Scan barcode
jukebox's review against another edition
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
This book was a clever mix of scientific explanations and personal curiosity of the writer. I enjoyed the way it was written very much, especially how she laid the chapters out in a smooth way. I appreciate the use of storytelling throughout the book by giving examples for many cases and arguments.
I loved Carole’s sense of humor throughout the book and felt as if it was more of a conversation with her rather than just a book about science. I learned a lot from it and I can already see how the knowledge I’ve gotten from the book has helped me see things in a new perspective.
Overall, I recommend reading this book if you have a natural curiosity about gender, sports, or anything to do with humans and animals. It’s very informative and encourages you to keep an open conversation about differences between males and females and all that’s in between.
I loved Carole’s sense of humor throughout the book and felt as if it was more of a conversation with her rather than just a book about science. I learned a lot from it and I can already see how the knowledge I’ve gotten from the book has helped me see things in a new perspective.
Overall, I recommend reading this book if you have a natural curiosity about gender, sports, or anything to do with humans and animals. It’s very informative and encourages you to keep an open conversation about differences between males and females and all that’s in between.
meekoh's review against another edition
3.0
3.5★
I didn't think I liked this book that much, but, upon reflection, it really changed the way I think about the sexes.
When psychology progressed as a field of study, the general public became more capable of identifying defence mechanisms, gaslighting, manipulation, and attachment styles. If you will, what we call emotional intelligence.
This book advances that same concept, but instead of a purely mental perspective, it evaluates how the functioning of our endocrine system can also shape our psychology. There are physiological ways to quantify parts of our personality. To measure, why we are the way we are. It's not perfect. There are still many unknowns in the world of endocrinology. But that's what makes this field of study so fascinating. Because it's still evolving. We're still questioning, debating, and progressing through the scientific method.
Understanding the building blocks of human nature is crucial if we are to ever genuinely be able to empathize with others. This knowledge can prevent us from blaming each other for character traits we might be biologically predisposed to have. It's not about trapping people into a dichotomy of stereotypes. It's about acknowledging the diaspora of gender expression that is naturally occurring within the human race.
I didn't think I liked this book that much, but, upon reflection, it really changed the way I think about the sexes.
When psychology progressed as a field of study, the general public became more capable of identifying defence mechanisms, gaslighting, manipulation, and attachment styles. If you will, what we call emotional intelligence.
This book advances that same concept, but instead of a purely mental perspective, it evaluates how the functioning of our endocrine system can also shape our psychology. There are physiological ways to quantify parts of our personality. To measure, why we are the way we are. It's not perfect. There are still many unknowns in the world of endocrinology. But that's what makes this field of study so fascinating. Because it's still evolving. We're still questioning, debating, and progressing through the scientific method.
Understanding the building blocks of human nature is crucial if we are to ever genuinely be able to empathize with others. This knowledge can prevent us from blaming each other for character traits we might be biologically predisposed to have. It's not about trapping people into a dichotomy of stereotypes. It's about acknowledging the diaspora of gender expression that is naturally occurring within the human race.
skylerae's review against another edition
informative
3.0
This book was okay. It felt like it was just saying T might play a part but it isn’t just T. Which, to be fair, is a valid conclusion but I’m not sure that I needed 300 pages of it. There were some interesting tidbits about how some animals act and humans.
youngthespian42's review against another edition
4.0
This book is well researched written for a layman audience but packs a punch on the topic its focused on. Hooven is so delicate and polite with the scholars ("T- Sceptics") whose preposterous argument she calming and methodically unwinds with the data.
This book goes far beyond transgender and debate around gender our society is having in general but it bring some much need data and understanding of endocrinology into the discussion. She leaves the discussion at informative and makes a strong case for having the correct facts before we debate truths about human biology.
Hooven refusess the false dichotomy of nature vs. nurture making the scientific case it's both. She does not excuse bad male behavior but she does contextualize the male perspective hormonally, and strongly refutes the inherent evil of "masculinity."
If you are feeling lost in the new paradigm around gender but are confident with the facts to defend your instincts this is the book to elevate the discussion instead of making everything a defacto discussion of bigotry or transphobia.
This book goes far beyond transgender and debate around gender our society is having in general but it bring some much need data and understanding of endocrinology into the discussion. She leaves the discussion at informative and makes a strong case for having the correct facts before we debate truths about human biology.
Hooven refusess the false dichotomy of nature vs. nurture making the scientific case it's both. She does not excuse bad male behavior but she does contextualize the male perspective hormonally, and strongly refutes the inherent evil of "masculinity."
If you are feeling lost in the new paradigm around gender but are confident with the facts to defend your instincts this is the book to elevate the discussion instead of making everything a defacto discussion of bigotry or transphobia.
marieprem08's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Very informative but some repetitive parts
unladylike's review against another edition
2.0
Wow, this book was infuriating to read so much of the time, but at the same time, I'm glad I stuck with it despite wanting to figuratively throw it in the trash halfway through. Is that my testosterone talking? For context, I am a transgender woman with a currently testosterone-dominant system. I have taken T blockers and I have taken estradiol for lengths of time, but ultimately had too many negative health effects combined with the social problem that no matter how much I might medically transition, my body and gender put me in danger and most of the world will still perceive me as male or as some Subversion Other. I'll have to come back to my own personal experience more later, either in this review or in an independent essay, but lez get back to the book itself.
I listened to this book because I was looking for [b:Testosterone: An Unauthorized Biography|44326298|Testosterone An Unauthorized Biography|Rebecca M. Jordan-Young|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1570715358l/44326298._SY75_.jpg|68879597] but that title isn't currently available as an audiobook. Although that "Unauthorized Biography" was published less than three years ago, Carole Hooven's polemic tome comes fresh on its heels and sets itself out to disprove some of the main ideas of that book, naming and quoting it several times.
It's possible my initial distaste for this book was exacerbated by the author's tone of voice, especially in the first half: she sounds utterly condescending and resentful, and fails to address the Trans Question until late in the book. This is ironic because it starts and finishes with an anecdote about the difficulty she's had in critiquing a particular lecture based purely on its argument rather than her overwhelming impression that the lecturer is an "asshole." For me, Carole Hooven is an asshole no matter how much of her scientific data is valid.
Essentially, Hooven is an essentialist when it comes to gender. For her, a body registering more testosterone than estrogen is a man, and vice versa. Obviously I take issue with this, but it's a problem that might have been alleviated with a prominent disclaimer about language and definitions at the preface. I understand that it's clunky to replace every instance of "men" with either "cis men" or "bodies with testosterone-dominant systems" or "people I perceive to be male" depending on the intent. But seriously, even if I had read this book - published in 2021 - back in 2010, it would have seemed crudely dated.
Okay, I'm going to take a breath, attempt to regulate the spike of T I'm likely experiencing due to the ways this book agitates me, and instead copypasta the notes I wrote from it while listening:
I am feeling so on-guard, suspicious, and cautious while listening to this book. Is it going to be polemical? She’s rejecting recent scientific books that discredit biological gender essentialism, but I fear she’s creating a straw man, because I don’t know a single trans person who would claim that our hormones *only* affect our genital development.
She keeps including “pugnacious” as a quality of organisms with testosterone-dominant systems. I wondered what the precise definition is. “eager or quick to argue, quarrel, or fight.” Yyyyyuup! Would that character trait that I’m not so fond of diminish if I had continued with HRT?
“Androgens determine our gender identity.” She says “feminist” and “accused of sexism” with condescension and disgust.
Men dominate in all categories of violent crimes. However, within intimate partnerships, in heterosexual relationships in the West, the rate of physical violence inflicted by females and males is actually about equal. But the severity of that harm is significantly higher when committed by males.
While discussing rates of murder, physical partner abuse, and rape, one major thing that occurs to me that she hasn’t mentioned is that men would experience a different sense of internal and cultural shame and likely are much less likely to report or admit to friends or officials when they have been physically or sexually abused. No woman has been arrested or convicted of rape, she says. I don’t believe this is due simply to estrogen vs testosterone, but by the way our culture defines rape and only believes it happens from someone with a penis to someone with a vagina (or from a man to a younger boy).
Difference between proactive aggression and indirect aggression. (maybe around 55% in the book?)
When taking T samples from Brazilian and Italian male fans during the World Cup between those teams, what if they had also measured the T of the women who were also aggressively interested in the match? I hypothesize that spectator sports are one of the great arenas in which women are nearly as aggressive and excited as men (though there’s likely still a major gap).
“If you shot up a bunch of Buddhist monks with T, it would lead not to violence, but to random acts of kindness.” - T causes effects based on what the situation, individual, and environment call for to bring success, basically. It doesn’t turn the meek into warriors.
Scientists still don’t know *how* our brains and testes are able to generate such rapid amounts of T within minutes in response to different situations.
Males (those with T) have increase in dopamine even after ejaculation when presented with a *different* potential female sex partner (in both mice and men). M are more likely to desire more partners than F. But both are equally interested in forming a long-term partnership.
“Men from low socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to get praise for [having relatively a lot of sexual partners].”
1 in 200 men alive today have Ghengis Khan as an ancestor because he spawned probably hundreds, and his sons were similarly promiscuous!
She thinks for humans, evolutionarily it has been in our best interest for survival for a mother and father to stay home monogamously (though the male impregnating others throughout his life also fits with the strategy).
Says only non-human species that has ever been seen to include exclusively homosexual variants is sheep.
Says research across diverse cultures supports the stereotype as true that gay and lesbian people tend to work in fields dominated by the other sex and to self-describe as less masculine or feminine, respectively. (E.g. lesbian mechanics and gay flight attendants)
Long-term studies she cites suggest early life “cross-gender tendencies” can be used predictively towards adults who are homo or bisexual.
CAH girls - who are exposed to a higher level of T in the womb, are much more likely to grow up and be attracted to women (“not strictly heterosexual”) - 30% vs. gen pop ~4%
CAIS girls (immune to androgens)
Her continued use of “MTF” and “FTM” in particular makes me feel like this would have been dated if I had read it 12 years ago when I had first come out.
Says testosterone is an important part of the equation in the general occurrence of sexual assault.
In CA, “rape” requires a *penis* penetrating a vagina, not just a finger!!! (only “sexual assault”). This author follows that guidance in how she describes Brock Turner.
At the end, she compares being gay or trans to having malaria - i.e. just because something might be natural doesn’t mean it’s good.
Never discusses differences in traditional cultures with matriarchs in power and/or records of almost zero instances of rape, such as the Haudenosaunee or Cherokee.
I listened to this book because I was looking for [b:Testosterone: An Unauthorized Biography|44326298|Testosterone An Unauthorized Biography|Rebecca M. Jordan-Young|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1570715358l/44326298._SY75_.jpg|68879597] but that title isn't currently available as an audiobook. Although that "Unauthorized Biography" was published less than three years ago, Carole Hooven's polemic tome comes fresh on its heels and sets itself out to disprove some of the main ideas of that book, naming and quoting it several times.
It's possible my initial distaste for this book was exacerbated by the author's tone of voice, especially in the first half: she sounds utterly condescending and resentful, and fails to address the Trans Question until late in the book. This is ironic because it starts and finishes with an anecdote about the difficulty she's had in critiquing a particular lecture based purely on its argument rather than her overwhelming impression that the lecturer is an "asshole." For me, Carole Hooven is an asshole no matter how much of her scientific data is valid.
Essentially, Hooven is an essentialist when it comes to gender. For her, a body registering more testosterone than estrogen is a man, and vice versa. Obviously I take issue with this, but it's a problem that might have been alleviated with a prominent disclaimer about language and definitions at the preface. I understand that it's clunky to replace every instance of "men" with either "cis men" or "bodies with testosterone-dominant systems" or "people I perceive to be male" depending on the intent. But seriously, even if I had read this book - published in 2021 - back in 2010, it would have seemed crudely dated.
Okay, I'm going to take a breath, attempt to regulate the spike of T I'm likely experiencing due to the ways this book agitates me, and instead copypasta the notes I wrote from it while listening:
I am feeling so on-guard, suspicious, and cautious while listening to this book. Is it going to be polemical? She’s rejecting recent scientific books that discredit biological gender essentialism, but I fear she’s creating a straw man, because I don’t know a single trans person who would claim that our hormones *only* affect our genital development.
She keeps including “pugnacious” as a quality of organisms with testosterone-dominant systems. I wondered what the precise definition is. “eager or quick to argue, quarrel, or fight.” Yyyyyuup! Would that character trait that I’m not so fond of diminish if I had continued with HRT?
“Androgens determine our gender identity.” She says “feminist” and “accused of sexism” with condescension and disgust.
Men dominate in all categories of violent crimes. However, within intimate partnerships, in heterosexual relationships in the West, the rate of physical violence inflicted by females and males is actually about equal. But the severity of that harm is significantly higher when committed by males.
While discussing rates of murder, physical partner abuse, and rape, one major thing that occurs to me that she hasn’t mentioned is that men would experience a different sense of internal and cultural shame and likely are much less likely to report or admit to friends or officials when they have been physically or sexually abused. No woman has been arrested or convicted of rape, she says. I don’t believe this is due simply to estrogen vs testosterone, but by the way our culture defines rape and only believes it happens from someone with a penis to someone with a vagina (or from a man to a younger boy).
Difference between proactive aggression and indirect aggression. (maybe around 55% in the book?)
When taking T samples from Brazilian and Italian male fans during the World Cup between those teams, what if they had also measured the T of the women who were also aggressively interested in the match? I hypothesize that spectator sports are one of the great arenas in which women are nearly as aggressive and excited as men (though there’s likely still a major gap).
“If you shot up a bunch of Buddhist monks with T, it would lead not to violence, but to random acts of kindness.” - T causes effects based on what the situation, individual, and environment call for to bring success, basically. It doesn’t turn the meek into warriors.
Scientists still don’t know *how* our brains and testes are able to generate such rapid amounts of T within minutes in response to different situations.
Males (those with T) have increase in dopamine even after ejaculation when presented with a *different* potential female sex partner (in both mice and men). M are more likely to desire more partners than F. But both are equally interested in forming a long-term partnership.
“Men from low socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to get praise for [having relatively a lot of sexual partners].”
1 in 200 men alive today have Ghengis Khan as an ancestor because he spawned probably hundreds, and his sons were similarly promiscuous!
She thinks for humans, evolutionarily it has been in our best interest for survival for a mother and father to stay home monogamously (though the male impregnating others throughout his life also fits with the strategy).
Says only non-human species that has ever been seen to include exclusively homosexual variants is sheep.
Says research across diverse cultures supports the stereotype as true that gay and lesbian people tend to work in fields dominated by the other sex and to self-describe as less masculine or feminine, respectively. (E.g. lesbian mechanics and gay flight attendants)
Long-term studies she cites suggest early life “cross-gender tendencies” can be used predictively towards adults who are homo or bisexual.
CAH girls - who are exposed to a higher level of T in the womb, are much more likely to grow up and be attracted to women (“not strictly heterosexual”) - 30% vs. gen pop ~4%
CAIS girls (immune to androgens)
Her continued use of “MTF” and “FTM” in particular makes me feel like this would have been dated if I had read it 12 years ago when I had first come out.
Says testosterone is an important part of the equation in the general occurrence of sexual assault.
In CA, “rape” requires a *penis* penetrating a vagina, not just a finger!!! (only “sexual assault”). This author follows that guidance in how she describes Brock Turner.
At the end, she compares being gay or trans to having malaria - i.e. just because something might be natural doesn’t mean it’s good.
Never discusses differences in traditional cultures with matriarchs in power and/or records of almost zero instances of rape, such as the Haudenosaunee or Cherokee.