- Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, by Anne Fausto-Sterling. (2000) does not appear to draw a conclusion, book's main thrust = sex as social construct
- SEX AND THE CORPUS CALLOSUM: "A literature search at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana" by Paul Pietsch, which gives the following sources:
- "Sex differences in the human corpus callosum: myth or reality?" Bishop & Wahlsten, 1997 Meta-analysis: no sex difference found. (49 studies 1980-1997?)
- "Age-related changes in fibre composition of the human corpus callosum: sex differences." Aboitiz et al, 1996 Autopsy?: found sex difference, relating to aging process
(n = ?)
- "Sexual dimorphism of the human brain--a review of the literature" [article in German], Suprian & Kalus, 1996 Review: inconclusive, # of studies = ?
- "Sexual dimorphism in the human corpus callosum? A comparison of methodologies" Constant & Ruther, 1996 MRI: Difference found in overall, but not relative size, favoring males (n = 104)
- "Sexual dimorphism of the developing human brain." Giedd et al, 1997 MRI: No relative size sex difference in ages 4-18 (n = 121)
- "Sexual dimorphism in interhemispheric relations: anatomical-behavioral convergence", Zaidel et al, 1995 MRI: no size difference reported, but functional difference reported? (n = ?) [in Spanish?]
- "Sexual dimorphism of the human corpus callosum from three independent samples: relative size of the corpus callosum.", Holloway et al, 1993 Autopsy: Relative size favoring females (n = ?)
- "Corpus callosum in sexually dimorphic and nondimorphic primates." Holloway & Heilbroner, 1992 4 species of primates: no sex differences
- "Sex differences in the corpus callosum of the living human being." Allen et al, 1991 MRI: no difference in children (n = 24), shape difference in adults, changing with age (n = 122)
You know, I'm having a harder and harder time giving credit for due diligence to a women's studies professor and a journalism professor in their reading of neuroscientific literature. That's unfair. After all, I'm not a professor, either. I'm not even a professional scientist. I'm a "Financial Coordinator", if you ask my job description, and I don't even have a thesis topic for my Master's yet. However, I don't think that my letter deserved a "go away, kid, ya bother me" response like this half-assed list of references copied from the web.
The really sad part is that, by and large, I agree with Rivers and Barnett on most of the points of action that they're championing. Rivers and Barnett are extremely active in trying to keep public schoolrooms mixed-sex, and in not pigeon-holing kids into teaching styles by gender. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of that. It seems like Rivers and Barnett's core argument is that we don't understand enough about what the structural differences mean to build a curriculum around them. That's entirely different than denying that these differences exist. I support their work and the core of their argument, but their use of the literature makes me frankly angry.
EDIT: Barnett's response in comments on Livejournal