This is a really important book, despite being a little dry and hyperbolic at times. ( )

A strong push-back to sociobiology's over-emphasis on the reproductive aspect of sex and the use of Darwin's notion of sexual selection, which does seem to be pretty problematic. Also, this portfolio investment-theory idea of diversified genetic endowment sounds like it could really be something, but Roughgarden is not as clear an explainer of idea as her rival Dawkins. Ultimately this book is worth reading for the myriad of facts about sexuality in nature. The long passages about fish are boring, but if you press on there're very good sections on gender and sexuality in mammals, including humans. The explicit politics is nice, I think, but I imagine a lot of people will be turned off, as they prefer authors to pretend as though they don't have politics.

A fascinating book. Roughgarden suggests and examines how we can see beyond the traditional binary gender world view. The book has two main drawbacks: It is betwixt and between being a popular science presentation and being a textbook, and Roughgarden (herself a MTF transexual) has an obvious viewpoint in examining the data. Still, it's definitely worth reading. ( )

This book is divided into three sections. The first is an exploration of the various reproductive and mating strategies shown by various species; trying to divest us of the idea that the dichotomy between male and female is a "normal" and "natural" feature. The second is a (first-person!) account of human pre-natal sexual development and differentiation. The third is an exploration of transsexual and intersex peoples in cultures around the world.

This is a pop-sci book, not a textbook or anything, and it is clearly (and unashamedly) written with an agenda - Joan Roughgarden is herself a male-to-female transsexual. However, while the goal of promoting acceptance of all people and genders and bodies and preferences and lifestyles is an admirable one, it's not an excuse for shoddy, careless, biased science. The first section is an amalgamation of overstatements, misstatements, ridiculous rhetoric, and a careful exclusion of any data that might contradict her theories. She sets up these ridiculous strawmen of theories that no one who actually works in science actually believes, and then proceeds to "disprove" them with carefully selected examples, and suggests that anyone who disagrees with her is a misogynist and a bigot.

I know less about the actual science behind the other two sections, but she lost all her credibility after the first section. This book infuriated me to no end, and was a trial to even finish, since I was screaming with frustration at the mis-application of science every other sentence. ( )