Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:27:02.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Default is not in the female, but in the theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1998

Roslyn Holly Fitch
Affiliation:
Biobehavioral Sciences Graduate Degree Program, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4154 hfitch@psych.psy.uconn.edudberg@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Victor H. Denenberg
Affiliation:
Biobehavioral Sciences Graduate Degree Program, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4154 hfitch@psych.psy.uconn.edudberg@uconnvm.uconn.edu

Abstract

A number of commentators agree that the evidence reviewed in the target article supports a previously unrecognized role for ovarian hormones in feminization of the brain. Others question this view, suggesting that the traditional model of sexual differentiation already accounts for ovarian influence. This position is supported by various reinterpretations of the data presented (e.g., ovarian effects are secondary to the presence/absence of androgen, ovarian effects are smaller than testicular effects, ovarian effects are not organizational). We discuss these issues, and reiterate our position that evidence of neurobehavioral ovarian effects is incompatible with the currently accepted model of sexual differentiation. Other points regarding species generalizations, the direct versus indirect action of estrogen, and nonhormonal mechanisms of sexual differentiation are also discussed. Finally, we address the controversial issue of using ratio scores in the assessment of the human corpus callosum (where CC scores are divided by an index of brain size). Future applications to human research are also discussed.

Type
Authors' Response
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)