Neurosexism and Neurofeminism: A Critical Review of Sex/Gender Differences in Neuroscience

Disclaimer: Here, “sex” refers to biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive anatomy, while “gender” refers to socially constructed roles, identities, and lived experiences. Importantly, both sex and gender exist along continua rather than as strict binaries, and both interact dynamically with brain development and function.

Neuroscience often reports differences between “male” and “female” brains. However, a critical question remains: how much of these reported differences reflect biological reality, and how much are shaped by the way research is designed, analysed, and interpreted?

Neurosexism occurs when neuroscientific findings are used to support or reinforce traditional sex/gender stereotypes. This can happen when small statistical differences are exaggerated, or when complex data are oversimplified into claims about inherently “male” versus “female” brains. Such interpretations often rely on assumptions that everyone fits neatly into one of two biological categories, overlooking meaningful variation within groups.

Neurofeminism, in contrast, challenges these interpretations by examining how biological findings interact with social context, culture, and lived experience. Rather than rejecting the existence of observed differences, neurofeminism asks a more critical question: why do these differences appear, and under what conditions? This shift moves the debate away from biological determinism toward a more holistic understanding of the brain.

However, this critical approach is not merely a theoretical stance, but also a mirror reflecting the technical flaws of existing research. Many common methodological practices in neuroscience contribute to biased conclusions. These include assuming that only two sexes exist, using small sample sizes, generating hypotheses after results are known, and over-interpreting statistically weak findings. Such practices can give a false sense of certainty and re-establish outdated gender narratives under the authority of science (Eliot, 2024; Friedrichs & Kellmeyer, 2022). 

For example, neuroimaging studies frequently include tens rather than hundreds of participants, despite examining thousands of brain voxels simultaneously, greatly increasing the risk of false-positive findings. Similarly, collapsing diverse participants into binary sex categories can obscure overlapping distributions and hide more meaningful sources of variation, such as age, hormone levels, stress exposure, or life experience.

Beyond reinforcing stereotypes, this can also misdirect research and clinical translation, leading scientists to pursue misleading mechanistic explanations or overlook more relevant sources of variability. In applied contexts, these distortions can have substantial consequences, including inappropriate experimental design, biased inclusion criteria, and even incorrect assumptions about treatment efficacy or optimal dosing across populations.

The strongest evidence challenging this “fixed brain” perception - created by methodological shortcomings - is the dynamic relationship between brain plasticity and hormones. Research on hormones and brain plasticity further complicates deterministic explanations. Studies by Lephart and colleagues (2005) demonstrate that exposure to oestrogen-like compounds, such as dietary phytoestrogens, can alter the volume of hypothalamic nuclei which are involved in hormonal regulation and behaviour. These findings show that brain structures are not fixed biological realities, but dynamic systems shaped by the interaction of hormones, environment, and experience. Importantly, such experimental results are often misinterpreted in popular and scientific narratives as evidence of “natural” sex differences, despite clearly demonstrating neuroplasticity.

Large-scale analyses further demonstrate that brain measures in males and females typically show substantial overlap, rather than forming two distinct clusters, undermining the notion of “male” and “female” brains.

Beyond hormones, everyday experiences such as education, occupational demands, caregiving roles, chronic stress, trauma, and social expectations are also capable of shaping neural circuits over time, providing additional pathways through which gendered experiences may become biologically embedded.

Despite biological data being so variable and complex, why is there still a strong perception of a “gendered brain” in society? Feminist scholarship exposes these issues at both conceptual and methodological levels, illuminating how neurosexism is produced and sustained within neuroscience research (Schmitz & Höppner, 2014; Friedrichs & Kellmeyer, 2022). At this point, neurofeminism is not merely a critical stance but also a proposal for alternative research practices that integrate biological, social, and cultural dimensions.

Neuroscientific findings hold a unique epistemic authority; they are often perceived as “convincing” in the public sphere. This phenomenon, known as the “seductive allure” of neuroscience, ensures that sex-based claims retain their persuasive power long after their scientific foundations have been questioned or empirically weakened (Schmitz & Höppner, 2014; Friedrichs & Kellmeyer, 2022). Consequently, these narratives continue to shape the social and cultural understanding of gender as a construct, transmitted across generations.

Together, these limitations highlight the need for a shift toward a more holistic framework. Rather than treating sex differences as fixed or purely innate, neurofeminism evaluates both biological and sociological evidence to address the central question: “Why do these differences exist?”

Recent research further emphasises that biological sex and social gender are deeply intertwined. Analyses relying on strict binary categories risk producing incomplete or misleading interpretations by obscuring within-group variability and contextual influences (Eliot, 2024).

So, is it possible to change this picture and move neuroscience to a more responsible place? Neurofeminism extends beyond critique, offering a constructive framework for more inclusive and responsible neuroscience. This includes recognising bias in research design, conceptualising sex and gender as multidimensional, and reflecting on the broader social consequences of neuroscientific claims. Initiatives such as the NeuroGenderings Network exemplify this approach by bringing together interdisciplinary researchers examining how gender, biology, and society interact. This is also relevant to preclinical research - read our blog on Sex-Inclusive Preclinical Research.

Importantly, neurofeminism does not deny biology. Instead, it aims to improve biological science by making it more precise, contextualised, and attentive to complexity, thereby strengthening rather than weakening neuroscientific inquiry.

What does this mean in practice? Day-to-day we should:

• Question claims about “male” and “female” brains, particularly when based on small samples or simplified categories.

• Look for research that considers environmental, cultural, and experiential factors alongside biology.

• Pay close attention to how neuroscience findings are communicated in the media - do the conclusions truly reflect the data?

• Encourage multidimensional approaches to sex and gender, and consider the societal impact of neuroscientific research.

By moving beyond biological determinism, neuroscience can become both more scientifically rigorous and more socially responsible.

References

• Lephart, E. D., Setchell, K. D. R., & Lund, T. D. (2005). Phytoestrogens: hormonal action and brain plasticity. Brain Research Bulletin, 65(3), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2004.11.022

• Friedrichs, K., & Kellmeyer, P. (2022). Neurofeminism: Feminist critiques of research on sex/gender differences in the neurosciences. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 56(11), 5987–6002. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.15834

• Schmitz, S., & Höppner, G. (2014). Neurofeminism and feminist neurosciences: a critical review of contemporary brain research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(JULY), Article 546. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00546

• Halberg, C. (2023). Neurosexism, Neurofeminism, and Neurocentrism: From Gendered Brains to Embodied Minds. NORA : Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 31(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2022.2155244

• Eliot, L. (2024). Remembering the null hypothesis when searching for brain sex differences. Biology of Sex Differences, 15(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-024-00585-4

---

This article was written by Buse Çam and edited by Rebecca Pope, with graphics produced by Lilly Green. If you enjoyed this article, be the first to be notified about new posts by signing up to become a WiNUK member (top right of this page)! Interested in writing for WiNUK yourself? Contact us through the blog page and the editors will be in touch.