How did a study of gene dosage equalization between males and females get framed as a major new finding of sex difference?

A little literary forensics reveals the story. In the very last lines of one of the Nature papers—the part of a paper where researchers typically engage in a bit of speculation—the scientists wonder if the X-derived and Y-derived versions of the proteins encoded by the 12 genes might “exhibit subtle functional differences.” They venture that if this is the case, the possibility of a role in sex differences in disease might be explored in the future.

And with that, the study’s most speculative moment became the headline.

That's science reporting for you. As a researcher, every journalistic reflection on science that I have been a party to has made me uneasy. Journalists are looking to tell a story, and the facts are presented or excluded in a manner that fits the story that they are trying to tell. When journalists aren't scientifically literate, at best, they can't get a sense of when their story is misleading, at worst, they don't care.

How can we break the difference paradigm?

That's an odd question. Richardson seems to be uncomfortable with a difference narrative, but shouldn't we be just as uncomfortable with a similarity narrative that isn't supported by sufficient evidence?

Now the challenge is filtering that understanding to the media and to the public so that we all bring some skepticism to too-tidy findings, and recognize that the real discoveries happen when we free ourselves from old mindsets.

There are obviously differences between men and women. Whether you examine them from a scientific or cultural perspective can lead you to very different places.