (Joel et al., 2015). Similarly, the same study found that brain connectivity was never consistently male-typical or female-typical in any of the brains. They concluded that brains are not simply male brains or female brains.

In addition to studying brain structure, researchers have used imaging technologies to explore sex differences in brain function. These functional studies add new dimensions that complicate interpretation of results, such as whether participants are resting or completing a task while their brains are imaged. In addition, it has been suggested that functional studies have not used sufficiently similar procedures to allow for replication of specific findings (Carp, 2012). Another challenge relates to interpretation of outcomes. For example, an early study found that male and female brains functioned differently when engaging in a language task (Shaywitz et al., 1995). Male and female performance on the language task was similar, however, suggesting that male and female brains may function differently to produce similar behavior. This finding coincides with a suggestion that sex differences in the brain exist to make male and female behavior more similar, rather than different, given the different hormone milieus of men and women (De Vries and Boyle, 1998). In other words, the brain sex differences may compensate for sex differences caused by gonadal steroids.

Why study sex/gender and the brain

Why do we care about sex differences in the brain? Many researchers in this area want to identify sex differences in the human brain, and their relations to sex differences in behavior, to increase understanding of why men and women differ behaviorally, and why many psychiatric diagnoses show unequal sex ratios. For example, autistic spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and conduct disorder are more commonly diagnosed in males, whereas eating disorders, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder are more commonly diagnosed in females (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Many neurological disorders (Hanamsagar and Bilbo, 2016; Sohrabji et al., 2016) and chronic pain disorders (Fillingim et al., 2009; Mogil, 2012) are also more common in one sex than the other. Perhaps knowledge of how male and female brains differ could provide insights that would help people with these disorders. Others want to know whether there are brain differences that relate to behavioral sex differences, such as those in 3D mental rotation performance. The ultimate aim is to use understanding of links between sex differences in behavior and sex differences in the brain to facilitate changes in behavior and reduce psychopathology, as well as other types of disorders, related to the brain. In this context, it is important to note that the sex differences that have been reported in the living human brain, with the exception of that in overall brain size, appear to be substantially smaller than the sex differences in some human behaviors, including those in gender identity, sexual orientation, or children's play. In addition, although the subcortical regions INAH-3 and BSTc have been linked to sexual orientation and gender identity, the causes of these links are not known. Also, no other sex differences in brain structure have been linked to human behaviors or psychological characteristics that show reliable and robust sex differences.

Some researchers, and members of society more broadly, may also think that the existence of sex differences in the human brain suggests that sex differences in behavior are inborn, and therefore resistant to change. This perspective reflects a misunderstanding, however. Although we now know that there are sex differences in human brain structure, we do not know what causes them. The existence of sex differences in behavior necessitates sex differences in the brain, and the factors that influence sex differences in behavioral development are likely to also influence sex differences in the brain. So, genes on the sex chromosomes; hormones prenatally, during mini-puberty or at adolescent puberty; socialization by parents, peers, and others; and self-socialization, based on cognitive understanding of gender, are all likely to contribute to sex differences both in behavior and the brain.

Where do we go from here?

Research on sex and the brain has come a long way since 1969. The 1959 report of permanent influences of early androgen exposure on later behavior, as well as reports of dramatic sex differences in the avian and rodent brain, corresponded to a historical time when the social roles of men and women differed dramatically. The narratives of that time often referenced inborn systems and hard wiring of the brain. More recent research has demonstrated greater neural plasticity than was imagined 50 years ago, and interactions between hormones and environmental factors in shaping the human brain and behavior. In addition, developmental scientists have moved on from discussions of nature versus nurture to developmental systems formulations that conceptualize sex/gender development as involving many types of influences interacting over time.

Future research is likely to be aided by improved methods of visualizing the living human brain. Research in nonhuman mammals reported sex differences in cell groups, often of only a few hundred cells, that cannot be visualized in the living brain using current technologies. The small magnitudes of sex differences reported to date in the living human brain may partly reflect an inability to look more closely, particularly at small subcortical cell groups. In addition, thus far, human research has looked largely at relatively gross characteristics, such as regional volumes and fiber tracts. Animal research, however, has found that many more subtle characteristics, such as neurochemical phenotypes, dendritic branching, and synaptic densities, to name just a few, show sex differences (McCarthy et al., 2015). Analyzing these types of characteristics may increase the explanatory power of human research. In addition, researchers developing animal models and those studying humans have not always communicated as well as they might have. It would be interesting to know, for instance, which of the small sex differences that have been seen consistently in the living human brain are also seen consistently in other species, and whether these differences in other species are influenced by early androgen exposure. Similarly, researchers examining early hormone effects on human brain and behavior might benefit from closer attention to the specific hypotheses suggested by the large body of relevant research in other species.

Recent work has benefitted from attention to issues of reliability, sample size, and statistical procedures. Additional attention is needed to sampling biases as well. More information on sex differences over the life span, beginning at birth, would also be useful. Early life is a time when interventions may have maximal impact. Future research might also explore how different types of factors, such as early testosterone exposure and parental socialization, work together in the developmental system that produces sex/gender differences in brain and behavior. Measures of testosterone and parental behaviors during the first few months of infancy (mini-puberty) might be useful in pursuing this goal.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Research Grant R01HD-081720. I thank Debra Spencer for help with creating figures for the manuscript.

  • The author declares no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Melissa Hines at mh504{at}cam.ac.uk

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ahmed EI,
    2. Zehr JL,
    3. Schulz KM,
    4. Lorenz BH,
    5. DonCarlos LL,
    6. Sisk CL
    (2008) Pubertal hormones modulate the addition of new cells to sexually dimorphic brain regions. Nat Neurosci 11:995–997. doi:10.1038/nn.2178 pmid:19160494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Allen LS,
    2. Hines M,
    3. Shryne JE,
    4. Gorski RA
    (1989) Two sexually dimorphic cell groups in the human brain. J Neurosci 9:497–506. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.09-02-00497.1989 pmid:2918374
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th edition). Arlington, VA: APA.
  4. ↵
    1. Byne W
    (1998) The medial preoptic and anterior hypothalamic regions of the rhesus monkey: cytoarchitectonic comparison with the human and evidence for sexual dimorphism. Brain Res 793:346–350. doi:10.1016/S0006-8993(98)00275-3 pmid:9630719
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Byne W,
    2. Lasco MS,
    3. Kemether E,
    4. Shinwari A,
    5. Edgar MA,
    6. Morgello S,
    7. Tobet SA
    (2000) The interstitial nuclei of the human anterior hypothalamus: an investigation of sexual variation in volume and cell size, number and density. Brain Res 856:254–258. doi:10.1016/S0006-8993(99)02458-0 pmid:10677635
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Byne W,
    2. Tobet SA,
    3. Mattiace LA,
    4. Lasco MS,
    5. Kemether E,
    6. Edgar MA,
    7. Jones LB
    (2001) The interstitial nuclei of the human anterior hypothalamus: an investigation of variation with sex, sexual orientation, and HIV status. Horm Behav 40:86–92. doi:10.1006/hbeh.2001.1680 pmid:11534967
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Carp J
    (2012) The secret lives of experiments: methods reporting in the fMRI literature. Neuroimage 63:289–300. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.004 pmid:22796459
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Chung WC,
    2. De Vries GJ,
    3. Swaab D
    (2002) Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood. J Neurosci 22:1027–1033. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-03-01027.2002 pmid:11826131
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Cohen J
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, second edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  10. ↵
    1. Commins D,
    2. Yahr P
    (1984) Adult testosterone levels influence the morphology of a sexually dimorphic area in the Mongolian gerbil brain. J Comp Neurol 224:132–140. doi:10.1002/cne.902240112 pmid:6715577
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Constantinescu M,
    2. Moore DS,
    3. Johnson SP,
    4. Hines M
    (2018) Early contributions to infants' mental rotation abilities. Dev Sci 21:e12613. doi:10.1111/desc.12613 pmid:29143410
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. del Abril A,
    2. Segovia S,
    3. Guillamon A
    (1990) Sexual dimorphism in the parastrial nucleus of the rat preoptic area. Dev Brain Res 52:11–15. doi:10.1016/0165-3806(90)90216-L pmid:2331778
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. De Vries GJ,
    2. Boyle AP
    (1998) Double duty for sex differences in brain. Behav Brain Res 92:213. doi:10.1016/s0166-4328(97)00192-7 pmid:9638962
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Dohler KD,
    2. Coquelin A,
    3. Davis F,
    4. Hines M,
    5. Shryne JE,
    6. Gorski RA
    (1984) Pre- and postnatal influence of testosterone propionate and diethylstilbestrol on differentiation of the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area in male and female rats. Brain Res 302:291–295. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(84)90242-7 pmid:6733514
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Fillingim RB,
    2. King CD,
    3. Riberio-Dasilva MC,
    4. Rahim-Williams B,
    5. Riley JL
    (2009) Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. Journal Pain 10:447–485. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.001 pmid:19411059
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Forest MG,
    2. Cathiard AM,
    3. Bertrand JA
    (1973) Evidence of testicular activity in early infancy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 41:751–760. doi:10.1210/jcem-37-1-148 pmid:4715291
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Frisen J
    (2016) Neurogenesis and gliogenesis in nervous system plasticity and repair. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 32:127–141. doi:10.1146/annurev-cellbio-111315-124953 pmid:27298094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Gilmore JH,
    2. Lin W,
    3. Prastawa, MW,
    4. Looney CB,
    5. Vetsa SK,
    6. Knickmeyer RC,
    7. Evans DD,
    8. Smith J,
    9. Hamer RM,
    10. Lieberman JA
    (2007) Regional gray matter growth, sexual dimorphism, and cerebral asymmetry in the neonatal brain. J Neurosci 27:1255–1260. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3339-06.2007 pmid:17287499
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Golombok S,
    2. Rust J,
    3. Zervoulis K,
    4. Croudace T,
    5. Golding J,
    6. Hines M
    (2008) Developmental trajectories of sex-typed behavior in boys and girls: a longitudinal general population study of children aged 2.5–8 years. Child Dev 79:1583–1593. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01207.x pmid:18826544
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Gorski RA,
    2. Gordon JH,
    3. Shryne JE,
    4. Southam AM
    (1978) Evidence for a morphological sex difference within the medial preoptic area of the rat brain. Brain Res 148:333–346. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(78)90723-0 pmid:656937
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Gorski RA,
    2. Harlan RE,
    3. Jacobson CD,
    4. Shryne JE,
    5. Southam AM
    (1980) Evidence for the existence of a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the preoptic area of the rat. J Comp Neurol 193:529–539. doi:10.1002/cne.901930214 pmid:7440781
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Hanamsagar R,
    2. Bilbo SD
    (2016) Sex differences in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders: focus on microglial function and neuroinflammation during development. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 160:127–133. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2015.09.039 pmid:26435451
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Hines M
    (2004) Brain gender. New York: Oxford UP.
  24. ↵
    1. Hines M
    (2015) Gendered development. In: Handbook of child development and developmental science, seventh edition (Lerner RM, Lamb ME, eds), pp 842–887. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  25. ↵
    1. Hines M,
    2. Davis FC,
    3. Coquelin A,
    4. Goy RW,
    5. Gorski RA
    (1985) Sexually dimorphic regions in the medial preoptic area and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis of the guinea pig brain: a description and an investigation of their relationship to gonadal steroids in adulthood. J Neurosci 5:40–47. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.05-01-00040.1985 pmid:3965644
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Hines M,
    2. Allen LS,
    3. Gorski RA
    (1992) Sex differences in subregions of the medial nucleus of the amygdala and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis of the rat. Brain Res 579:321–326. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(92)90068-K pmid:1352729
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Hines M,
    2. Johnston K,
    3. Golombok S,
    4. Rust J,
    5. Stevens M,
    6. Golding J
    (2002) Prenatal stress and gender role behavior in girls and boys: a longitudinal, population study. Horm Behav 42:126–134. doi:10.1006/hbeh.2002.1814 pmid:12367566
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Hines M,
    2. Pasterski V,
    3. Spencer D,
    4. Neufeld S,
    5. Patalay P,
    6. Hindmarsh PC,
    7. Acerini CL
    (2016) Prenatal androgen exposure alters girls' responses to information indicating gender-appropriate behaviour. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 371:20150125. doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0125 pmid:26833843
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Hyde JS
    (2005) The gender similarities hypothesis. Am Psychol 60:581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581 pmid:16173891
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Jacobson CD,
    2. Csernus VJ,
    3. Shryne JE,
    4. Gorski RA
    (1981) The influence of gonadectomy, androgen exposure, or a gonadal graft in the neonatal rat on the volume of the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area. J Neurosci 1:1142–1147. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.01-10-01142.1981 pmid:7288477
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Joel D,
    2. McCarthy MM
    (2016) Incorporating sex as a biological variable in neuropsychiatric research: where are we now and where should we be? Neuropsychopharmacology 42:379. doi:10.1038/npp.2016.79 pmid:27240659
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Joel D,
    2. Berman Z,
    3. Tavor I,
    4. Wexler N,
    5. Gaber O,
    6. Stein Y,
    7. Margulies DS
    (2015) Sex beyond the genitalia: the human brain mosaic. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:15468–15473. doi:10.1073/pnas.1509654112 pmid:26621705
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Juraska JM
    (1991) Sex differences in “cognitive” regions of the rat brain: environmental influences. Psychoneuroendocrinology 16:105–119. doi:10.1016/0306-4530(91)90073-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Juraska JM
    (1998) Neural plasticity and the development of sex differences. Annu Rev Sex Res 9:20–38. pmid:10349024
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Juraska JM,
    2. Kopcik JR
    (1988) Sex and environmental influences on the size and ultrastructure of the rat corpus callosum. Brain Res 450:1–8. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(88)91538-7 pmid:3401704
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Kaczkurkin AN,
    2. Raznahan A,
    3. Satterthwaite TD
    (2018) Sex differences in the developing brain: insights from multimodal neuroimaging. Neuropsychopharmacology 44:71–85. doi:10.1038/s41386-018-0111-z pmid:29930385
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Knickmeyer RC,
    2. Xia K,
    3. Lu Z,
    4. Ahn M,
    5. Jha SC,
    6. Zou F,
    7. Gilmore JH
    (2017) Impact of demographic and obstetric factors on infant brain volumes: a population neuroscience study. Cereb Cortex 27:5616–5625. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw331 pmid:27797836
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Kuiri-Hanninen T,
    2. Seuri R,
    3. Tyrvainen E,
    4. Turpeinen U,
    5. Hamalainen E,
    6. Stenman UH,
    7. Sankilampi U
    (2011) Increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis in infancy results in increased androgen action in premature boys. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96:98–105. doi:10.1210/jc.2010-1359 pmid:20881260
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Kung KT,
    2. Browne WV,
    3. Constantinescu M,
    4. Noorderhaven RM,
    5. Hines M
    (2016) Early postnatal testosterone predicts gender-related differences in early expressive vocabulary. Psychoneuroendocrinology 68:111–116. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.03.001 pmid:26970201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Lamminmaki A,
    2. Hines M,
    3. Kuiri-Hanninen T,
    4. Kilpelainen L,
    5. Dunkel L,
    6. Sankilampi U
    (2012) Testosterone measured in infancy predicts subsequent sex-typed behavior in boys and in girls. Horm Behav 61:611–616. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.02.013 pmid:22373494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. LeVay S
    (1991) A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science 253:1034–1037. doi:10.1126/science.1887219 pmid:1887219
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Luders E,
    2. Narr K,
    3. Thompson P,
    4. Woods R,
    5. Rex D,
    6. Jancke L,
    7. Toga A
    (2005) Mapping cortical gray matter in the young adult brain: effects of gender. Neuroimage 26:493–501. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.010 pmid:15907306
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. McCarthy MM,
    2. Schlenker EH,
    3. Pfaff DW
    (1993) Enduring consequences of neonatal treatment with antisense oligodeoxynucleotides to estrogen receptor messenger ribonucleic acid on sexual differentiation of rat brain. Endocrinology 133:433–439. doi:10.1210/endo.133.2.8344188 pmid:8344188
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. McCarthy MM,
    2. Pickett LA,
    3. VanRyzin JW,
    4. Kight KE
    (2015) Surprising origins of sex differences in the brain. Horm Behav 76:3–10. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.04.013 pmid:25917865
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Mogil JS
    (2012) Sex differences in pain and pain inhibition: multiple explanations of a controversial phenomenon. Nat Rev Neurosci 13:859. doi:10.1038/nrn3360 pmid:23165262
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Murakami S,
    2. Arai Y
    (1989) Neuronal death in the developing sexually dimorphic periventricular nucleus of preoptic area in the female rat: effect of neonatal androgen treatment. Neurosci Lett 102:185–190. doi:10.1016/0304-3940(89)90076-1 pmid:2812498
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Nottebohm F,
    2. Arnold AP
    (1976) Sexual dimorphism in vocal control areas of the songbird brain. Science 194:211–213. doi:10.1126/science.959852 pmid:959852
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Pakkenberg H,
    2. Voigt J
    (1964) Brain weight of the Danes. Cells Tissues Organs 56:297–307. doi:10.1159/000142510
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. Pasterski V,
    2. Geffner ME,
    3. Brain C,
    4. Hindmarsh P,
    5. Brook C,
    6. Hines M
    (2005) Prenatal hormones and postnatal socialization by parents as determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Child Dev 76:264–278. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00843.x pmid:15693771
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Pasterski V,
    2. Acerini CL,
    3. Dunger DB,
    4. Ong KK,
    5. Hughes IA,
    6. Thankamony A
    (2015) Postnatal penile growth concurrent with mini-puberty predicts later gender-typed behavior: evidence for neurobehavioral effects of the postnatal androgen surge in typically developing boys. Horm Behav 69:98–105. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.01.002 pmid:25597916
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Phoenix CH,
    2. Goy RW,
    3. Gerall AA,
    4. Young WC
    (1959) Organizing action of prenatally administered testosterone propionate on the tissues mediating mating behavior in the female guinea pig. Endocrinology 65:163–196. doi:10.1210/endo-65-3-369 pmid:14432658
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Raisman G,
    2. Field PM
    (1973) Sexual dimorphism in the neurophil of the preoptic area of the rat and its dependence on neonatal androgen. Brain Res 54:1–29. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(73)90030-9 pmid:4122682
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Reich CG,
    2. Taylor ME,
    3. McCarthy MM
    (2009) Differential effects of chronic unpredictable stress on hippocampal CB1 receptors in male and female rats. Behav Brain Res 203:264–269. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2009.05.013 pmid:19460405
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Ritchie SJ,
    2. Cox SR,
    3. Shen X,
    4. Lombardo MV,
    5. Reus LM,
    6. Alloza C,
    7. Deary IJ
    (2018) Sex differences in the adult human brain: evidence from 5216 UK Biobank participants. Cereb Cortex 28:2959–2975. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy109 pmid:29771288
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Roselli CE,
    2. Larkin K,
    3. Resko JA,
    4. Stellflug JN,
    5. Stromshak F
    (2004) The volume of a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the ovine medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus varies with sexual partner preference. Endocrinology 145:478–483. doi:10.1210/en.2003-1098 pmid:14525915
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Rosnow RL,
    2. Rosenthal R
    (1976) The volunteer subject revisited. Austr J Psychol 28:97–108. doi:10.1080/00049537608255268
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. ↵
    1. Ruigrok AN,
    2. Gholamreza SK,
    3. Lai MC,
    4. Baron-Cohen S,
    5. Lombardo MV,
    6. Tait RJ,
    7. Suckling J
    (2014) A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 39:34–50. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.004 pmid:24374381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Sanchis-Segura C,
    2. Ibanez-Gual MV,
    3. Adrian-Ventura J,
    4. Aguirre N,
    5. Gomez-Cruz AJ,
    6. Avila C,
    7. Forn C
    (2019) Sex differences in gray matter volume: how many and how large are they really? Biol Sex Differ 10:32. doi:10.1186/s13293-019-0245-7 pmid:31262342
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Schulz KM,
    2. Sisk CL
    (2016) The organizing actions of adolescent gonadal steroid hormones on brain and behavioral development. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 70:148–158. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.036 pmid:27497718
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Senn CY,
    2. Desmarais S
    (2001) Are our recruitment practices for sex studies working across gender? The effect of topic and gender of recruiter on participation rates of university men and women. J Sex Res 38:111–117. doi:10.1080/00224490109552078
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. ↵
    1. Shaywitz BA,
    2. Shaywitz SE,
    3. Pugh KR,
    4. Constable RT,
    5. Skudlarski P,
    6. Fulbright RK,
    7. Gore JC
    (1995) Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature 373:607–609. doi:10.1038/373607a0 pmid:7854416
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Shors TJ,
    2. Chua C,
    3. Falduto J
    (2001) Sex differences and opposite effects of stress on dendritic spine density in the male versus female hippocampus. J Neurosci 21:6292–6297. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-16-06292.2001 pmid:11487652
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Smail PJ,
    2. Reyes FI,
    3. Winter JS,
    4. Faiman C
    (1981) The fetal hormone environment and its effect on the morphogenesis of the genital system. In: Pediatric andrology (Kogan SJ, Hafez ES, eds), pp 9–20. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
  64. ↵
    1. Sohrabji F,
    2. Welsh CJ,
    3. Reddy DS
    (2016) Sex differences in neurological diseases. In: Sex differences in the central nervous system (Shansky RM, ed), pp 297–323. London: Academic.
  65. ↵
    1. Tobet SA,
    2. Zahniser DJ,
    3. Baum MJ
    (1986) Sexual dimorphism in the preoptic/anterior hypothalamic area of ferrets: effects of adult exposure to sex steroids. Brain Res 364:249–257. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(86)90837-1 pmid:3947970
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Wallen K
    (2005) Hormonal influences on sexually differentiated behavior in nonhuman primates. Front Neuroendocrinol 26:7–26. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2005.02.001 pmid:15862182
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Wong WI,
    2. Pasterski VL,
    3. Hindmarsh PC,
    4. Geffner ME,
    5. Hines M
    (2012) Are there parental socialization effects on the sex-typed behavior of individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia? Arch Sex Behav 42:381–391. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9997-4 pmid:22810998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Zhou J,
    2. Hofman MA,
    3. Gooren LJ,
    4. Swaab DF
    (1995) A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. Nature 378:68–70. doi:10.1038/378068a0 pmid:7477289
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 40 (1)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 40, Issue 1
2 Jan 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Neuroscience and Sex/Gender: Looking Back and Forward
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Neuroscience and Sex/Gender: Looking Back and Forward
Melissa Hines
Journal of Neuroscience 2 January 2020, 40 (1) 37-43; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0750-19.2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Neuroscience and Sex/Gender: Looking Back and Forward
Melissa Hines
Journal of Neuroscience 2 January 2020, 40 (1) 37-43; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0750-19.2019
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Thinking as Analogy-Making: Toward a Neural Process Account of General Intelligence
  • Close Encounters with Art of Neuroscience 14th Edition
  • New Perspective of the Persistent Gender and Diversity Gap in Nobel Prizes
Show more Viewpoints

Subjects

  • 50th Anniversary
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.