New Book



$21.95 hardcover · 224 pages
9978-1594037641-January 2015


The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing -- and that could mean democracy is failing.

This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface -- not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.    


Good Reading
Essays (37)

On Baby Seals and Babies

I never thought ex-Beatle, Sir Paul McCartney had much of a voice. Now I wonder about his misdirected morals. Not that he doesn’t have any. Obviously he does. He lets us know he is a deep-feeling fellow. There he was, stretched out on the endless whiteness of a Canadian ice-floe with his wife alongside trying to pet a cute baby seal for the cameras. Sir Paul’s humanitarian message was that all human beings should be deeply moved against the killing of even a single baby. Seal.

The week before this photo-op there was a Chinese lady in all the papers who was being vilified by the whole animal-loving world for taking pleasure in killing baby cats. She would arrange videos of herself petting a little kitten and then slowly and meticulously crushing its head under her heel, in broad daylight. She saw it as a kind of performance art where the game is to be able to do such things without any show of feeling, and then you are a true artist. The entire Internet and media community experienced instant outrage over this intentionally vile act of cruelty. The message was that we ought to be deeply moved against the killing of even a single baby. Kitten.

But I don’t get it. Where is the outrage about the killing of cute baby humans? I promise not to exaggerate. I am just asking a question. Why have we never seen a photo of Sir Paul in a Canadian hospital reaching out with heart-rending sympathy to touch the nose of a freshly-aborted human baby? Or perhaps laying his head on the rounded belly of the mother, just before the act of extraction, his tears trickling down onto the sheet as the cameras grind?

I know, I know. Most human baby-killing is in the first trimester. They are, well, not recognizably human yet. Not like the cute little seal or the meowing kitten. I can hear it now: “Don’t play that game, buddy, this is about stuff that can really move you!” Okay, okay. But the human heart does start beating in the womb at 21 days. And the entire genetic endowment specific to each and every individual human baby – just like the baby seal’s and the kitten’s genetic endowment - is there at conception. I mean, I’m just having a little trouble with the value thing. About why the seal and the kitten rate so high with Sir Paul and the public, but human babies are off the radar screen.

Sir Paul even told Larry King that sealing is exactly like the ancient slave trade, and is a barbaric practice that continues without justification. So I find myself substituting just a couple of words and wonder how the world would have reacted if he had told Larry King, “killing baby humans is like the ancient slave trade, and a barbaric practice that continues without justification.”

Most people are unaware that somewhere around 2-3% of all Canadian and American abortions occur in the third trimester. These are definitely baby human beings. I didn’t say “persons”. Good heavens. That could get me into jail for a hate crime; for calling a human being a “person” without legal permission; that is, before it is fully born. The Supreme Courts of both Canada and the USA say that a human being is not a person until it leaves the womb alive. No lie. It’s called the “born-alive” rule. But they didn’t say it wasn’t a human being, or that it is not human life. Obviously it is not a baby seal, or a kitten. And maybe, in the public mind not as cute as those. But the rule has caused some inconveniences that ought to attract Sir Paul’s attention.

About 125,000 baby human lives are taken in Canada each year and over a million and a quarter annually in the USA. An unknown number of the third-trimester babies in the USA and Europe are killed by so-called “partial-birth abortion.” This technique is prohibited in Canada, so far, but not in the USA where former President Bill Clinton refused to sign a law prohibiting it. And anyway, unlike baby seals, it is not as if government inspectors are watching over abortion clinics to make sure human babies are killed “humanely.”

The inconvenience of the rule is that third trimester babies are very large. At least as large as a baby seal. Many second-trimester babies are killed and dismembered right in the womb. Pulled out an arm and a leg at a time. That is routine. Whatever. But it’s a tough assignment if there is a large kid inside. And the abortionist sure doesn’t want to go to jail for killing a “person.” So to make extraction easier and to remain inside the law, he turns the baby around in the womb and drags it out by the feet until just the head remains inside the mother. Then, with a special instrument he punches a hole in the back of the baby’s head and with a small vacuum hose sucks out the brains so that the skull will collapse and then he can drag the kid out easily. Not born alive. And so - we are asked to believe - not yet a person. And certainly not a baby seal. But it sure looks like a human being to me. So I still don’t get it.


On Atheism

A University of Toronto student group calling itself “Toronto Secular Alliance” wants the university to eliminate a prayer to “Eternal God” at its annual spring graduation ceremony on the grounds that such prayers exclude atheists, and surely, goes the argument, such ceremonies ought to be “inclusive.” The ceremony has included a prayer since it was first held in 1827, and only in 1990 changed the words “Eternal Father” to Eternal God.” Now there is more here than meets the eye.

My own formative years were spent at Appleby College in Oakville Ontario, then a protestant school the Headmaster of which was a formidable man (see my essay on the this site, “A Real Man.” It is about him). The routine was chapel for 20 minutes every morning, group prayers at night before bed, and church Sunday morning in Oakville and again Sunday evening back at the school. I was a choir boy and soloist and I am still deeply moved by all the religious music we sang – Bach, Handel, Mozart’s AveVerum, and so many other great works. Although ten years ago I decided to read the New Testament very closely, I don’t go to church much any more, and I describe myself as "a disappointed Anglican." The last time I went to church the Minister harangued us about using Blue Boxes for recycling in order to be good citizens.  Me, I figured he should have been talking about the garbage in our souls instead of the garbage in the streets.

What gets me in debates about religion is the absence of rigorous logic (hope I don’t trip myself here), the unwillingness to budge, and the failure of the parties to be awed by the mere fact of existence. So here are a few thoughts of one man on religion and faith positions.

I used to be a cocky atheist myself, so I have a feel for where all this is “coming from,” as they say. So now whenever I hear a committed atheist say triumphantly, “I don’t believe in God!” I immediately ask: “How did you come by your faith?” After a bit of a stunned silence, and often also with a bit of a self-confident smirk, the fellow then says “What do you mean ‘my faith’? I just said I don’t believe in God.”

To which  I reply: “Well, I believe in God, but I can’t prove He exists. And you don’t believe in God, and you can’t prove He doesn’t exist. So my point is that we are both arguing from a faith position." That is usually followed by an even longer silence, and then I say that what I want to know is: "How did you come by your faith?”

“What do you mean how did I come by my faith?" (Now my opponent is a little upset).

Well, I go on, I think existence is pretty close to a miraculous thing, and I have no natural explanation for it or for the universe itself, other than that it must have been the work of some almighty power the direct knowledge of which I am denied by my inadequate nature. That is my faith position.

You, on the other hand – I have heard you say this before – believe that the universe created itself from nothing, even though you cannot explain how something can come from nothing, and that life also created itself by some kind of chemical or biological necessity which you cannot demonstrate either. It’s all faith. And furthermore, I think it is far more bizarre than mine. For to believe that all sorts of miraculous things we cannot explain or replicate, from the incredible complexity of the single cell to our vast cosmos,  simply sprang into being by themselves one day for no reason whatsoever, is a much crazier idea than to believe they were caused by some almighty agent. I understand why you call my faith primitive, and so on. But yours seems to me even worse - it is a belief in magic. At least I propose some possible cause, whereas when I ask you about causes you give me mumbo-jumbo about mathematical “singularities” in physics, and “pre-biotic soup.”

After all, you cannot even explain the difference between your own brain and your mind. What? Yes, I go on: the very instrument you are using to think, your brain, is a solid thing. But all day long it produces non-things we call ideas and feelings (what contemporary “philosophers of mind” call qualia, or qualities). Now tell me, how can a thing produce a non-thing? If I say, lift your little finger, and you do so, I then ask you how that is possible, and you say “it’s a nerve impulse traveling from my brain to my finger at so and so miles per hour.” But does the “nerve” itself simply decide to get up and travel? Or was it told to travel? And if so, who or what told it to do so? Was it another impulse? If you say yes, I deny that this is possible on the ground that a material thing cannot motivate another material thing to do anything. So it must have got started by a non-thing. In this case, by your Will. It’s the same with all existence, something willed it.

And then we go drink some beer together.


Naturalism and Equality

I have been reflecting on the blog I wrote about male-female differences a while back (Brain Sex, March 8), and am wondering if the rise and fall of attitudes about the sexes parallels larger political realities. Most people have always taken for granted that the two sexes are natural biological compliments of each other. Let’s call this the natural attitude. But there have always been radicals around denying what is natural (unless it is something natural they happen to like). Even in Roman times there were occasional outbreaks of “feminism” during which groups of angry women insisted on their “right” to go hunting bare-breasted alongside the men. Let’s call this the equality attitude. They may have succeeded in this venture, but unless the men they went with were sissies I am not sure how much hunting got done.

The natural attitude dominated in the West from ancient times until the  French Revolution (1789), when the equality attitude took over with a vengeance. Differences were now denied not only between men and women, but between all human beings. That is because what drove the Revolution was a furious material and class envy – a fury ignited by differences. After all, you can’t demand equality rights for everyone unless you first deny all natural differences between them. Obvious differences must then be attributed to a cause other than nature. And so the hunt begins. In the Revolution, money, class, and aristocratic power were deemed the cause of social differences, so anyone marked by these things got hunted down for extermination. First you guillotine the aristocrat; then you guillotine the baker who dares to sell him bread, and so on.

England also saw lots of this egalitarian craziness during it own Civil Wars of the prior  century. But that outbreak was sparked by religious fervour, and though dangerous enough to traditional society it never became a national program of the English government. Which is to say that the modern taste for egalitarianism surfaced for the first time as the core of a national political philosophy during the French Revolution and it has never left since. Indeed, it has spread with the modern democratic ethos as a kind of knee-jerk secular religion that waxes and wanes according to the times. It waned in the first half-century after the Revolution because most thinking people were rightly shocked and horrified by the remembered spectacle of the slaughters in France in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. They had gotten a bloody demonstration that the second of these things must always contradict the first, and thus prevent the third. 

Radical egalitarianism didn’t become an international player again until the end of the First World War with the Russian Revolution of 1917 which kicked off a communist program that lasted until 1989 with half of old Europe eventually under its heel. Meanwhile, the West got the softer form of the nanny state. No machine guns in the streets, but lots of group-think and political correctness. From the mid-twentieth century until about the 1980s the main vehicles for the expression of this softer ideal were all social movements that denied the natural. And most are still here. Radical feminism denies natural sex differences, claiming instead they are “socially constructed.” The Radical pansexual movement as expressed in homosexuality, polyamory and other such behaviours claims that all non-violent sexual behaviour must be equally valued (because none is more natural than another). This kind of thinking can also be found in educational and admissions policies meant to equalize all students, and in law-schools that debate the affirmative action necessary to eliminate differences.  From time to time all such movements can be heard using the four little words of radical democracy to justify their claims:- freedom, rights, equality and choice.

Since the 1980s however, there has been a counter-movement that is science-based and truth-seeking. Which is to say, it is non-political. Its enemies sometimes refer to this as “nativism” because it tends to argue from a biological basis that most important human differences are in fact innate. It is already bumping head-first into all sorts of egalitarian beliefs, and it will be interesting to see how our society copes with this new science-based challenge to its political (mis)perceptions. University courses in “Evolutionary Psychology,” for example, are now claiming that all human behaviour has an evolved biological or genetic survival basis that is eons old. Richard Dawkins book The Selfish Gene was an international bestseller. CAT- scan and PET machines are able to map the very different deep-brain reactions of the sexes to the same stimuli, among other things. Noam Chomsky, the most cited modern author after Plato, Jesus and Shakespeare, has built a considerable reputation arguing that all human beings speak only a single language; that we are all biologically hard-wired for what he calls "Universal Grammar." So it seems that whether with respect to how we differ or how we are the same, technology will increasingly be calling the shots rather than philosophy or politics. We are living through a revival of naturalism, but with a difference. It is a new, hard-science-based naturalism that will increasingly force a revision of popular social and political thought.  Stay posted.


Mortality Rates: AIDS vs Prostate and Breast Cancer

On February 23 I wrote a blog about the tenuous nature of the HIV-AIDS connection. Information about the controversies over the connection between HIV and AIDS came as a surprise to a lot of people. I also mentioned that AIDS in Canada is a very small disease in terms of mortality rates as compared to many other diseases, though it seems to receive a great deal of funding and attention in comparison to those. That anyone should die of any disease is upsetting. I certainly don’t want to die of one. Although I expect that one way or the other most of us will. My reason for writing what follows is as a corrective to public opinion because I believe the HIV-AIDS “epidemic” has been blown way out of proportion and that the truth about any such situation must be the first step in understanding it.

Since writing that blog I sent away for the Public Health Agency of Canada’s HIV and AIDS in Canada “surveillance” report dated April 2005. Such reports have been produced by this agency since 1982. I also went to the Health Canada website at and found excellent info and mortality charts there, among other things. Readers are encouraged to look for themselves. Just click on the icon for “diseases and conditions” and keep drilling. One thing you will find is that HIV-AIDS is the only condition for which cute politicized language such as “men who have sex with men” is used, and where there are subtle statistical efforts to remove the emphasis from the overwhelming disproportion of AIDS cases among male homosexuals. Here is the comparative info.

Prostate Cancer and Mortality in 2001

20,347 new cases, and 3,825 deaths

Female Breast Cancer and Mortality in 2001

“Almost” 19,000 new cases, and “about” 5,400 deaths each year (the quotation marks are because these are strange terms for a statistical organization to use. Also: I have written “female” breast cancer rate, because about one per cent of all breast cancer in Canada each year is found in males.)

New AIDS Cases and AIDS Mortality in 2001

395 new cases of AIDS were reported in 2001, and in the same year 192 deaths of people with AIDS were reported

HIV-AIDS Incidence and Mortality from 1982 to 2003 - a 21 year Surveillance

Health Canada states that since 1982 when they started keeping numbers, 77% of all cases have been “MSM”, otherwise known as homosexual males, and they separate but add to this the 5% of IDU or intravenous drug users who are also homosexual, for a total figure of 82%

Here are the deaths attributed to HIV infection (table 215, p.64 of the report), from 1987 when the first AIDS deaths were reported, to 2002:  Males – 13,503. Females – 1,205. Among these were 93 children.

Conclusion and Comparison of Mortality Rates

If you multiply these fairly consistent cancer rates in Canada – which are increasing as the population ages - by the same number of 16 years as used to tally AIDS you get

Prostate Cancer Death (3,825/yr) 1987-2002 = 61,200 total, with a climbing rate.

Breast Cancer Death (5,400/yr) 1987-2002 = 86,400 total with a climbing rate.

AIDS Death (919/yr) 1987 – 2002 = 14,708 with a rapidly declining rate:  deaths from AIDS peaked in 1995 at 1,764, and by 2002, deaths had fallen to 405,  with 400-500 per year for the prior 5 -year period. 

 Overview for 2006

Disease                                           Expected New Cases              Expected Deaths         

Prostate Cancer                        20,000+                                      3,800+

Breast Cancer                            19,000+                                        5,400+

AIDS (projection, table 13)      200+                      (Table 21)     60    (60 deaths reported in 2004)               

Of these three diseases, AIDS is the only one communicated primarily and directly by human behaviour - overwhelmingly by “MSM” behaviour. So it would seem apparent that it is also the only disease (at least the North American variety) that it would seem possible to stop almost entirely by stopping those behaviours.

Readers may draw their own conclusions as to why this is not the emphasis of Health Canada


Criminal Injustice

Real life has intruded again. An alarm at 5 a.m.

I own a medium-sized commercial property on the western edge of Toronto and there was yet another break-in last night. There are tenants to notify that keys have been stolen. Security services, locksmiths, upset people. Police reports. Doors to repair. A hole in the wall where the thief wiggled thru from one suite to a doctor's office, looking for drugs. This sort of thing has been going on for thirty years, and it is very depressing. I see it as real, of course. One distasteful and anxiety-producing incident that disrupts the ordinary course of life. But I also see it as part of a much bigger picture. Thirty years ago Toronto had about three security companies. Today there are over 300 of them. Maybe more. The year 2005 marked the first year in the history of North America when there were more private police and security guards employed by citizens than public police protecting them. We spend umpteen thousands protecting our tenants from break-ins and burglary. Fortified glass you can't break with a sledgehammer. Fortified locks and lock-plates to prevent tampering. Bars on various glass doors and windows. Alarm systems all over the place. Good lighting at night. The lot. Recently, some thieves even came through the roof. They just dug up part of the flat roof, with who knows what kind of chain saw and then stepped through the hole and fell into the suite, took what they wanted, and let themselves out the front door.

Call the police? It's a duty, I suppose, but not really worth the trouble. They are busy trying to catch bigger fish (I hope). And anyway, who wants to get involved in that? I served as a witness for the Crown once in a fraud case. The fellow had stolen many hundreds of thousands of dollars from his employer. But the defense attorney made all the witnesses, including me, feel like each of us was the criminal. After eight days of this sort of judicial abuse - it was like being in an Orwellian anti-world - the fellow got off scott-free. But it hardly mattered: the Crown Prosecutor told me that even if convicted the thief would not have gone to jail. A little community service maybe. An embargo on travel for awhile. Check in with police occasionally. It was all very depressing, and impossible not to feel that "justice" is often a joke. More shocking was discovering afterward that so many people I met had experienced the same sort of thing.

Fifty years ago, when I was a teenager, I seem to remember that break-and-enter in Canada was a capital offence. Perhaps no one got hanged for it. But there would be a lot of jail time for sure. It is important of course to distinguish between crimes against property and crimes against persons, the latter being more serious. But when a person's home or place of business is invaded - violated is a better word - with such ease and today with such impunity, when justice is not done even when criminals are caught red-handed, then even property crimes become offences against persons - which is to say, against all of us. 

After writing the above, I consulted my Pocket Criminal Code book (Carswell: 1992) and looked up Section 348 on "Breaking and Entering." Interesting. Seems that anyone who enters a place"with intent to commit an indictable offence therein, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable 1) to imprisonment for life, if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling house, or 2) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years [if other than a dwelling house].

Life imprisonment for break-and-enter of a person's home? Maybe this tells us what sort of pathetically weak-kneed society we have become: you can murder somebody in Canada as violently and as premeditatedly as you wish and you will not be imprisoned for life.

I knew a man once who took his wife out to a new restaurant.  He got seated and then looked up, turned very red in the face, and hurriedly left the restaurant with his wife.

The cheerful waiter approaching his table was the fellow who had murdered his daughter fifteen years before. 




Brain Sex

In what the National Post’s editors called “the most controversial episode of his tenure” Harvard President Lawrence Summers has been ousted by an angry mob engaged in a kind of academic swarming behaviour unbecoming of any institution supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of truth. Summers made the politically incorrect mistake of musing that there may be “innate differences” between men and women that could be the explanation for why so few women excel at the highest levels of the maths and sciences. In my Work in Progress, tentatively entitled (even more politically incorrectly), The Book of Absolutes, I have a chapter, still in draft, on “Biological Universals.” Below are a few items from a small section on human sex differences, drawn from easily available sources about findings so well known they are uncontroversial among most scientists, despite the strenuous efforts of critics to find contrary evidence. Universities used to be filled with genuine scholars who wanted to know the truth, however unpalatable to them. Today, alas, they are over-run with ideologically-stupefied academics and obsequious students who refuse to accept truths they happen to dislike.

* Hormones Rule

The release of gender-specific hormones begins to influence human personality and behaviour even before birth. All babies begin development as females, but the male testes produce testosterone, which is the telltale hormone that fundamentally alters a baby’s physical development, including the brain.

* Male and Female Differences in the Womb

A great number of studies show that male and female babies behave differently even in the womb (movement, heart-rates, etc), and within moments after birth (give attention to different objects, sounds, and tactile sensations).

* Girls’ Sensitive to Baby’s Cry

Baby girls – but not baby boys – distinguish a baby’s cry from other general sounds.

* Boys Prefer Objects

Although baby boys get more affection and physical contact from their mothers than girls, they nevertheless prefer objects to people.

* Gendered Senses

Girls are more sensitive to sounds, smells, tastes, touch, voice, and musical nuances than boys. A girl’s sense of smell is anywhere from 200 to 1,000 times better than a boy’s; touch is twice as sensitive; and hearing two to four times better than a boy’s.

* Play Differences

Girls are less rule-bound, boys more so. Boys need rules to tell if they are on top or not. Their pre-adolescent play is often such rank-related play.

* Aggression

From birth, Boys are more aggressive, competitive, and self-assertive than girls (perhaps the most common finding, world-wide, even by feminist researchers). When one-year-old babies are separated from their mothers and their toys by a fence-like barrier, the girls tend to stay in the middle and cry for help, while the boys tend to cluster at the ends of the barriers, apparently trying to find a way out.

* Brain Metabolism

At the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, a combination of PET scans and high resolution MRI technology used to study brain metabolism showed that even at rest, doing nothing in particular, there were male/female differences in brain metabolism in seventeen different brain areas.

* Males and Violence

At puberty men are more prone to physical violence (most crime is by males between ages 15 and 25), women more prone to emotional volatility. About 85% of all crimes are committed by males, and there are specific, universal sex-differences in the styles, types of victim, and post-crime behaviours of male and female perpetrators of violent crimes. From half to four-fifths of all female crime, hospital admissions and suicide occurs just prior to or during menstruation. For an in-depth study of crime, see James Q. Wilson, and Richard J. Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985).

* Spatial Skills

Boys are better than girls on a variety of spatial skills, such as mentally rotating a drawing of an object (called “imaginal rotation”), including 3-D rotation. This skill is cross-cultural, and is practically universal in males. The spatial-skill sex difference becomes quite marked after puberty, and is even observed in animals. “In normal young men and women, spatial ability is systematically related to testosterone (T) levels.” (Kimura, p.122).

* Locating Objects

Women are superior to men at certain tasks requiring memory for the location of objects. This is seen dramatically during self-location in space: women tend to do poorly at map-reading compared to men, and locate their position by memory of objects and landmarks (“turn left at the coffee shop”). Men, in contrast tend to think in terms of compass directions (“turn north when you get to the corner”). Removing landmarks handicaps women, while changing dimensions handicaps men (Nadeau, p.56).

* Abstract Reasoning

Men tend to be better at tests of abstract mathematical reasoning and problem solving, while women tend to be better at tests of mathematical calculation. This difference increases with age. Although males and females tend to get the same math scores in school, men tend to outscore women consistently on math aptitude tests. Such sex differences in math ability appear to a greater or lesser degree in all countries and in all ethnic groups within countries.

* Targeting

Boys, from an early age, outdo girls by a wide margin on targeting tasks (throwing an object at a target accurately), and this difference is not due to experience, or differences in strength or size. Kimura states that it is “one of the largest, most reliable sex differences in ability that we know about,” and it is seen “across all human societies.”

* Intelligence Differences

Although overall intelligence differences between men and women are minimal, this is because testers arrange to cancel out the obvious, repeated, and world-wide superiorities of each gender. That is, tests are arranged so that the higher verbal scores of women cancel the higher math and spatial scores of men. But the differences in each realm, after taking overlap into account, are consistent, and universal. One indicator of this difference in verbal and spatial ability is that the best female chess players in the world rank around 2,000 among the best men and could not gain entry to the men’s world championship. Chess matches are normally sex-segregated for this reason. But world-championship scrabble matches, and contests such as Mastermind, are not sex-segregated because there is no detectable difference for those skills.

* Verbal Recall

Women are consistently better than men on “the recall of words or of material that can readily be mediated verbally.” The difference between men and women in verbal memory may be stronger “when recall of a meaningful text or paragraph is required, and this sex difference emerges across cultures.”(Kimura p.93)

* Engineering Sex Differences

Transplants of hypothalamic tissue (in animals) from male to female brains “cause recipient females to behave in male ways” (G. Wilson, p.35).

* Brain Size

“The biggest structural brain difference between men and women is size. Men’s brains are larger and heavier than women’s by 10 to 15 percent.” (Kimura, p.127). When men and women of the same body size are compared, men’s brains are about 100 grams heavier than women’s. (Ankney 1992, in Kimura, p.128). Danish investigators found that men had about four billion more cortical neurons than women (in Kimura, p.128). And … “there are many other structural features of the brain that appear sexually diffrentiated.” (Kimura, p. 129).