Male brains appeared to be wired front to back, with few connections bridging the two hemispheres. In females, the pathways criss-crossed between left and right. ... "
But you can't run the study to see if you could develop girls in similar ways. The amount of controls and isolation required to run the study properly is a bit inhumane. You'd need 24 hour control over everything that child learns and encounters.
So while the conclusions may be true, it's possible that it's not an inherent difference due to initial biology.
> For this purpose, we analyzed a sample of 24 cisgender men, 24 cisgender women, and 24 transgender women before gender-affirming hormone therapy. We employed a recently developed multivariate classifier that yields a continuous probabilistic (rather than a binary) estimate for brains to be male or female. The brains of transgender women ranged between cisgender men and cisgender women (albeit still closer to cisgender men), and the differences to both cisgender men and to cisgender women were significant (p = 0.016 and p < 0.001, respectively).
This wasn't accounted for in the earlier transsexual studies, because they were using subjects who were both homosexual and trans.
And why would they further show statistics by race rather than by brain size? Brain sizes affect the density of connections and proportions of white matter to grey matter, so comparing small-brained women and men to large-brained women and men would seem like an obvious thing to do if you have the data [edit: but this is obviously me just desperately looking for a control.]
Instead, I suspect they were fishing to find out some headline-grabbing result, hoping that (for example) black women were more masculine than white women, or Asian men were more feminine than white men.
On the mis-presentation and misinterpretation of gender-related data: The case of Ingalhalikar’s human connectome study
That’s quite a bomb to throw with zero evidence. Like, why does your mind even jump to that?