It is a common complaint from men that they just can't understand women, and vice versa. There do seem to be generalised differences between the sexes in the way we think. Some argue this is due to the way we are raised, that is, by nurture. Others argue that there are inherent differences in brain structure. The latter are vigourously opposed by egalitarians who think we must all be the same to have the same value. On the contrary, I say that every human is physically unique, and that subtle or obvious differences may be acknowledged and valued without changing the fact that as humans we are all entitled to equal human rights.

While differences in mental capabilities may be observed between men and women, these differences are not universal. It may be that most men are more visually oriented than women. It may be that women are more verbally oriented than men. It would be a serious error in logic, however, to therefor presume that all men are more visually oriented than all women.

To draw a parallel, it is most usually the case that men are taller than women. There are, however, many women who are taller than many men, even men of the same genetic background. Likewise, many women may have more of a "Yang" (masculine) mental factor than many men, and many men may have more of a "Yin" (feminine) mental factor than many women.

The factors that make for even general mental differences, if they are genetic, are pre-disposing factors rather than determiners. That is, a person with a certain brain structure may be more likely to develop a certain talent, say, piano playing, than those of different brain structures, but this is subject to immense variation because of environment and other factors. The potential piano virtuoso may be completely distracted by video games, and never touch a keyboard. On the other hand, another child with little inherent musical talent, but infatuated with glitter, may be motivated to become the next Liberace.

It is also important to note that our brains do not generate themselves instantly. They develop over a period of more than nine months, with significant development happening after birth. If parts of the brain can be said to have a gender, because of whether the resulting behaviour it predisposes one to is labelled "feminine" or "masculine", it is not necessarily the case that every part is of the same gender. Due to genetic factors, or hormonal or other fluctuations of the mother, one part may develop as "feminine", and another as "masculine".

If there is such a thing as "brain sex" then, it is not just a matter of being "male" or "female". It is more a matter of being a particular combination of "masculine" and "feminine", say with parts A, B, D, G and L "masculine"(M), and parts C, E, F, and H to K "feminine" (F). We could thus code this particular individual's brain sex as MMFMFFMFFFFM, and they would probably, but not necessarily, be male. (They may be one of those individuals like the tall female, who have as much or more "masculine" factors than most males, but are nonetheless female.)

I am, of course, simplifying here. The number of "parts" of the brain that develop at different times would be more likely numbered in the thousands or more, depending on how one defines each part. There are at least as many possible variations of "brain sex" as there are humans. Given that our genetic structure and fingerprints are totally unique, I see no reason why our brain structures should not also be unique.

Even if we accept the notion of brain sex, the idea that there is some gender bias inherent in the brain, there are not simply two varieties of brain, but billions of different Yin/ Yang combinations. It is also true that the physical makeup of our brains is influenced by what we do with them. Connections and pathways in the brain are strengthened or weakened by our mental activity. The way the brain operates is also subject to other factors, such as hormonal fluctuations or response to external messages. For example, men who may otherwise prefer visual stimulation to be sexually aroused, when placed in an environment where there are a lot of male pheromones in the air, are then more likely to be sexually aroused by tactile feeling and smell. Men who are otherwise heterosexual may behave homosexually in this environment. Thus, "beats".

It may be useful for clothing manufacturers to take into account the general differences between the height of men and women. It is also necessary to make clothes for short men and tall women.

Likewise, it may be useful for educators to take into account general gender differences in mental aptitude, but it is also wise to take into account individual variations.

In dealing with humans, it is important to take into account that any particular individual may think in "masculine" or "feminine" ways, and that this may vary within the one individual according to particular tasks, and may even vary within the one individual according to internal or external factors.

Hi there visitor

ALL PAGES ON THIS ULTRASEX SITE ARE COPYRIGHT, BUT PERMISSION IS GIVEN FOR FREE REPRODUCTION (THAT IS, FREE= NOT FOR PROFIT) PROVIDED THE SUBSTANCE REMAINS INTACT AND THIS NOTICE IS INCLUDED IN ANY REPRODUCTION. THIS MATERIAL IS PUBLISHED BY THE TRANSNATIONAL SPANSEXUAL FOUNDATION ON THE ULTRASEX SITE

Linked Notes

And indeed, some unkind souls claim this was the case with the last Liberace. [return to text]

including diet, stress, chemicals triggered by emotions, and so on and so forth. [return to text]

I was trying to stick to the terms "masculine" and :feminine", but I prefer Yin and Yang, since they have less baggage in terms of Western value judgements, and of course allow that what one sees as "Yin" another may see as "Yang".[return to text]

Pheromones: air-borne chemical "messages", similar in function to hormones within the the body. [return to text]

For example, in a men's toilet with a significant amount of male urine and sweat affecting the chemistry of the air. University studies conducted by UTS for a thesis by I'Lea Marshall (UTS 1992) confirm this. [return to text]

University professors, who like to think that they are far removed from the animal influences of smell, are relucant to admit the susceptiblility of humans to pheromones. They admit these airborne chemical messengers influence animal sexual behaviour, and concede that human babies can recognise their mothers unique chemical signatures, and that women synchronise menstrual periods through smelled signals. Surely, they insist, we must agree that men are immune to such primitive influences. The hypocracy of claiming to be scientific observers of the truth while coming from such an objectively false position as "man" is separate from and superior to "nature" is laughable. [return to text]