I’d have preferred that the first half of the book had been written as a separate volume that focused only on why life uses/needs sexual reproduction, and the evolutionary consequences of sexual selection.

I FUCKING hate how evolutionary psychology is used to uphold patriarchy (in the broadest sense, so including heterosexism and cissexism in this case). That is certainly how it is used in lay conversations. Boys will be boys!

And That said, it has always made perfect sense to me that gender and sexuality are both continua, rather than binaries, and that gender is typically bimodal. Although many people see themselves as neither masculine nor feminine or both rather than “in between” or both, kinda like asexual or pansexual rather than bisexual. Something that I’ve came across recently is that the idea of gender and sexuality as axes (orthoganol or not, or axes at all) is a pretty “Western” model. Here’s a post titled, “Gender Imperialism”: http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/12/gender-imperialism.html

On the other hand, the evolutionary psychological hypothesis that toddlers are suddenly picky eaters because in the wild you wouldn’t want them foraging for unfamiliar, possibly poisonous food is reassuring to the point of empowering.

Also, I haven’t seen “hermaphrodite” in a long time with reference to people. I’m seeing intersex most of the time.

OMG was my comment longer than your post even though I have not read the book?

(Royalties. I demand them.)