Colin Clark wrote that some words have the emotional impact of a bullet, with the power to kill dead any rational discussion. What he had in mind was land. Today, it might be gender (sex is another good candidate). In 2014, an obscure SMS in France warned that théorie genre was going to be introduced into the school curriculum, teaching even the youngest children the most offensive things and requiring of them the most appalling school exercises. This mushroomed into an Islamo‐Catholic campaign that led to parents withdrawing some one hundred thousand children from school for two days (30 percent of students in certain enclaves of Île‐de‐France). A grave affront to the Republic that forced an official denial from Education Minister Najat Vallaud‐Belkacem. Pope Francis also got mixed up in the firestorm.

In Hungary, the Fidesz government in 2018 decertified gender studies master's programs, including a very good one at George Soros’ Central European University. Just last September, in Poland, the ruling PiS party accused gender studies of promoting the LGBTQ agenda and, inter alia, fostering a generation of man‐hating women. Similar stories could be told of Romania and, moving beyond the European pale, Russia. Under such circumstances, this book's contribution to the debate is to be welcomed.

The author is a neuroscientist and sexologist—the latter a solid, if somewhat outré, speciality—who left academia in despair, feeling herself the victim of antiscientific attacks on her research (brain‐imaging study of paraphilias, sexual orientation, and male hypersexuality). To the point, she was savaged on social media when she contested the idea that young children who expressed to their parents the view that Somebody Up There made a Big Gender Mistake should be allowed to precociously transition to what they think they ought to have been born as. Soh's counsel to parents, children, and physicians was that all this be put up on the shelf to be talked about in a few years. This offended the transgender lobby, whose offence triggered a vigorous defense on the part of the religious right, and you can imagine the rest of the mess. Despite once burned, Soh has not been twice shy, subsequently defending gender conversion therapy if applied according to ethical standards that she proposes, as well as defending the notorious internal Google memo that disparaged women in tech.

Demography has been no stranger to such controversies, typically having to do with eugenics and heritability in one way or another. The field perhaps came closest to the issues discussed here in Richard Udry's research program combining primatology, hormones, and sociology to study the biological limits to the social reconstruction of gender. These are not trivial questions (Udry made it into top journals such as the American Sociological Review), and passions run high. But one of the thoughts provoked by this book is that, for a field well connected to sex, demography talks little about it.

The book consists of the demolition of roughly 10 myths (the author's word). It would take up too much space to enumerate them and summarize the arguments presented. The first one discussed is of perhaps the most direct interest to demographers and gives this journal the opportunity to issue editorial guidance to potential authors. This is the difference between biological sex and gender identity. We at PDR have always applied the rule that, if it is biology, it is sex (e.g., “sex‐specific death rates”); if it is society, it is gender (e.g., “gender roles”). We are in agreement with the author: biological sex is not socially constructed. Our approach may be rough and ready, but it has served us well; we have avoided policy prose embarrassments such as “population by age and gender” and “gender‐specific enrolment rates.” To these, Soh adds the absurdity of an animal's (or a fetus's) gender. Perhaps (this reviewer's idea, not Soh's) the linguistic hypercorrection that promotes “gender” and suppresses “sex” arises from a neo‐Victorian prudery of the sort that that gave turkeys white‐ and dark meat instead of breasts and legs.

Intersex births, by no means rare, are discussed, with the author criticizing early surgical intervention and supporting intersex rights. However, she also protests that the clinical condition has been instrumentalized by advocates to argue that biological sex is a harmonious continuum, a claim she vigorously disputes. Much more than can be summarized in a short review is written about transgender issues. There are niceties which this reviewer had not thought about. In sexology, a transgender female (i.e., born male) who is attracted to men is considered gender‐identity gay; whereas one attracted to women is considered gender‐identity straight. Vice versa for a transgender male. Apply this way of looking at things (essentially two two‐by‐two matrices) to transgender women in the ladies’ room and transgender men in the trenches and you begin to sense the unease that stalks the land.

This is just to scratch the surface, because there are many other gender–sex issues explored; myths debunked, to adopt the author's style. The end of gender is a trade book, not an academic one. However, the journalism is good, even if the rah‐rah science mantra (with a stiff I‐got‐evidence‐here vibe) is tiresome. I wonder if the author's time in the laboratory left her space to read recently deceased travel writer Jan (quondam James) Morris’ eloquent account of gender transition. I fear that Soh's distrust of gender studies is based more on her reading of the woke Anglo‐American froth than on the sea of serious feminist and gender thought, particularly the French and, more broadly, European. However, the book is scientifically informative and thought provoking. —L.MacK

柯林·克拉克（Colin Clark）写道，有些词具有子弹的情感影响，并且可以杀死任何理性的讨论。他想到的是土地。今天，可能是性别（性别是另一个很好的候选人）。2014年，法国一则晦涩的短信警告说，这种流派将被引入到学校课程中，甚至向最小的孩子讲授最令人反感的东西，并要求他们进行最艰巨的学校练习。这激起了伊斯兰-天主教运动，导致父母将约十万名儿童从学校撤离了两天（法兰西岛某些地区的学生占30％）。对共和国的严重侮辱迫使教育部长纳杰特·瓦洛德·贝卡卡森（Najat Vallaud-Belkacem）正式否认。弗朗西斯教皇在这场暴风雨中也混在一起。

在匈牙利，菲德斯政府于2018年取消了性别研究硕士学位的证书，其中包括乔治·索罗斯（George Soros）中欧大学的一个很好的课程。就在去年9月，执政的波兰独立党（PiS）指责性别研究，以促进LGBTQ议程，尤其是培养一代充满仇恨的女性。可以说出类似的故事，关于罗马尼亚，以及超越欧洲苍白的俄罗斯。在这种情况下，本书对辩论的贡献值得欢迎。

作者是一位神经科学家和性学家，后者是一个坚实的，甚至有点过分的专长，他使学术界陷入了绝望，感到自己是她的研究受到反科学攻击的受害者（脑成像研究嗜爱性，性取向和男性性欲亢进） 。直截了当，她在社交媒体上大吃一惊，当时她质疑让父母表达自己的观点，即“某处有人犯了严重的性别错误”的幼儿应该被提早转变为他们认为应该出生的观念的想法。如。Soh对父母，孩子和医生的建议是，所有这些都要放在架子上，以便在几年内讨论。这冒犯了跨性别游说者，其罪行引发了宗教权利方面的有力辩护，您可以想象其余的混乱局面。

人口统计学对于这样的争议并不陌生，通常与优生学和遗传力以一种或另一种方式有关。理查德·乌德里（Richard Udry）的研究计划结合灵长类，激素和社会学来研究性别社会重构的生物学极限，该领域也许最接近此处讨论的问题。这些不是琐碎的问题（Udry成为《美国社会学评论》（American Sociological Review）之类的顶级期刊），而且热情很高。但是，这本书激起的一种思想是，对于一个与性相关的领域，人口统计学对此几乎一无所知。

这本书包括大约10个神话（作者的话）的拆除。枚举它们并总结提出的论点会占用太多空间。所讨论的第一个主题可能是人口统计学家最直接的兴趣所在，它使该期刊有机会向潜在的作者发表编辑指导。这是生物性别与性别认同之间的差异。我们在PDR一直遵循以下规则：如果是生物学，那就是性别（例如，“特定性别的死亡率”）；如果是社会，那就是性别（例如“性别角色”）。我们同意作者的观点：生物性不是社会建构的。我们的方法可能很粗糙而且已经准备就绪，但是它对我们有好处。我们避免了政策散文的尴尬，例如“按年龄和性别划分的人口”和“按性别划分的入学率”。Soh在这些内容上加上了动物（或胎儿）性别的荒唐之处。也许（该评论者的想法，而不是Soh的想法）促进“性别”并压制“性”的语言矫正来自一种新维多利亚时代的骗局，这种骗局给火鸡提供了白肉和黑肉，而不是胸部和腿部的肉。

讨论双性恋的出生绝非罕见，作者批评早期的外科手术干预和支持双性恋的权利。但是，她还抗议，倡导者证明了临床状况已经成为现实，她辩称生物性别是一个和谐的连续体，这一主张引起了她的强烈质疑。关于跨性别问题的简短评论远不止于此。有一些审稿人没有想到的细节。在性学方面，被男性吸引的变性女性（即，出生的男性）被视为具有性别认同的同性恋。而被女性吸引的人被认为是性别认同直接的。反之亦然。

这只是为了摸索表面，因为还探讨了许多其他的性别问题。神话被揭穿，采用作者的风格。性别的终结是一本贸易书籍，而不是一本学术书籍。但是，即使拉赫拉科学的口头禅（这里僵硬的“我要证明”的氛围）令人厌烦，新闻业也很好。我不知道作者在实验室的时间是否留给了她去阅读最近去世的旅行作家扬（昆达姆·詹姆斯）莫里斯对性别过渡的雄辩性陈述的空间。我担心Soh对性别研究的不信任更多地是基于她对醒来的英美泡沫的解读，而不是基于认真的女权主义和性别思潮之海，尤其是法国人，更广泛地说是欧洲人。但是，该书具有科学知识和启发性。麦克