Sex and Gender in Scientific Research

[BunsenHoneydew]

I’ve name changed for this.

Last month, the scientific journal Cell published an edition containing a ‘Focus on Sex and Gender’. For those who don’t work in the life sciences or biomedical research, Cell is a leading journal in the field, and the science they publish is top quality: having a Cell paper can make your career, and past papers published here have gone on to win the authors the Nobel Prize. Cell is an American journal, and originated (I think) at MIT in Boston with its head offices near Harvard University.

Here’s the list of contents for their Focus feature:
https://www.cell.com/cell/issue?pii=S0092-8674(23)X0007-5#FocusonSexandGender

Some of the articles are sensible: the historical disregard of females in certain studies, and the underrepresentation of women in senior roles, for example. But of course these kinds of discussion can’t proceed without addressing trans people.

Rigorous science demands support of transgender scientists
To be fair, this article is worth reading as a very comprehensive and thorough overview of the thinking, reasoning and priorities of trans people in general and trans scientists in particular - in fact I wondered whether it was worth adding it to the ‘Break it down for me’ thread. It’s paranoid, narcissistic nonsense, of course.

Also, an article demonstrating what happens when the humanities dips its toes into science. Intersex conditions feature, and clown fish appear to have been superceded by hyenas. A great illustration of chin-stroking ivory tower bollocks that fails to translate to the real world.
The history of sex research: Is “sex” a useful category?

I should emphasise that this is a US publication, and it is very revealing of the general nuttiness that has arisen of late in American liberal and intellectual circles. I’m just depressed that a prestigious, serious journal like Cell (and its associated publications) seems to have uncritically fallen for this.

Your NC is excellent. Did you choose it or was it suggested by the MN software?

Thanks for posting these. I initially thought it would be related to SAGER - how wrong I was.

Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 May 3;1:2. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6. PMID: 29451543; PMCID: PMC5793986.

http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6

Ha! I chose the NC. Beaker was my first choice but it was already taken.

This 'Focus Issue on Sex and Gender” was due to Cell rolling out their own Sex and Gender Based Analysis (SGBA) guidelines https://www.cell.com/news-do/sex-and-gender-guidelines which are based on SAGER. It’s all about asking for gender identity and sex assigned at birth. Except: “With work involving cells and model organisms, authors are advised to use the term “sex.””

Surely the word ‘female’ should get round daft statements like:
“instead of using the category “women” as a proxy variable, the more precise variable of uterine presence/absence increases accuracy in estimating incidence of uterine cancer in human populations"

Admittedy things like clinical trials and population studies are not really my field. I’m just really disappointed that a journal as prestigious as Cell is publishing guff like this.

Surely the word ‘female’ should get round daft statements like:
“instead of using the category “women” as a proxy variable, the more precise variable of uterine presence/absence increases accuracy in estimating incidence of uterine cancer in human populations"

You'd think. There's all this emphasis on providing plain language summaries of publicly funded research or for the universal good of having an informed citizenry and then journals decide to introduce more and more impenetrable codes to shore up the epistemic class of people who understand/conform to this.

This is from the article NonLinguisticRhetoricIsMyKryptonite linked to.
Fairly sensible, I'd go along with most of this; they get away with the variations in sex because they say 'humans and animals':
Sex and gender are important determinants of health and well-being. Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals that are associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone function and reproductive/sexual anatomy [1]. Sex is usually categorized as female or male, although there is variation in the biological attributes that constitute sex and how those attributes are expressed.
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours and identities of female, male and gender-diverse people [1]. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they behave and interact and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender is usually incorrectly conceptualized as a binary (female/male) factor. In reality, there is a spectrum of gender identities and expressions defining how individuals identify themselves and express their gender.
http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6

It’s paranoid, narcissistic nonsense, of course.

Quite. The fact that the links describe society's treatment of sex (and gender, when it suits) as "essentialist" makes me switch off immediately. All "essentialist" means is that words have meaning.

I also cringe at the sniping toward "pseudoscience" when rebutting critics of trans identity, when they themselves assert the existence of gender identity without evidence.

Apparently there are three categories of people: female, male and gender-diverse people .

How do gender-diverse people reproduce?

I'm a strong supporter of SAGER which are the guidelines that journal editors are supposed to have signed up to forever. (Like COPE, which covers publication ethics.)

https://publicationethics.org/

I've no idea why Cell has gone off-piste and come up with its own.

Much more of this and I'm going to give up reviewing as it's not worth the stress.

@BunsenHoneydew * "the more precise variable of uterine presence/absence increases accuracy"*
I knew I should have asked the hysterectomy surgeon to put mine in a jar so I could take it home with me. How on earth am I supposed to know if I'm a man or a woman now?

“instead of using the category “women” as a proxy variable, the more precise variable of uterine presence/absence increases accuracy in estimating incidence of uterine cancer in human populations"

Definitely daft . And dangerously inaccurate, too.

Sure, you're going to be 100% accurate in estimating the incidence of uterine cancer in about 50% of human population - but how can you tell which members of this population you are going to be 100% accurate about?

How on earth can you tell the difference between the uterus-absent individual who never had a uterus in the first place, and will therefore never be at risk of developing uterine cancer, and therefore should not be occupying space in your research, analysis or treatment, and the uterus-absent individual who is post-hysterectomy but should be monitored for metastases?

If only there was a way. A clear, relevant, value-neutral, universally understood way to describe people.