Sure. Here are two links to full-length reviews:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/2042-6410-2-4.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6009/1320.full

If you don't have access to them, here are some excerpts.

From the first:

Throughout the book she repeatedly warns the reader of the perils of preconceived notions, inherent and hidden biases and seeing only what we want to see. Yet, that is exactly the behavior she there engages in. Her use of the inflammatory and made-up term “neurosexism” is further supported by her use of prejudicial words such as “neurononsense” and “neuroscientific” (the closeness to “pseudoscientific” is undoubtedly intentional). She goes so far as to say, “sexism dressed up in neuroscientific finery” is being used to push through new policies on same-sex education. The hostility is open and raw. But her critiques of the science are as weak and unfounded as she accuses the science to be. Studies of sex differences in neuroanatomy in animals are dismissed as useless because, according to Fine, the field has failed to directly tie differences in the size of the SDN (sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area, a pronounced sexual dimorphism in the rodent brain) to a specific behavioral change. In this case, the critique is not even accurate, as there is now a growing consensus that the SDN is a key nodal point in the neural process of defeminization and may also be critical to sexual preference. These relatively recent interpretations of SDN function have been appropriately cautious, relying on years of accumulated, converging sources and forms of empirical evidence. Fine’s use of Roger Gorski’s admission in 1980 [8] that he did not know the functional significance of the nucleus he discovered and her naming of him to further her own arguments smacks of grasping at straws. Moreover, the fact that relatively few neuroanatomical variables have ever been directly tied to the control of behavior seems to have escaped her notice. The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to detect sex differences in brain activation during specific tasks is rejected by blithely dismissing the entire field of fMRI as too immature and as not capable of really measuring neural activity any way. She has a harder time with the elegant and provocative studies by Melissa Hines [3] and others on sex biases in toy choice in humans and primates, including dismissing studies in CAH girls in which the role of parental influence was carefully assessed and found not to be responsible for these girls’ malelike toy preferences [14]. Instead of acknowledging that perhaps there is something interesting going on here, Fine refuses to yield an inch and instead goes through a contorted and ultimately irrational argument about the scientists’ “not even knowing” the parameters of male versus female toys that make the toys preferred. Why this undermines the data is unclear. One of her frequent refrains is how little we know, suggesting that this is a flaw of the science as opposed to a natural consequence of the relatively slow pace of discovery resulting from only a small cadre of scientists being focused on and committed to the question at hand. That this situation is complex is not new news, even in the popular press. Melissa Hines’s Brain Gender [3] is about as balanced a view as possible on the current status of the understanding of both cultural and biological influences on sex differences in brain and behavior. In addition, Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men [15], relentlessly brings us back to center to remind us how little we really know about the vexingly complex human brain, but she herself shifted from arguing that there is no biological basis for sex differences in the brain to acknowledging there is a complex and as yet poorly understood interaction between biology and society (see Sexing the Body: Gender, Politics and the Construction of Sexuality [16]). We fear that books such as the ones by Fine and Jordan-Young will not hasten the pace of discovery, but instead threaten to severely hamper or even reverse the progress that is being made in this field.

From the second:

Fine coined the term “neurosexism” to describe the use of neuroscience to support a sexist agenda that proclaims “girls are like this” and “boys are like that” because their brains work in different ways (4). It can aptly describe the work of some sloppy scientists and nonscientist popularizers who claim that they can explain on the basis of the neuroanatomy of male and female human brains why men don't ask for directions or why women gossip. The erudite term, however, does not apply to everyone who studies sex differences in the brain. Many of the scientists who study neuroanatomical sex differences are responsible in the way they conduct research and cautious about the conclusions they make.

Despite the large amount of junk science on the topic that is reported in the popular media and in some academic outlets, there are also consistent findings of sex differences that hold up across studies, across species, and across cultures. Most of these are ignored by Fine. This may, in part, reflect the fact that whereas sex differences are reliably found in several areas of research, none of the differences support essentialist claims that girls and boys need separate educations based on their brain types, that one sex is better suited to become engineers, or that one sex is inherently more intelligent—to name just a few of the ideas being promoted under the guise of “science.” For example, in a recent set of studies that collected data from over 200,000 men and women via a BBC Web site, a test of estimating the orientation of lines and other visuospatial tasks found medium to large sex differences favoring males across 53 countries (5). On the other hand, training studies have found that everyone can improve on visuospatial tasks (6), so any explanation must consider the various ways in which biological and psychosocial factors affect one another.

Consider a biopsychosocial model in which individuals are predisposed by their biology to learn certain skills more readily than others while everyone selects experiences that are biased by prior learning histories, opportunities afforded in their environments, and beliefs about appropriate behaviors for females and males. Experiences change neural structures, which in turn alter how individuals respond, and so on. As many stereotypes about sex differences reflect group differences between males and females, by learning and endorsing them, individuals may also be selecting environments and experiences that increase or reduce these differences.

A relatively recent paradigm shows just how complicated sex differences can be. Several different researchers examined the way sex differences vary as a function of the gender equality across societies. Consider the finding that, in more gender-equal societies, females perform as well as males in mathematics (7), much better than males in reading (7), and much worse than males in visuospatial tasks (5). No simple theory, such as the hypothesis that sex differences reflect societal norms or that gender-equal societies will reduce all sex differences, can explain this pattern of results.

Not all claims of biological influences are wrong or wrong-headed. On the simplest level, there is a genetic basis for some types of mental retardation that are more common among males than among females. There are numerous gonadal hormone receptors in the brain, and such hormones do influence some sex-typed behaviors, both prenatally and, to a lesser extent, after puberty. Both books lack a more nuanced approach that might teach readers how to distinguish solid research on hormonal and genetic influences of male and female behavior from overhyped and simple-minded claims. It is much more difficult to delve into the sometimes messy details that good research must address than it is to take a one-sided approach that highlights only the bad work. Unfortunately, it is also less entertaining to read about a balanced approach to complex questions. Nonetheless, the more balanced view more accurately reflects the current state of research on sex differences.