Ah - the old "lots of studies show" thing. What studies? And what do they show that's of any consequence? Does no one else ever notice that stuff like the bit in bold makes no sense whatever - if the "female brain" is not er, female, then why call it the female brain? Could it be - and I hazard a wild cynical guess here - that it means "the sort of brain that thinks in the sort of way that we would like to think is female but er, isn't really?" It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise scientifically literate people are taken in by this stuff...
I interpreted it as meaning that some nerdy bloke with a retort stand (which makes it SCIENCE, I'll have you know), put a bunch of blokes and a bunch of wimmin through fMRI and came out with two overlapping populations of response patterns, one of which had more wimmin than blokes in it and vice versa.
That's how I'd do it, anyway. I'd be surprised if no one has done it yet, given that you can get grants for that sort of thing.
Like I said: it would be disingenuous to claim that males and females think exactly the same way. Once the process of gestation has decided to plump for one or the other then we have innate biological differences. Also, how we use our brains can change the structures of it, so applied gender stereotyping could, in and of itself, be responsible for differences in processing methods. Distinguishing between processing differences caused by nature and differences caused by nurture would be a study well worth doing.
That's no excuse for cretinous comments like reiver's though. He must have some other reason for posting rubbish.
Sam