Boy brain or girl brain is bullshit. And the science agrees.
Actually science disagrees with you. Popsci is not a valid scientific source.
There are male and female patterns meaning that there are patterns found more often in a gender than the other. The development of body parts is influenced by chemical signals like hormones since inside uterus and the brain is a body part.
There are studies based on girls who have been exposed to androgens before birth (due to some hormonal disfunction) and they are more likely to have male-typical interests.
http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdffiles/cah_berenbaum01.pdf
Don't forget that humans are animals and that the brain is a body part like any other.
Your reply suggests belief in such a thing as male-centric interests rather than the patriarchy suggesting which interests are acceptable based on biology. What that study so condescendingly calls male-typical play is actively suppressed in the female half of the population. Boys will be boys vs don't you want to be a good girl? You're ignoring how early and strongly cultural training starts and how deeply its ingrained not to mention how changeable it has been over the years.
I think as a reference you should use Cordelia Fine's excellent sceptical work on the subject. It shows just how much observer bias has historically existed regarding the sexual dimorphism of the brain, and the consequences therefrom.
The two extreme positions are:
* The Biologically Deterministic one. This observes (and historically manufactures from very little evidence) that the brain is sexually dimorphic, and then uses that to argue that females are inferior because biology, that all gendered behaviour is hard-wired, and in general a whole load of other paternalistic arrogant misogynist and nauseating pseudo-scientific drivel.
*The Social Constructionist one. This observes the awful, oppressive effects of the first, then reasons that the brain cannot be sexually dimorphic because that supports gender fascism and the dehumanisation of women, so ignores any evidence for it no matter how sound, and attacks anyone observing it, deeming them to be cruel oppressors trying to fool the public into going along with their nauseating and male chauvinist policies.
Of the two, the Social Constructionist one, despite its PoMo anti-scientific basis, is actually closer to reality than the first. 80% right. The second is 20% right. Both are significantly wrong, distorting any truth so it becomes useless.
Examples:
Boys and girls behave in different ways and one of the stereotypical behavioral differences between them, that has often been said to be forced upon them by upbringing and social environment, is their behavior in play. Boys prefer to play with cars and balls, whereas girls prefer dolls. This sex difference in toy preference is present very early in life (3–8 months of age) [1]. The idea that it is not society that forces these choices upon children but a sex difference in the early development of their brains and behavior is also supported by monkey behavioral studies. Alexander and Hines [2], who offered dolls, toy cars and balls to green Vervet monkeys found the female monkeys consistently chose the dolls and examined these ano-genitally, whereas the male monkeys were more interested in playing with the toy cars and with the ball....
“Prenatal hormones versus postnatal socialization by parents as determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia” Pasterski VL, Geffner ME, Brain C, Hindmarsh P, Brook C, Hines M
Child Dev 76(1):264-78 2005
Data show that increased male-typical toy play by girls with CAH cannot be explained by parental encouragement of male-typical toy play. Although parents encourage sex-appropriate behavior, their encouragement appears to be insufficient to override the interest of girls with CAH in cross-sexed toys.
I don't know about you, but the phrase "sex-appropriate behavior" sets my teeth on edge. It reminds me of the days when I was a child, when girls were supposed to be secretaries, not secretaries of state, beauticians not bankers, and all the rest of that infuriating Patriarchal BS.
However.... biology plays a role. Instincts exist.
If I can quote myself:
http://aebrain.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/how-many-sexes.htmlLet's start with the idea that there are male and female brains. They differ anatomically, and these differences correspond to different stereotyped behaviours, regardless of upbringing. This is most obvious in girls who have CAH, masculinised brains, and a male preference in play patterns, even though they have a normal female upbringing.
Now that we've established that idea, that it's objectively observable.. we have to tear it down. It's just the first step in Wittgenstein's ladder.
The brain is a complex structure, not a simple one. Any particular individual can have a more masculine anatomy in one area, a more feminine anatomy in others. The sexually dimorphic features have considerable overlap. Within any one area, few are unambiguously male or unambiguously female. The difference is statistical. Moreover, in the higher brain, hormonal balance plays a role in changing the brain's physical anatomy. Treat a male with female hormones, some of his brain structures will feminise. The brain is plastic in many areas, experiences and social environment causes physical changes, and much of what we call "gendered behaviour" is as the result of arbitrary socially constructed factors.
OK, understood that? Now discard it, it's the second step on the ladder.
The brain is not homogenous; different parts have different effects, and while some parts are plastic, others are not. While much "gendered behaviour" is a social construct, some is not, and is remarkably resistant to change. This is most obvious in Transsexual people, whose neuro-anatomy is female in some areas, male in others, and corresponds to neither in yet others. When the Lymbic nucleus is feminised, typically feminine emotional patterns are found, and these lead to a feminine gender identity. When the Superior Parietal Lobule (SPL) is feminised as well - as it often is - the "body map" is for female primary and secondary sex characteristics - breasts, vagina etc - and any mismatch with reality causes immense distress.
This also explains such observed phenomena as "phantom limb syndrome", and the widely variable emotional response to hysterectomy or mastectomy. Also too the variable response to any natural masculinisation of a female-at-birth body due to 5ARD or 17BHSD syndromes, which can cause a superficial "natural sex change".
What this means is that a binary model of sex and gender is merely a rough approximation. A better one is a trinary one, with male, female, and bigendered (approximately 1/3 in each category). But that still doesn't capture the multi-variance and fuzziness of the situation adequately. A small percentage won't fit either model, or indeed, any such gross over-simplification.
References (to substantiate my assertions):
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.
White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. - Rametti et al, J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Jun 8.
Prenatal hormones versus postnatal socialization by parents as determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia” Pasterski VL, Geffner ME, Brain C, Hindmarsh P, Brook C, Hines M Child Dev 76(1):264-78 2005
Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure by Pol et al, Europ Jnl Endocrinology, Vol 155, suppl_1, S107-S114 2006
Biased-Interaction Theory of Psychosexual Development: “How Does One Know if One is Male or Female?” M.Diamond Sex Roles (2006) 55:589–600
Gender change in 46,XY persons with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency. Cohen-Kettenis PT. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Aug;34(4):399-410.