Download 1 R-00694-2009 Second Revision Opinion: A Call for Proper Usage

Articles in PresS. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol (March 31, 2010). doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00694.2009
1
R-00694-2009 Second Revision
Opinion: A Call for Proper Usage of “Gender” and “Sex”
in Biomedical Publications
Bruce M. King
Department of Psychology, Clemson University
Correspondence:
Dr. Bruce King
Department of Psychology
418 Brackett Hall
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634
Phone: 864-656-7368
Email: [email protected]
Copyright © 2010 by the American Physiological Society.
2
The term “gender” became popular among sociologists, psychologists, and sex
researchers in the 1970s as a means to differentiate biological differences between men
and women (“sex” differences) and differences due to socialization experiences
(“gender” differences), or the act of having sex (e.g., 12, 19, 25, 27). In other words,
unlike one’s biological “sex,” “gender” refers to the social construction of masculinity
and femininity (19, 21). It does not exist within a person (10), but instead is a term that
was designed to be used “only when discussing social, cultural, and psychological aspects
that pertain to the traits, norms, stereotypes and roles considered typical and desirable for
those whom society has designated as male or female” (8, p. 9).
The distinctive usage of “sex” and “gender” was initially very successful, but in
the last two decades the media, in particular, has increasingly used “gender” as a
synonym for “sex.” Recent examples include reporting the use of autopsies on skeletal
remains to determine the “gender” of victims, referring to “gender differences” when
reporting performance differences between fillies and mares in horse racing, and
reporting that a South African track star (who had won a gold medal in the women’s 800meters event in the World Games) was required to take a “gender test.” One’s gender
cannot be determined by an anatomical exam, a urine test, or by an autopsy.
Despite some published appeals for proper usage of “gender” and “sex” (e.g., 14,
22, 29), misuses of the terms have increasingly begun to appear in academic publications
as well. These include textbooks (13, 22) and academic journals (14, 22). Unfortunately,
in recent years, this also includes studies using non-human animals that were published in
biomedical, physiology, and neuroscience journals (14). For example, a search in the
database Medline indicated that between January 2005 and December 2009 there were
3
489 published studies with the key words “sex differences” and “rats,” and an
unprecedented 197 articles with the terms “gender differences” and “rats” (compared to
326 and 20, respectively, in the period 1985-1989, and 343 and 59, respectively, in the
period 1990-1994). Among the latter, 105 of them contained “gender” in the titles of the
articles. Of course, the numbers would be greater if the Medline search were expanded to
include non-human subjects other than rats. Regardless of the species, non-human
animals do not display “gender differences.”
The American Psychological Association has officially endorsed the distinctive
usage of the terms “sex” and “gender” since 1994. In it’s Publication Manual of the
American Psychological Association, 5th edition (1), Guideline 1: Describe at the
appropriate level of specificity, the APA states:
“Gender is cultural and is the term to use when referring to men and
women as social groups. Sex is biological; use it when the biological
distinction is prominent….Gender helps keep meaning unambiguous”
(p. 63).
Some other social science journals have also included the distinctive usage of the terms
“sex” and “gender” as policy in their review of manuscripts (e.g., 9).
The Institute of Medicine (17) endorsed a similar distinction in 2001:
“Sex refers to the classification of living things, generally as male or
female according to their reproductive organs and functions assigned
by chromosomal complement. Gender refers to a person’s selfrepresentation as male or female, or how that person is responded to
by social institutions based on the individual’s gender presentation.
4
Gender is rooted in biology and shaped by environment and experience”
(p. 1).
Noting the “inconsistent and often confusing” use of the two terms in both the media and
scientific publications, one of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine was to
“clarify use of the terms sex and gender” (p. 6).
This distinction does not mean that “gender” is always the appropriate term even
when referring to humans. For example, “sex” is the appropriate term when categorizing
male and female human subjects in biomedical studies. However, the term “gender” is
never appropriate for non-human species. An example of the appropriate usage of the
two terms with humans is with transsexual individuals, i.e., individuals who believe
themselves to be of the opposite sex. “Sex” is the proper word to refer to their anatomy,
whereas “gender” refers to their identity, and thus the term “gender identity disorder” (4).
Similarly, in the case of children born with ambiguous genitalia, it was once the practice
to do “corrective” surgery shortly after birth. This practice became less common when
studies showed that for many of the children their assigned (by parents and physicians)
anatomy did not agree with their sense of gender identity (7).
There is no attempt here to trivialize the definitions of either sex or gender.
Biological sex, whether defined by anatomy, chromosomes, hormones, or some
combination, is not a dichotomous classification, for there are a large variety of
intersexual individuals (20). The concept of gender is equally complex (see 28). The
quoted short definitions by early social scientists (e.g., 8), the APA (1), and the Institute
of Medicine (17) may not appear to be identical (perhaps because they addressed
different aspects of the concept), but the intent of all is the same – to “distinguish
5
culturally specific characteristics of masculinity and femininity from biological factors”
(15). Even if one were to attribute behavioral differences in male and female rats to a
socialization process, that does not mean that they possess a sense of gender (and it
would be anthropomorphic to suggest so).
It should also be noted that a great many of the 197 articles referring to “gender
differences” and “rats” that were published in the period 2005-2009 did not even study
behavior, but instead were studies of cellular, tissue, or organ responses. Some recent
examples (all are parts of titles) include “gender” differences in “GABAA receptormediated postsynaptic currents” (6), “cardiac ischemic injury and protection” (26), “S100
beta protein expression” (24), “erythrocyte and brain decosahexaenoic acid composition”
(23), “liver and kidney expression of sulfate anion transporter sat-1” (5), “proliferation
and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells” (16), “high-fat-diet-induced
insulin resistance in skeletal muscle” (11), “beta-adrenergic receptor responsiveness” (3),
“febrile response to lipopolysaccharide” (2), and “deoxycorticosterone acetate-saltinduced hypertension” (18). These examples, and numerous others, clearly have nothing
to do with gender as defined by the Institute of Medicine (17).
The media cannot be expected to use the terms “sex” and “gender” properly if
academic publications do not do so. Two of the major reasons that researchers give for
using the term “gender” when referring to non-human animals are a “desire to signal
sympathy with feminist goals” and an attempt “to use a more academic term” (14, p. 9495). Both reasons are misguided, lack scientific objectivity, and are opposite the
intentions of feminist scholars (e.g., 10, 12, 19, 25, 27) and the recommendations of both
6
the Institute of Medicine (17) and the American Psychological Association (1). Both
organizations emphasize that the terms “sex” and “gender” are not synonyms.
It is obvious from the Medline data that recommendations alone have not stopped
the misuse of the term “gender.” Editors of biomedical journals are encouraged to
consider adopting a policy following the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine
when considering manuscripts for future publication.
References
1. American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th edition). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, 2001, p. 63.
2. Ashdown H, Poole S, Boksa P, Luheshi GN. Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist as
a modulator of gender differences in the febrile response to lipopolysaccharide in
rats. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 292: R1667-R1674, 2007.
3. Bilginoglu A, Cicek FA, Ugur M, Gurdal H, Turan B. The role of gender
differences in beta-adrenergic receptor responsiveness of diabetic rat heart. Mol
Cell Biochem 305: 63-69, 2007.
4. Bradley SJ, Zucker KJ. Gender identity disorder: A review of the past 10
years. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychol 36: 872-880, 1997.
5. Brzica H, Breljak D, Krick W, Lourić M, Burckhardt G, Burckhardt BC,
Sabolić I. The liver and kidney expression of sulfate anion transporter sat-1 in
7
rats exhibits male-dominant gender differences. Eur J Physiol
457: 1381-1392, 2009.
6. Chudomel O, Herman H, Nair K, Moshé SL, Galanopoulou AS. Age- and
gender-related differences in GABAA receptor-mediated postsynaptic currents in
GABAergic neurons of the substantia nigra reticulata in the rat. Neuroscience
163: 155-167, 2009.
7. Diamond M. Sex, gender, and identity over the years: A changing perspective.
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 13: 591-607, 2004.
8. Doyle J. Sex and Gender: The Human Experiment. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C.
Brown, 1985, p. 9.
9. Duck S. Editorial on some changes of appearance and policy. J Soc Pers Relat
12: 5-6, 1995.
10. Golden CR. Still seeing differently after all these years. Fem Psychol
10: 30-35, 2000.
11. Gómez-Pérez Y, Amengual-Cladera E, Català-Niell A, Thomàs-Moyà E,
Gianotti M, Proenza AM, Lladó I. Gender dimorphism in high-fat-dietinduced insulin resistance in skeletal muscle of aged rats. Cell Physiol
Biochem 221: 539-548, 2008.
12. Gould M, Kern-Daniels R. Toward a sociological theory of gender and sex.
Am Sociol 12: 182-189, 1977.
13. Greenwood NA, Cassidy ML. A critical review of family sociology textbooks.
Teach Sociol 18: 541-549, 1990.
14. Haig D. The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: Social change in
8
academic titles, 1945-2001. Arch Sex Behav 33: 87-96, 2004.
15. Hawkesworth M. Confounding gender. Signs 22: 649-684, 1997.
16. Hong L, Sultana H, Paulius K, Zhang G. Steroid regulation of proliferation
and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells: a gender difference.
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 114: 180-185, 2009.
17. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and
Gender Differences, Board on Health Sciences Policy. Exploring the Biological
Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex matter? Report of the Institute of
Medicine, edited by Wise WT and Pardue M-L. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 2001, p. 1, 6.
18. Kawanishi H, Hasegawa Y, Nakano D, Ohkita M, Takaoka M, Ohno Y,
Matsumura Y. Involvement of the endothelin ET(B) receptor in gender
differences in deoxycorticosterone acetate-salt-induced hypertension. Clin Exp
Pharmacol Physiol 34: 280-285, 2007.
19. Kessler SY, McKenna W. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
20. King BM. Human Sexuality Today (6th edition). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson, 2009, p. 201-207.
21. Komarovsky M. The concept of gender role revisited. Gender Soc
6: 301-313, 1992.
22. Laner MR. “Sex” versus “gender”: A renewed plea. Sociol Inq
70: 462-474, 2000.
23. McNamara RK, Able J, Jandacek R, Rider T, Tso P. Gender differences in
9
rat erythrocyte and brain decosahexaenoic acid composition: role of ovarian
hormones and dietary omega-3 fatty acid composition.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 34: 532-539, 2009.
24. Nogueira MI, Abbas SY, Campos LG, Allemandi W, Lawson P, Takada SH,
Azmitia EC. S100 beta protein expression: gender- and age-related daily
changes. Neurochem Res 34: 1355-1362, 2009.
25. Oakley A. Sex, Gender, and Society. London: Maurice Temple Smith, 1972.
26. Ostadal B, Netuka I, Maly J, Besik J, Ostadalova I. Gender differences in
cardiac ischemic injury and protection – experimental aspects. Exp Biol Med
234: 1011-1019, 2009.
27. Unger RK. Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. Am Psychol
34: 1085-1094, 1979.
28. Vanwesenbeeck I. Doing gender in sex and sex research. Arch Sex Behav
38: 883-898, 2009.
29. Zurbriggen EL, Sherman AM. Reconsidering ‘sex’ and ‘gender’: Two steps
forward, one step back. Fem Psychol 17: 475-480, 2007.