Gênero e os Nossos Cérebros

[71] Como

Differences in Mental Rotation Ability”, Sex Roles 53:5-6 (2005), pp. 433-41. • 71. Shenouda e Danovitch, “Effects of Gender Stereotypes and Stereotype Threat”.

CAPÍTULO 10: Sexo e ciência

1. Site da Women in Science, http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/women-science; “Women in the STEM

workforce 2016”, site da WISE, https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/statistics/women-in-the-stem-

workforce-2016 (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 2. A. Tintori e R. Palomba, Turn On the Light on Science: A Research-Based Guide to Break Down Popular Stereotypes about Science and

Scientists (Londres, Ubiquity Press, 2017). • 3. “Useful statistics: women in STEM”, site da STEM

Women, 5 de março de 2018, https://www.stemwomen.co.uk/blog/2018/03/useful-statistics-women-

in-stem; “UK physics A-level entries 2010–2016”, site do Institute of Physics,

http://www.iop.org/policy/statistics/overview/page_67109.html • 4. “Primary Schools are Critical to Ensuring Success, by Creating Space for Quality Science Teaching”, in Tomorrow’s World: Inspiring Primary Scientists (CBI, 2015), http://www.cbi.org.uk/tomorrows-

world/Primary_schools_are_critical_t.html (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 5. “Our

definition of science”, site do Science Council, https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-

definition-of-science (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 6. “Science does not purvey absolute truth, science is a mechanism. It’s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature, it’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match”, Explore,

http://explore.brainpickings.org/post/49908311909/science-does-not-purvey-absolute-truth-scienceis

(acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 7. “Essays”, Science: Not Just for Scientists,

http://notjustforscientists.org/essays (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 8. R. L. Bergland, “Urania’s Inversion: Emily Dickinson, Herman Melville, and the Strange History of Women Scientists in Nineteenth-Century America”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34:1

(2008), pp. 75-99. • 9. J. Mason, “The Admission of the First Women to the Royal Society of London”, Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 46:2 (1992), pp.

279-300. • 10. L. Schiebinger, The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science

(Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1991). • 11. Ibid. • 12. R. Su, J. Rounds e P. I. Armstrong, “Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-analysis of Sex Differences in Interests”,

Psychological Bulletin 135:6 (2009), p. 859. • 13. J. Billington, S. Baron-Cohen e S. Wheelwright, “Cognitive Style Predicts Entry into Physical Sciences and Humanities: Questionnaire and Performance Tests of Empathy and Systemizing”, Learning and Individual Differences 17:3 (2007),

pp. 260-68. • 14. Ibid. • 15. Baron-Cohen, The Essential Difference. • 16. Ibid. • 17. S. J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer e E. Freeland, “Expectations of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions across

Academic Disciplines”, Science 347:6219 (2015), pp. 262-5. • 18. S. J. Leslie, “Cultures of Brilliance and Academic Gender Gaps”, artigo apresentado na conferência “Confidence and Competence: Fifth Annual Diversity Conference”, Royal Society, 16 de novembro de 2017; ver “Annual Diversity Conference 2017 — Confidence and Competence”, Royal Society/YouTube, 16 de

novembro de 2017, https://www.youtu.be/e0ZHpZ31O1M, at 25:50 (acessado em 8 de novembro de

2018). • 19. K. C. Elmore e M. Luna-Lucero, “Light Bulbs or Seeds? How Metaphors for Ideas Influence Judgments about Genius”, Social Psychological and Personality Science 8:2 (2017), pp.

200-208. • 20. Ibid. • 21. L. Bian, S. J. Leslie, M. C. Murphy e A. Cimpian, “Messages about Brilliance Undermine Women’s Interest in Educational and Professional Opportunities”, Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology 76 (2018), pp. 404-20. • 22. Quinn e Liben, “A Sex Difference in

Mental Rotation in Young Infants”. • 23. M. Hines, M. Constantinescu e D. Spencer, “Early Androgen Exposure and Human Gender Development”, Biology of Sex Differences 6:1 (2015), p. 3; J. Wai, D. Lubinski e C. P. Benbow, “Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning Over 50 Years of Cumulative Psychological Knowledge Solidifies Its Importance”, Journal of Educational Psychology

101:4 (2009), p. 817. • 24. S. C. Levine, A. Foley, S. Lourenco, S. Ehrlich e K. Ratliff, “Sex Differences in Spatial Cognition: Advancing the Conversation”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:

Cognitive Science 7:2(2016), pp. 127-55. • 25. L. Bian, S. J. Leslie e A. Cimpian, “Gender Stereotypes about Intellectual Ability Emerge Early and Influence Children’s Interests”, Science

355:6323 (2017), pp. 389-91. • 26. M. C. Steffens, P. Jelenec e P. Noack, “On the Leaky Math Pipeline: Comparing Implicit Math-Gender Stereotypes and Math Withdrawal in Female and Male

Children and Adolescents”, Journal of Educational Psychology 102:4 (2010), p. 947. • 27. Ibid. • 28. E. A. Gunderson, G. Ramirez, S. C. Levine e S. L. Beilock, “The Role of Parents and Teachers in the

Development of Gender-Related Math Attitudes”, Sex Roles 66:3–4 (2012), pp. 153-66. • 29.

Freeman, “Preschoolers’ Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toys”. • 30. V. Lavy e E. Sand, “On the Origins of Gender Human Capital Gaps: Short and Long Term Consequences of Teachers’ Stereotypical Biases”, Documento de Trabalho 20909, Bureau Nacional de Pesquisa Econômica

(2015). • 31. S. Cheryan, V. C. Plaut, P. G. Davies e C. M. Steele, “Ambient Belonging: How Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science”, Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 97:6 (2009), p. 1045. • 32. Ibid. • 33. G. Stoet e D. C. Geary, “The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education”, Psychological

Science 29:4 (2018), pp. 581-93. • 34. S. Ross, “Scientist: The Story of a Word”, Annals of Science

18:2 (1962), pp. 65-85. • 35. M. Mead e R. Metraux, “Image of the Scientist among High-School

Students”, Science 126:3270 (1957), pp. 384-90. • 36. Ibid. • 37. D. W. Chambers, “Stereotypic

Images of the Scientist: The Draw-a-Scientist Test”, Science Education 67:2 (1983), pp. 255-65. • 38. K. D. Finson, “Drawing a Scientist: What We Do and Do Not Know after Fifty Years of Drawings”,

School Science and Mathematics 102:7 (2002), pp. 335-45. • 39. Ibid. • 40. P. Bernard e K. Dudek, “Revisiting Students’ Perceptions of Research Scientists: Outcomes of an Indirect Draw-a-Scientist

Test (InDAST)”, Journal of Baltic Science Education 16:4 (2017). • 41. M. Knight e C. Cunningham, “Draw an Engineer Test (DAET): Development of a Tool to Investigate Students’ Ideas about Engineers and Engineering”, artigo apresentado na Conferência e Exposição Anual da Sociedade

Americana para Educação em Engenharia, Salt Lake City, junho de 2004, https://peer.asee.org/12831

(acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 42. C. Moseley, B. Desjean-Perrotta e J. Utley, “The Draw-an-Environment Test Rubric (DAET-R): Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Mental Models of the

Environment”, Environmental Education Research 16:2 (2010), pp. 189-208. • 43. C. D. Martin,

“Draw a Computer Scientist”, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 36:4 (2004), pp. 11-12. • 44. L. R. Ramsey, “Agentic Traits Are Associated with Success in Science More than Communal Traits”, Personality

and Individual Differences 106 (2017), pp. 6-9. • 45. L. L. Carli, L. Alawa, Y. Lee, B. Zhao e E. Kim, “Stereotypes about Gender and Science: Women ≠ Scientists”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40:2

(2016), pp. 244-60. • 46. A. H. Eagly, “Few Women at the Top: How Role Incongruity Produces Prejudice and the Glass Ceiling”, em D. van Knippenberg e M. A. Hogg (orgs.), Leadership and

Power: Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations (Londres, Sage, 2003), pp. 79–93. • 47. A. H. Eagly e S. J. Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders”, Psychological

Review 109:3 (2002), p. 573. • 48. Carli et al., “Stereotypes about Gender and Science”. • 49. C. Wenneras e A. Wold, “Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review”, em M. Wyer (org.), Women, Science, and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies (Nova York, Routledge, 2001), pp. 46-52. •

50. F. Trix e C. Psenka, “Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and

Male Medical Faculty”, Discourse and Society 14:2 (2003), pp. 191-220. • 51. S. Modgil, R. Gill, V. L. Sharma, S. Velassery e A. Anand, “Nobel Nominations in Science: Constraints of the Fairer Sex”,

Annals of Neurosciences 25:2 (2018), pp. 63-78. • 52. C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham e J. Handelsman, “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male

Students”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:41 (2012), pp. 16474-9. • 53. E. Reuben, P. Sapienza e L. Zingales, “How Stereotypes Impair Women’s Careers in Science”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:12 (2014), pp. 4403-8.

CAPÍTULO 11: A ciência e o cérebro

1. H. Ellis, Man and Woman: A Study of Human Secondary Sexual Characters (Londres, Walter

Scott; Nova York, Scribner’s, 1894). • 2. N. M. Else-Quest, J. S. Hyde e M. C. Linn, “Cross-national Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin 136:1

(2010), p. 103. • 3. “Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?”, Gowers’s Weblog, 9 de setembro

de 2018, https://gowers.wordpress.com/2018/09/09/has-an-uncomfortable-truth-been-suppressed

(acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 4. Ibid. • 5. L. H. Summers, “Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce”, Gabinete da Reitoria, Universidade Harvard,

14 de janeiro de 2005, https://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php

(acessado em 8 novembro de 2018). • 6. “The Science of Gender and Science: Pinker vs. Spelke: A

Debate”, Edge, https://www.edge.org/event/the-science-of-gender-and-science-pinker-vs-spelke-a-

debate (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 7. Y. Xie e K. Shaumann, Women in Science: Career

Processes and Outcomes (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2003). • 8. Ibid. • 9. D. F. Halpern, C. P. Benbow, D. C. Geary, R. C. Gur, J. S. Hyde e M. A. Gernsbacher, “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8:1 (2007),

pp. 1-51. • 10. J. Damore, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”, julho de 2017, disponível em

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html

(acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 11. D. P. Schmitt, A. Realo, M. Voracek e J. Allik, “Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits across 55

Cultures”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94:1 (2008), p. 168. • 12. M. Molteni e A. Rogers, “The actual science of James Damore’s Google memo”, Wired, 15 de agosto de 2017,

https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018); H. Devlin e A. Hern, “Why are there so few women in tech? The truth behind the Google memo”, Guardian, 8 de agosto de 2017,

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/08/why-are-there-so-few-women-in-tech-the-

truth-behind-the-google-memo (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018); S. Stevens, “The Google memo: what does the research say about gender differences?”, Heterodox Academy, 10 de agosto de

2017, https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-

differences (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 13. “The Google memo: four scientists

respond”, Quillette, 7 de agosto de 2017, http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-

scientists-respond (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 14. Ibid. • 15. Ibid. • 16. G. Rippon, “What neuroscience can tell us about the Google diversity memo”, Conversation, 14 de agosto de

2017, https://theconversation.com/what-neuroscience-can-tell-us-about-the-google-diversitymemo-

82455 (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 17. Devlin e Hern, “Why are there so few women in

tech?” • 18. R. C. Barnett e C. Rivers, “We’ve studied gender and STEM for 25 years. The science doesn’t support the Google memo”, Recode, 11 de agosto de 2017,

https://www.recode.net/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-research-science-women-

biology-tech-james-damore (acessado em 8 de novembro de 2018). • 19. M.-C. Lai, M. V. Lombardo, B. Chakrabarti, C. Ecker, S. A. Sadek, S. J. Wheelwright, D. G. Murphy, J. Suckling, E. T. Bullmore, S. Baron-Cohen e MRC AIMS Consortium, “Individual Differences in Brain Structure Underpin Empathizing–Systemizing Cognitive Styles in Male Adults”, NeuroImage 61:4 (2012), pp. 1347-54.

• 20. S. Baron-Cohen, “Empathizing, Systemizing, and the Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism”,

Progress in Brain Research 186 (2010), pp. 167-75. • 21. J. Wai, D. Lubinski e C. P. Benbow, “Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning Over 50 Years of Cumulative Psychological

Knowledge Solidifies Its Importance”, Journal of Educational Psychology 101:4 (2009), p. 817. • 22.

Ibid. • 23. M. Hines, B. A. Fane, V. L. Pasterski, G. A. Mathews, G. S. Conway e C. Brook, “Spatial Abilities Following Prenatal Androgen Abnormality: Targeting and Mental Rotations Performance in Individuals with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia”, Psychoneuroendocrinology 28:8 (2003), pp.

1010-26. • 24. I. Silverman, J. Choi e M. Peters, “The Hunter-Gatherer Theory of Sex Differences in

Spatial Abilities: Data from 40 Countries”, Archives of Sexual Behavior 36:2 (2007), pp. 261-8. • 25. S. G. Vandenberg e A. R. Kuse, “Mental Rotations, a Group Test of Three-Dimensional Spatial

Visualization”, Perceptual and Motor Skills 47:2 (1978), pp. 599-604. • 26. Quinn e Liben, “A Sex

Difference in Mental Rotation in Young Infants”. • 27. Hines et al., “Spatial Abilities Following

Prenatal Androgen Abnormality”. • 28. M. Constantinescu, D. S. Moore, S. P. Johnson e M. Hines, “Early Contributions to Infants’ Mental Rotation Abilities”, Developmental Science 21:4 (2018),

e12613. • 29. T. Koscik, D. O’Leary, D. J. Moser, N. C. Andreasen e P. Nopoulos, “Sex Differences in Parietal Lobe Morphology: Relationship to Mental Rotation Performance”, Brain and Cognition

69:3 (2009), pp. 451-9. • 30. Halpern, et al. “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling”. • 31.

Koscik et al., “Sex Differences in Parietal Lobe Morphology”. • 32. K. Kucian, M. Von Aster, T. Loenneker, T. Dietrich, F. W. Mast e E. Martin, “Brain Activation during Mental Rotation in School

Children and Adults”, Journal of Neural Transmission 114:5 (2007), pp. 675-86. • 33. K. Jordan, T. Wustenberg, H. J. Heinze, M. Peters e L. Jancke, “Women and Men Exhibit Different Cortical Activation Patterns during Mental Rotation Tasks”, Neuropsychologia 40:13 (2002), pp. 2397-408. •

34. N. S. Newcombe, “Picture This: Increasing Math and Science Learning by Improving Spatial

Thinking”, American Educator 34:2 (2010), p. 29. • 35. M. Wraga, M. Helt, E. Jacobs e K. Sullivan, “Neural Basis of Stereotype-Induced Shifts in Women’s Mental Rotation Performance”, Social

Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 2:1 (2007), pp. 12-19. • 36. I. D. Cherney, “Mom, Let Me Play More Computer Games: They Improve My Mental Rotation Skills”, Sex Roles 59:11-12 (2008), pp.

776-86. • 37. Ibid. • 38. J. Feng, I. Spence e J. Pratt, “Playing an Action Video Game Reduces Gender Differences in Spatial Cognition”, Psychological Science 18:10 (2007), pp. 850-55; M. S. Terlecki e N. S. Newcombe, “How Important Is the Digital Divide? The Relation of Computer and Videogame Usage to Gender Differences in Mental Rotation Ability”, Sex Roles 53:5-6 (2005), pp.

433-41. • 39. R. J. Haier, S. Karama, L. Leyba e R. E. Jung, “MRI Assessment of Cortical Thickness and Functional Activity Changes in Adolescent Girls Following Three Months of Practice on a

Visual-Spatial Task”, BMC Research Notes 2:1 (2009), p. 174. • 40. A. Moe e F. Pazzaglia, “Beyond Genetics in Mental Rotation Test Performance: The Power of Effort Attribution”, Learning and

Individual Differences 20:5 (2010), pp. 464-8. • 41. E. A. Maloney, S. Waechter, E. F. Risko e J. A. Fugelsang, “Reducing the Sex Difference in Math Anxiety: The Role of Spatial Processing Ability”,

Learning and Individual Differences 22:3 (2012), pp. 380-84. • 42. O. Blajenkova, M. Kozhevnikov e M. A. Motes, “Object-Spatial Imagery: A New Self-Report Imagery Questionnaire”, Applied

Cognitive Psychology 20:2 (2006), pp. 239-63. • 43. J. A. Mangels, C. Good, R. C. Whiteman, B. Maniscalco e C. S. Dweck, “Emotion Blocks the Path to Learning under Stereotype Threat”, Social

Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 7:2 (2011), pp. 230-41. • 44. A. C. Krendl, J. A. Richeson, W. M. Kelley e T. F. Heatherton, “The Negative Consequences of Threat: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of the Neural Mechanisms Underlying Women’s

Underperformance in Math”, Psychological Science 19:2 (2008), pp. 168-75. • 45. B. Carrillo, E. Gomez-Gil, G. Rametti, C. Junque, A. Gomez, K. Karadi, S. Segovia e A. Guillamon, “Cortical Activation during Mental Rotation in Male-to-Female and Female to-Male Transsexuals under

Hormonal Treatment”, Psychoneuroendocrinology 35:8 (2010), pp. 1213-22. • 46. S. A. Berenbaum e M. Hines, “Early Androgens Are Related to Childhood Sex-Typed Toy Preferences”, Psychological

Science 3:3 (1992), pp. 203-6. • 47. J. R. Shapiro e A. M. Williams, “The Role of Stereotype Threats in Undermining Girls’ and Women’s Performance and Interest in STEM Fields”, Sex Roles 66:3-4

(2012), pp. 175-83. • 48. M. Hines, V. Pasterski, D. Spencer, S. Neufeld, P. Patalay, P. C. Hindmarsh, I. A. Hughes e C. L. Acerini, “Prenatal Androgen Exposure Alters Girls’ Responses to Information Indicating Gender-Appropriate Behaviour”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:

Biological Sciences 371:1688 (2016), 20150125. • 49. “Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)”, site da Catalyst, 3 de janeiro de 2018,

https://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018).

CAPÍTULO 12: As meninas boazinhas não fazem

1. S. Peters, The Chimp Paradox: The Mind Management Program to Help You Achieve Success,

Confidence, and Happiness (Nova York, Tarcher/Penguin, 2013). • 2. B. P. Dore, N. Zerubavel e K. N. Ochsner, “Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Systems”, em M. Mikulincer e P. R. Shaver (editores responsáveis), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (Washington,

American Psychological Association, 2014), vol. l, pp. 693-720. • 3. J. M. Allman, A. Hakeem, J. M. Erwin, E. Nimchinsky e P. Hof, “The Anterior Cingulate Cortex: The Evolution of an Interface between Emotion and Cognition”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 935:1 (2001), pp.

107-17. • 4. J. M. Allman, N. A. Tetreault, A. Y. Hakeem, K. F. Manaye, K. Semendeferi, J. M. Erwin, S. Park, V. Goubert e P. R. Hof, “The Von Economo Neurons in Frontoinsular and Anterior Cingulate Cortex in Great Apes and Humans”, Brain Structure and Function 214:5-6 (2010), pp. 495-

517. • 5. J. D. Cohen, M. Botvinick e C. S. Carter, “Anterior Cingulate and Prefrontal Cortex: Who’s

in Control?”, Nature Neuroscience 3:5 (2000), p. 421. • 6. G. Bush, P. Luu e M. I. Posner, “Cognitive and Emotional Influences in Anterior Cingulate Cortex”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4:6 (2000),

pp. 215-22. • 7. Eisenberger et al., “The Neural Sociometer”. • 8. Eisenberger e Lieberman, “Why

Rejection Hurts”. • 9. N. I. Eisenberger, “Social Pain and the Brain: Controversies, Questions, and

Where to Go from Here”, Annual Review of Psychology 66 (2015), pp. 601-29. • 10. Lieberman,

Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. • 11. N. Kolling, M. K. Wittmann, T. E. Behrens, E. D. Boorman, R. B. Mars e M. F. Rushworth, “Value, Search, Persistence and Model Updating in

Anterior Cingulate Cortex”, Nature Neuroscience 19:10 (2016), p. 1280. • 12. T. Straube, S. Schmidt, T. Weiss, H. J. Mentzel e W. H. Miltner, “Dynamic Activation of the Anterior Cingulate Cortex during Anticipatory Anxiety”, NeuroImage 44:3 (2009), pp. 975-81; A. Etkin, K. E. Prater, F. Hoeft, V. Menon e A. F. Schatzberg, “Failure of Anterior Cingulate Activation and Connectivity with the Amygdala during Implicit Regulation of Emotional Processing in Generalized Anxiety Disorder”, American Journal of Psychiatry 167:5 (2010), pp. 545-54; A. Etkin, T. Egner e R. Kalisch, “Emotional Processing in Anterior Cingulate and Medial Prefrontal Cortex”, Trends in Cognitive

Sciences 15:2 (2011), pp. 85-93. • 13. M. R. Leary, “Responses to Social Exclusion: Social Anxiety, Jealousy, Loneliness, Depression, and Low Self-Esteem”, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 9:2 (1990), pp. 221-9; J. F. Sowislo e U. Orth, “Does Low Self-Esteem Predict Depression and Anxiety? A Meta-analysis of Longitudinal Studies”, Psychological Bulletin 139:1 (2013), p. 213; E. A. Courtney, J. Gamboz e J. G. Johnson, “Problematic Eating Behaviors in Adolescents with Low

Self-Esteem and Elevated Depressive Symptoms”, Eating Behaviors 9:4 (2008), pp. 408-14. • 14. W. Bleidorn, R. C. Arslan, J. J. Denissen, P. J. Rentfrow, J. E. Gebauer, J. Potter e S. D. Gosling, “Age and Gender Differences in Self-Esteem — A Cross-cultural Window”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111:3 (2016), p. 396; S. Guimond, A. Chatard, D. Martinot, R. J. Crisp e S. Redersdorff, “Social Comparison, Self-Stereotyping, and Gender Differences in Self-Construals”,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90:2 (2006), p. 221. • 15. “World Self Esteem Plot”,

https://selfesteem.shinyapps.io/maps (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 16. Schmitt et al.,

“Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman?” • 17. J. S. Hyde, “Gender Similarities and Differences”, Annual Review of Psychology 65 (2014), pp. 373-98; E. Zell, Z. Krizan e S. R. Teeter, “Evaluating Gender Similarities and Differences Using Metasynthesis”, American Psychologist 70:1

(2015), p. 10. • 18. Eisenberger e Lieberman, “Why Rejection Hurts”. • 19. A. J. Shackman, T. V. Salomons, H. A. Slagter, A. S. Fox, J. J. Winter e R. J. Davidson, “The Integration of Negative Affect, Pain and Cognitive Control in the Cingulate Cortex”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12:3

(2011), p. 154. • 20. A. T. Beck, Depression: Clinical, Experimental, and Theoretical Aspects (Nova York, Harper & Row, 1967); A. T. Beck, “The Evolution of the Cognitive Model of Depression and Its Neurobiological Correlates”, American Journal of Psychiatry 165 (2008), pp. 969-77; S. G. Disner, C. G. Beevers, E. A. Haigh e A. T. Beck, “Neural Mechanisms of the Cognitive Model of

Depression”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12:8 (2011), p. 467. • 21. P. Gilbert, The Compassionate

Mind: A New Approach to Life’s Challenges (Oakland, CA, New Harbinger, 2010). • 22. P. Gilbert e C. Irons, “Focused Therapies and Compassionate Mind Training for Shame and Self-Attacking”, em P. Gilbert (org.), Compassion: Conceptualisations, Research and Use in Psychotherapy (Hove, Routledge, 2005), pp. 263-325; D. C. Zuroff, D. Santor e M. Mongrain, “Dependency, Self-Criticism, and Maladjustment”, em S. J. Blatt, J. S. Auerbach, K. N. Levy e C. E. Schaffer (orgs.), Relatedness, Self-Definition and Mental Representation: Essays in Honor of Sidney J. Blatt (Hove, Routledge,

2005), pp. 75-90. • 23. P. Gilbert, M. Clarke, S. Hempel, J. N. V. Miles e C. Irons, “Criticizing and Reassuring Oneself: An Exploration of Forms, Styles and Reasons in Female Students”, British

Journal of Clinical Psychology 43:1 (2004), pp. 31-50. • 24. W. J. Gehring, B. Goss, M. G. H. Coles, D. E. Meyer e E. Donchin, “A Neural System for Error Detection and Compensation”, Psychological Science 4 (1993), pp. 385-90; S. Dehaene, “The Error-Related Negativity, Self-Monitoring, and

Consciousness”, Perspectives on Psychological Science 13:2 (2018), pp. 161-5. • 25. O. Longe, F. A. Maratos, P. Gilbert, G. Evans, F. Volker, H. Rockliff e G. Rippon, “Having a Word with Yourself: Neural Correlates of Self-Criticism and Self-Reassurance”, NeuroImage 49:2 (2010), pp. 1849-56. •

26. G. Downey e S. I. Feldman, “Implications of Rejection Sensitivity for Intimate Relationships”,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70:6 (1996), p. 1327. • 27. Ibid. • 28. O. Ayduk, A. Gyurak e A. Luerssen, “Individual Differences in the Rejection-Aggression Link in the Hot Sauce Paradigm: The Case of Rejection Sensitivity”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44:3

(2008), pp. 775-82. • 29. D. C. Jack e A. Ali (orgs.), Silencing the Self across Cultures: Depression

and Gender in the Social World (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010). • 30. B. London, G. Downey, R. Romero-Canyas, A. Rattan e D. Tyson, “Gender-Based Rejection Sensitivity and Academic Self-Silencing in Women”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102:5 (2012), p.

961. • 31. S. Zhang, T. Schmader e W. M. Hall, “L’eggo my Ego: Reducing the Gender Gap in Math

by Unlinking the Self from Performance”, Self and Identity 12:4 (2013), pp. 400-412. • 32.

Eisenberger e Lieberman, “Why Rejection Hurts”. • 33. E. Kross, T. Egner, K. Ochsner, J. Hirsch e G. Downey, “Neural Dynamics of Rejection Sensitivity”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19:6

(2007), pp. 945-56. • 34. L. J. Burklund, N. I. Eisenberger e M. D. Lieberman, “The Face of Rejection: Rejection Sensitivity Moderates Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Activity to Disapproving

Facial Expressions”, Social Neuroscience 2:3-4 (2007), pp. 238-53. • 35. Kross et al., “Neural

Dynamics of Rejection Sensitivity”. • 36. K. Dedovic, G. M. Slavich, K. A. Muscatell, M. R. Irwin e N. I. Eisenberger, “Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Responses to Repeated Social Evaluative Feedback in Young Women with and without a History of Depression”, Frontiers in Behavioral

Neuroscience 10 (2016), p. 64. • 37. A. Kupferberg, L. Bicks e G. Hasler, “Social Functioning in

Major Depressive Disorder”, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 69 (2016), pp. 313-32. • 38. Steele, Whistling Vivaldi; S. J. Spencer, C. Logel e P. G. Davies, “Stereotype Threat”, Annual

Review of Psychology 67 (2016), pp. 415-37. • 39. J. Aronson, M. J. Lustina, C. Good, K. Keough, C. M. Steele e J. Brown, “When White Men Can’t Do Math: Necessary and Sufficient Factors in

Stereotype Threat”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35:1 (1999), pp. 29-46. • 40. M. A. Pavlova, S. Weber, E. Simoes e A. N. Sokolov, “Gender Stereotype Susceptibility”, PLoS One 9:12

(2014), e114802. • 41. M. Wraga, M. Helt, E. Jacobs e K. Sullivan, “Neural Basis of Stereotype-Induced Shifts in Women’s Mental Rotation Performance”, Social Cognitive and Affective

Neuroscience 2:1 (2007), pp. 12-19. • 42. M. M. McClelland, C. E. Cameron, S. B. Wanless e A. Murray, “Executive Function, Behavioral Self-Regulation, and Social-Emotional Competence: Links to School Readiness”, em O. N. Saracho e B. Spodek (orgs.), Contemporary Perspectives on Social

Learning in Early Childhood Education (Charlotte, NC, Information Age, 2007), pp. 83-107. • 43. C. E. C. Ponitz, M. M. McClelland, A. M. Jewkes, C. M. Connor, C. L. Farris e F. J. Morrison, “Touch Your Toes! Developing a Direct Measure of Behavioral Regulation in Early Childhood”, Early

Childhood Research Quarterly 23:2 (2008), pp. 141-58. • 44. J. S. Matthews, C. C. Ponitz e F. J. Morrison, “Early Gender Differences in Self-Regulation and Academic Achievement”, Journal of

Educational Psychology 101:3 (2009), p. 689. • 45. S. B. Wanless, M. M. McClelland, X. Lan, S. H. Son, C. E. Cameron, F. J. Morrison, F. M. Chen, J. L. Chen, S. Li, K. Lee e M. Sung, “Gender Differences in Behavioral Regulation in Four Societies: The United States, Taiwan, South Korea, and

China”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28:3 (2013), pp. 621-33. • 46. J. A. Gray, “Precis of The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-hippocampal System”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:3 (1982), pp. 469-84; Y. Li, L. Qiao, J, Sun, D. Wei, W. Li, J. Qiu, Q. Zhang e H. Shi, “Gender-Specific Neuroanatomical Basis of Behavioral Inhibition/Approach Systems (BIS/BAS) in a Large Sample of Young Adults: a Voxel-Based Morphometric

Investigation”, Behavioural Brain Research 274 (2014), pp. 400-408. • 47. D. M. Amodio, S. L. Master, C. M. Yee e S. E. Taylor, “Neurocognitive Components of the Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Systems: Implications for Theories of Self-Regulation”, Psychophysiology 45:1 (2008),

pp. 11-19. • 48. C. S. Dweck, W. Davidson, S. Nelson e B. Enna, “Sex Differences in Learned Helplessness: II. The Contingencies of Evaluative Feedback in the Classroom and III. An

Experimental Analysis”, Developmental Psychology 14:3 (1978), p. 268. • 49. C. S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Nova York, Random House, 2006); D. S. Yeager e C. S. Dweck, “Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe that Personal Characteristics

Can Be Developed”, Educational Psychologist 47:4 (2012), pp. 302-14. • 50. M. L. Kamins e C. S. Dweck, “Person versus Process Praise and Criticism: Implications for Contingent Self-Worth and

Coping”, Developmental Psychology 35:3 (1999), p. 835. • 51. J. Henderlong Corpus e M. R. Lepper, “The Effects of Person versus Performance Praise on Children’s Motivation: Gender and Age

as Moderating Factors”, Educational Psychology 27:4 (2007), pp. 487-508. • 52. Ibid.

CAPÍTULO 13: Por dentro de sua linda cabecinha —

uma atualização do século XXI

1. E. Racine, O. Bar-Ilan e J. Illes, “fMRI in the Public Eye”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6:2

(2005), p. 159. • 2. T. D. Satterthwaite, D. H. Wolf, D. R. Roalf, K. Ruparel, G. Erus, S. Vandekar, E. D. Gennatas, M. A. Elliott, A. Smith, H. Hakonarson e R. Verma, “Linked Sex Differences in

Cognition and Functional Connectivity in Youth”, Cerebral Cortex 25:9 (2014), pp. 2383-94. • 3. D. Weber, V. Skirbekk, I. Freund e A. Herlitz, “The Changing Face of Cognitive Gender Differences in

Europe”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:32 (2014), pp. 11673-8. • 4. F. Macrae, “Female brains really ARE different to male minds with women possessing better recall and men excelling at maths”, Mail Online, 28 de julho de 2014,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709031/Female-brains-really-ARE-different-male-

mindswomen-possessing-better-recall-men-excelling-maths.html (acessado em 10 de novembro de

2018). • 5. “Brain regulates social behavior differences in males and females”, Neuroscience News,

31 de outubro de 2016, https://neurosciencenews.com/sex-difference-social-behavior-5392 (acessado

em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 6. K. Hashikawa, Y. Hashikawa, R. Tremblay, J. Zhang, J. E. Feng, A. Sabol, W. T. Piper, H. Lee, B. Rudy e D. Lin, “Esr1+ Cells in the Ventromedial Hypothalamus

Control Female Aggression”, Nature Neuroscience 20:11 (2017), p. 1580. • 7. D. Joel, comunicação

pessoal, 2017. • 8. “Science explains why some people are into BDSM and some aren’t”, India

Times, 7 de outubro de 2017. • 9. K. Hignett, “Everything ‘the female brain’ gets wrong about the

female brain”, Newsweek, 10 de fevereiro de 2018, https://www.newsweek.com/science-behind-

female-brain-802319 (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 10. Fine, Delusions of Gender; Fine,

“Is There Neurosexism”. • 11. C. M. Leonard, S. Towler, S. Welcome, L. K. Halderman, R. Otto, M. A. Eckert e C. Chiarello, “Size Matters: Cerebral Volume Influences Sex Differences in Neuroanatomy”, Cerebral Cortex 18:12 (2008), pp. 2920-31; E. Luders, A. W. Toga e P. M. Thompson, “Why Size Matters: Differences in Brain Volume Account for Apparent Sex Differences in Callosal Anatomy — The Sexual Dimorphism of the Corpus Callosum”, NeuroImage 84 (2014),

pp. 820-24. • 12. J. Hanggi, L. Fovenyi, F. Liem, M. Meyer e L. Jancke, “The Hypothesis of Neuronal Interconnectivity as a Function of Brain Size — A General Organization Principle of the

Human Connectome”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8 (2014), p. 915. • 13. D. Marwha, M. Halari e L. Eliot, “Meta-analysis Reveals a Lack of Sexual Dimorphism in Human Amygdala Volume”, NeuroImage 147 (2017), pp. 282-94; A. Tan, W. Ma, A. Vira, D. Marwha e L. Eliot, “The Human Hippocampus is not Sexually-Dimorphic: Meta-analysis of Structural MRI Volumes”,

NeuroImage 124 (2016), pp. 350-66. • 14. S. J. Ritchie, S. R. Cox, X. Shen, M. V. Lombardo, L. M. Reus, C. Alloza, M. A. Harris, H. L. Alderson, S. Hunter, E. Neilson e D. C. Liewald, “Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants”, Cerebral

Cortex 28:8 (2018), pp. 2959-75. • 15. T. Young, “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”,

Quillette, 24 de maio de 2018, https://quillette.com/2018/05/24/cant-woman-like-man (acessado em

10 de novembro de 2018). • 16. J. Pietschnig, L. Penke, J. M. Wicherts, M. Zeiler e M. Voracek, “Meta-analysis of Associations between Human Brain Volume and Intelligence Differences: How Strong Are They and What Do They Mean?”, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 57 (2015),

pp. 411-32. • 17. D. C. Dean, E. M. Planalp, W. Wooten, C. K. Schmidt, S. R. Kecskemeti, C. Frye, N. L. Schmidt, H. H. Goldsmith, A. L. Alexander e R. J. Davidson, “Investigation of Brain Structure

in the 1-Month Infant”, Brain Structure and Function 223:4 (2018), pp. 1953-70. • 18. “Finding withdrawn after major author correction: ‘Sex differences in human brain structure are already apparent at one month of age’”, British Psychological Society Research Digest, 15 de março de 2018,

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/31/sex-differences-in-brain-structure-are-already-apparent-at-one-

month-of-age (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 19. D. C. Dean, E. M. Planalp, W. Wooten, C. K. Schmidt, S. R. Kecskemeti, C. Frye, N. L. Schmidt, H. H. Goldsmith, A. L. Alexander e R. J. Davidson, “Correction to: Investigation of Brain Structure in the 1-Month Infant”, Brain Structure

and Function 223:6 (2018), pp. 3007-9. • 20. Visto no Pinterest. • 21. R. Rosenthal, “The File Drawer

Problem and Tolerance for Null Results”, Psychological Bulletin 86:3 (1979), p. 638. • 22. S. P. David, F. Naudet, J. Laude, J. Radua, P. Fusar-Poli, I. Chu, M. L. Stefanick e J. P. Ioannidis, “Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences”, Scientific Reports 8:1

(2018), p. 6082. • 23. V. Brescoll e M. LaFrance, “The Correlates and Consequences of Newspaper

Reports of Research on Sex Differences”, Psychological Science 15:8 (2004), pp. 515-20. • 24. C. Fine, R. Jordan-Young, A. Kaiser e G. Rippon, “Plasticity, Plasticity, Plasticity... and the Rigid

Problem of Sex”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17:11 (2013), pp. 550-51. • 25. B. B. Biswal, M. Mennes, X.-N. Zuo, S. Gohel, C. Kelly, S. M. Smith, C. F. Beckmann, J. S. Adelstein, R. L. Buckner, S. Colcombe e A. M. Dogonowski, “Toward Discovery Science of Human Brain Function”,

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:10 (2010), pp. 4734-9. • 26. Van Anders et al.,

“The Steroid/Peptide Theory of Social Bonds”. • 27. M. N. Muller, F. W. Marlowe, R. Bugumba e P. T. Ellison, “Testosterone and Paternal Care in East African Foragers and Pastoralists”, Proceedings of

the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:1655 (2009), pp. 347-54. • 28. S. M. van Anders, R. M. Tolman e B. L. Volling, “Baby Cries and Nurturance Affect Testosterone in Men”, Hormones and

Behavior 61:1 (2012), pp. 31-6. • 29. W. James, The Principles of Psychology, 2 vols. (Nova York,

Henry Holt, 1890). • 30. E. K. Graham, D. Gerstorf, T. Yoneda, A. Piccinin, T. Booth, C. Beam, A. J. Petkus, J. P. Rutsohn, R. Estabrook, M. Katz e N. Turiano, “A Coordinated Analysis of Big-Five

Trait Change across 16 Longitudinal Samples” (2018), disponível em https://osf.io/ryjpc/download/?

format=pdf (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018) • 31. D. Halpern, Sex Differences in Cognitive

Abilities, 4ª ed. (Hove, Psychology Press, 2012). • 32. Halpern et al. “The Science of Sex Differences

in Science and Mathematics”. • 33. J. S. Hyde, “The Gender Similarities Hypothesis”, American

Psychologist 60:6 (2005), p. 581. • 34. E. Zell, Z. Krizan e S. R. Teeter, “Evaluating Gender Similarities and Differences Using Metasynthesis”, American Psychologist 70:1 (2015), pp. 10-20.

CAPÍTULO 14: Marte, Vênus ou Terra?

Erramos a respeito do sexo esse tempo todo?

1. A. Montanez, “Beyond XX and XY”, Scientific American 317:3 (2017), pp. 50-51. • 2. D. Joel, “Genetic-Gonadal-Genitals Sex (3G-Sex) and the Misconception of Brain and Gender, or, Why 3G-Males and 3G-Females Have Intersex Brain and Intersex Gender”, Biology of Sex Differences 3:1

(2012), p. 27. • 3. C. P. Houk, I. A. Hughes, S. F. Ahmed e P. A. Lee, “Summary of Consensus

Statement on Intersex Disorders and Their Management”, Pediatrics 118:2 (2006), pp. 753-7. • 4. C.

Ainsworth, “Sex Redefined”, Nature 518:7539 (2015), p. 288. • 5. Ibid. • 6. V. Heggie, “Nature and sex redefined — we have never been binary”, Guardian, 19 de fevereiro de 2015,

https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2015/feb/19/nature-sex-redefined-we-have-never-

been-binary • 7. A. Fausto-Sterling, “The Five Sexes”, Sciences 33:2 (1993), pp. 20-24. • 8. A.

Fausto-Sterling, “The Five Sexes, Revisited”, Sciences 40:4 (2000), pp. 18-23. • 9. A. P. Arnold e X. Chen, “What Does the ‘Four Core Genotypes’ Mouse Model Tell Us about Sex Differences in the

Brain and Other Tissues?”, Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 30:1 (2009), pp. 1-9. • 10. Montañez,

“Beyond XX and XY”. • 11. L. Cahill, “Why Sex Matters for Neuroscience”, Nature Reviews

Neuroscience 7:6 (2006), p. 477. • 12. A. N. Ruigrok, G. Salimi-Khorshidi, M. C. Lai, S. Baron-Cohen, M. V. Lombardo, R. J. Tait e J. Suckling, “A Meta-analysis of Sex Differences in Human

Brain Structure”, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014), pp. 34-50. • 13. Tan et al., “The Human Hippocampus is not Sexually-Dimorphic”; D. Marwha, M. Halari e L. Eliot, “Meta-analysis Reveals a Lack of Sexual Dimorphism in Human Amygdala Volume”, NeuroImage 147 (2017), pp.

282-94. • 14. Ingalhalikar et al., “Sex Differences in the Structural Connectome of the Human Brain”.

• 15. Hanggi et al., “The Hypothesis of Neuronal Interconnectivity”. • 16. D. Joel e M. M. McCarthy, “Incorporating Sex as a Biological Variable in Neuropsychiatric Research: Where Are We Now and

Where Should We Be?”, Neuropsychopharmacology 42:2 (2017), p. 379. • 17. D. Joel, Z. Berman, I. Tavor, N. Wexler, O. Gaber, Y. Stein, N. Shefi, J. Pool, S. Urchs, D. S. Margulies e F. Liem, “Sex beyond the Genitalia: The Human Brain Mosaic”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

112:50 (2015), pp. 15468-73. • 18. M. Del Giudice, R. A. Lippa, D. A. Puts, D. H. Bailey, J. M. Bailey e D. P. Schmitt, “Joel et al.’s Method Systematically Fails to Detect Large, Consistent Sex

Differences”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:14 (2016), p. E1965. • 19. D. Joel, A. Persico, J. Hanggi, J. Pool e Z. Berman, “Reply to Del Giudice et al., Chekroud et al., and Rosenblatt: Do Brains of Females and Males Belong to Two Distinct Populations?”, Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences 113:14 (2016), pp. E1969-70. • 20. L. MacLellan, “The biggest myth about our brains is that they are ‘male’ or ‘female’”, Quartz, 27 de agosto de 2017,

https://qz.com/1057494/the-biggest-myth-about-our-brains-is-that-theyremale-or-female (acessado

em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 21. S. M. van Anders, “The Challenge from Behavioural Endocrinology”, pp. 4-6 in J. S. Hyde, R. S. Bigler, D. Joel, C. C. Tate e S. M. van Anders, “The Future of Sex and Gender in Psychology: Five Challenges to the Gender Binary”, American

Psychologist (2018), http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307. • 22. S. M. Van Anders, “Beyond Masculinity: Testosterone, Gender/Sex, and Human Social Behavior in a Comparative Context”,

Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 34:3 (2013), pp. 198-210. • 23. Anders, “The Challenge from

Behavioural Endocrinology”. • 24. J. S. Hyde, “The Gender Similarities Hypothesis”, American Psychologist 60:6 (2005), p. 581; E. Zell, Z. Krizan e S. R. Teeter, “Evaluating Gender Similarities

and Differences Using Metasynthesis”, American Psychologist 70:1 (2015), p. 10. • 25. B. J. Carothers e H. T. Reis, “Men and Women are from Earth: Examining the Latent Structure of

Gender”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104:2 (2013), p. 385. • 26. H. T. Reis e B. J. Carothers, “Black and White or Shades of Gray: Are Gender Differences Categorical or

Dimensional?”, Current Directions in Psychological Science 23:1 (2014), pp. 19-26. • 27. Joel et al.,

“Sex beyond the Genitalia”. • 28. Martin e Ruble, “Children’s Search for Gender Cues”. • 29. I. Savic, A. Garcia-Falgueras e D. F. Swaab, “Sexual Differentiation of the Human Brain in Relation to Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation”, Progress in Brain Research 186 (2010), pp. 41-62; Joel,

“Genetic-Gonadal-Genitals Sex (3G-Sex) and the Misconception of Brain and Gender”. • 30. J. J. Endendijk, A. M. Beltz, S. M. McHale, K. Bryk e S. A. Berenbaum, “Linking Prenatal Androgens to Gender-Related Attitudes, Identity, and Activities: Evidence from Girls with Congenital Adrenal

Hyperplasia”, Archives of Sexual Behavior 45:7 (2016), pp. 1807-15. • 31. Colapinto, As Nature

Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl. • 32. “Transgender Equality: House of Commons Backbench Business Debate — Advice for Parliamentarians”, Comissão de Igualdade e Direitos Humanos, 1º de dezembro de 2016, disponível em

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/file/21151/download?token=Z7I8opi2 (acessado em 10 de

novembro de 2018) • 33. “Gender confirmation surgeries rise 20% in first ever report”, site da Sociedade Americana de Cirurgiões Plásticos, 22 de maio de 2017,

https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/press-releases/gender-confirmation-surgeries-rise-20-percent-in-

first-ever-report (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 34. Comissão de Mulheres e Igualdade da Câmara dos Comuns, Transgender Equality: First Report of Session 2015-16, HC 390, 8 de dezembro de 2015, disponível em

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf (acessado em 10 de

novembro de 2018). • 35. C. Turner, “Number of children being referred to gender identity clinics has quadrupled in five years”, Telegraph, 8 de julho de 2017,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/08/number-children-referred-gender-identity-clinics-has-

quadrupled (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 36. J. Ensor, “Bruce Jenner: I was born with body of a man and soul of a woman”, Telegraph, 25 de abril de 2015,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11562749/Bruce-Jenner-I-was-born-

with-body-of-a-man-and-soul-of-a-woman.html (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 37. C. Odone, “Do men and women really think alike?”, Telegraph, 14 de setembro de 2010,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8001370/Do-men-and-women-really-think-alike.html

(acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 38. T. Whipple, “Sexism fears hamper brain research”, The

Times, 29 de novembro de 2016, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/sexism-fears-hamper-

brain-research-rx6w39gbw (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018); L. Willgress, “Researchers’ sexism fears are putting women’s health at risk, scientist claims”, Telegraph, 29 de novembro de

2016, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/29/researchers-sexism-fears-putting-womens-

health-risk-scientist (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018).

CONCLUSÃO: Criando filhas destemidas (e filhos solidários)

1. S.-J. Blakemore, Inventing Ourselves: The Secret Life of the Teenage Brain (Londres, Doubleday,

2018). • 2. L. H. Somerville, “The Teenage Brain: Sensitivity to Social Evaluation”, Current

Directions in Psychological Science 22:2 (2013), pp. 121-7. • 3. S.-J. Blakemore, “The Social Brain

in Adolescence”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9:4 (2008), p. 267. • 4. B. London, G. Downey, R. Romero-Canyas, A. Rattan e D. Tyson, “Gender-Based Rejection Sensitivity and Academic Self-Silencing in Women”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102:5 (2012), p. 961; E. Kross, T. Egner, K. Ochsner, J. Hirsch e G. Downey, “Neural Dynamics of Rejection Sensitivity”, Journal of

Cognitive Neuroscience 19:6 (2007), pp. 945-56. • 5. Damore, “Google’s Ideological Echo

Chamber”. • 6. Stoet e Geary, “The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering,

and Mathematics Education”. • 7. J. Clark Blickenstaff, “Women and Science Careers: Leaky

Pipeline or Gender Filter?”, Gender and Education 17:4 (2005), pp. 369-86. • 8. A. Tintori e R. Palomba, Turn on the Light on Science: A Research-Based Guide to Break Down Popular

Stereotypes about Science and Scientists (Londres, Ubiquity Press, 2017). • 9. London et al.,

“Gender-Based Rejection Sensitivity”. • 10. J. A. Mangels, C. Good, R. C. Whiteman, B. Maniscalco e C. S. Dweck, “Emotion Blocks the Path to Learning under Stereotype Threat”, Social Cognitive

and Affective Neuroscience 7:2 (2011), pp. 230-41. • 11. E. A. Maloney and S. L. Beilock, “Math Anxiety: Who Has It, Why It Develops, and How to Guard against It”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences

16:8 (2012), pp. 404-6. • 12. K. J. Van Loo e R. J. Rydell, “On the Experience of Feeling Powerful: Perceived Power Moderates the Effect of Stereotype Threat on Women’s Math Performance”,

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39:3 (2013), pp. 387-400. • 13. T. Harada, D. Bridge e J. Y. Chiao, “Dynamic Social Power Modulates Neural Basis of Math Calculation”, Frontiers in Human

Neuroscience 6 (2013), p. 350. • 14. I. M. Latu, M. S. Mast, J. Lammers e D. Bombari, “Successful Female Leaders Empower Women’s Behavior in Leadership Tasks”, Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology 49:3 (2013), pp. 444-8. • 15. J. G. Stout, N. Dasgupta, M. Hunsinger e M. A. McManus, “STEMing the Tide: Using Ingroup Experts to Inoculate Women’s Self-Concept in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

100:2 (2011), p. 255. • 16. “Inspiring girls with People Like Me”, site da WISE,

https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/what-we-do/expertise/inspiring-girls-with-people-like-me

(acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 17. C. Ainsworth, “Sex Redefined”, Nature 518:7539

(2015), p. 288. • 18. E. S. Finn, X. Shen, D. Scheinost, M. D. Rosenberg, J. Huang, M. M. Chun, X. Papademetris e R. T. Constable, “Functional Connectome Fingerprinting: Identifying Individuals Using Patterns of Brain Connectivity”, Nature Neuroscience 18:11 (2015), p. 1664; E. S. Finn, “Brain activity is as unique — and identifying — as a fingerprint”, Conversation, 12 de outubro de

2015, https://theconversation.com/brainactivity-is-as-unique-and-identifying-as-a-fingerprint-48723

(acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 19. D. Joel e A. Fausto-Sterling, “Beyond Sex Differences: New Approaches for Thinking about Variation in Brain Structure and Function”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371:1688 (2016), 20150451; Joel et al.,

“Sex beyond the Genitalia”. • 20. L. Foulkes e S. J. Blakemore, “Studying Individual Differences in

Human Adolescent Brain Development”, Nature Neuroscience 21:3 (2018), pp. 315-23. • 21. Q. J. Huys, T. V. Maia e M. J. Frank, “Computational Psychiatry as a Bridge from Neuroscience to Clinical Applications”, Nature Neuroscience 19:3 (2016), p. 404; O. Moody, “Artificial intelligence can see what’s in your mind’s eye”, The Times, 3 de janeiro de 2018,

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/artificial-intelligence-can-see-whatsin-your-minds-eye-w6k9pjsh6

(acessado em 10 novembro de 2018). • 22. M. M. Mielke, P. Vemuri e W. A. Rocca, “Clinical Epidemiology of Alzheimer’s Disease: Assessing Sex and Gender Differences”, Clinical Epidemiology 6 (2014), p. 37; S. L. Klein e K. L. Flanagan, “Sex Differences in Immune

Responses”, Nature Reviews Immunology 16:10 (2016), p. 626. • 23. L. D. McCullough, G. J. De Vries, V. M. Miller, J. B. Becker, K. Sandberg e M. M. McCarthy, “NIH Initiative to Balance Sex of Animals in Preclinical Studies: Generative Questions to Guide Policy, Implementation, and Metrics”,

Biology of Sex Differences 5:1 (2014), p. 15. • 24. D. L. Maney, “Perils and Pitfalls of Reporting Sex Differences”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371:1688

(2016), 20150119. • 25. http://lettoysbetoys.org.uk • 26. R. Nicholson, “No More Boys and Girls: Can Kids Go Gender Free review — reasons to start treating children equally”, Guardian, 17 de

agosto de 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2017/aug/17/no-more-

boys-and-girls-can-kids-go-gender-free-review-reasons-to-start-treating-children-equally (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018); J. Rees, “No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? should be compulsory viewing in schools — review”, Telegraph, 23 de agosto de 2017,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/08/23/no-boys-girls-can-kids-go-gender-free-should-

compulsory-viewing (acessado em 10 de novembro de 2018). • 27. S. Quadflieg e C. N. Macrae, “Stereotypes and Stereotyping: What’s the Brain Got to Do with It?”, European Review of Social

Psychology 22:1 (2011), pp. 215-73. • 28. C. Fine, J. Dupre e D. Joel, “Sex-Linked Behavior:

Evolution, Stability, and Variability”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21:9 (2017), pp. 666-73. • 29. D. Victor, “Microsoft created a Twitter bot to learn from users. It quickly became a racist jerk”, New

York Times, 24 de março de 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/technology/microsoft-

created-a-twitter-bot-to-learn-from-users-it-quickly-became-a-racist-jerk.html (acessado em 10

novembro de 2018). • 30. Hunt, “Tay, Microsoft’s AI chatbot, gets a crash course in racism from Twitter”.

Título original

THE GENDERED BRAIN

The New Neuroscience that Shatters the Myth of the Female Brain

Gina Rippon assegurou seu direito de ser identificada

como autora desta obra em concordância com

Direitos para a língua portuguesa reservados

com exclusividade para o Brasil à

EDITORA ROCCO LTDA.

Rua Evaristo da Veiga, 65 – 11º andar

Passeio Corporate – Torre 1

20031-040 – Rio de Janeiro, RJ

Tel.: (21) 3525-2000 – Fax: (21) 3525-2001

rocco@rocco.com.br

www.rocco.com.br

preparação de originais

SARAH OLIVEIRA

coordenação digital

MARIANA MELLO E SOUZA

revisão de arquivo ePub

BRUNO LORENZATTO

Edição digital: janeiro, 2021.

CIP-Brasil. Catalogação na Publicação.

Sindicato Nacional dos Editores de Livros, RJ

R464g

Rippon, Gina, 1950-

Gênero e os nossos cérebros [recurso eletrônico] : como a neurociência acabou com o mito de um cérebro feminino ou masculino / Gina Rippon ; [tradução Ryta Vinagre]. - 1. ed. - Rio de Janeiro : Rocco Digital, 2021.

recurso digital

Tradução de: The gendered brain : the new neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brain

ISBN 978-65-5595-038-0 (recurso eletrônico)

1. Neurociências. 2. Discriminação de sexo na medicina. 3. Cérebro -Fisiologia. 4. Sistema nervoso. 5. Livros eletrônicos. I. Vinagre, Ryta. II. Título.

20-66932 CDD: 612.8

CDU: 611.8

O texto deste livro obedece às normas do Acordo Ortográfico da Língua

Portuguesa.