What do you think?
Rate this book
Sex Itself: The Search for Male and Female in the Human Genome
Human genomes are 99.9 percent identical—with one prominent exception. Instead of a matching pair of X chromosomes, men carry a single X, coupled with a tiny chromosome called the Y. Tracking the emergence of a new and distinctive way of thinking about sex represented by the unalterable, simple, and visually compelling binary of the X and Y chromosomes, Sex Itself examines the interaction between cultural gender norms and genetic theories of sex from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present, postgenomic age.
Using methods from history, philosophy, and gender studies of science, Sarah S. Richardson uncovers how gender has helped to shape the research practices, questions asked, theories and models, and descriptive language used in sex chromosome research. From the earliest theories of chromosomal sex determination, to the mid-century hypothesis of the aggressive XYY supermale, to the debate about Y chromosome degeneration, to the recent claim that male and female genomes are more different than those of humans and chimpanzees, Richardson shows how cultural gender conceptions influence the genetic science of sex.
Richardson shows how sexual science of the past continues to resonate, in ways both subtle and explicit, in contemporary research on the genetics of sex and gender. With the completion of the Human Genome Project, genes and chromosomes are moving to the center of the biology of sex. Sex Itself offers a compelling argument for the importance of ongoing critical dialogue on how cultural conceptions of gender operate within the science of sex.
Using methods from history, philosophy, and gender studies of science, Sarah S. Richardson uncovers how gender has helped to shape the research practices, questions asked, theories and models, and descriptive language used in sex chromosome research. From the earliest theories of chromosomal sex determination, to the mid-century hypothesis of the aggressive XYY supermale, to the debate about Y chromosome degeneration, to the recent claim that male and female genomes are more different than those of humans and chimpanzees, Richardson shows how cultural gender conceptions influence the genetic science of sex.
Richardson shows how sexual science of the past continues to resonate, in ways both subtle and explicit, in contemporary research on the genetics of sex and gender. With the completion of the Human Genome Project, genes and chromosomes are moving to the center of the biology of sex. Sex Itself offers a compelling argument for the importance of ongoing critical dialogue on how cultural conceptions of gender operate within the science of sex.
311 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
23 people are currently reading
1129 people want to read
About the author
Sarah S. Richardson
6 books8 followersSarah S. Richardson is John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University, jointly appointed in the Department of the History of Science and the Committee on Degrees in Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality. She is the author of Sex Itself: The Search for Male and Female in the Human Genome.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 1, 2021
99.9% of human genomes are identical. Yet, there continues to be a widespread misconception that males and females are genetically distinct and opposite. Dr. Richardson traces the history of genetic research to show how chromosomes were gendered as part of a cultural imperative to “anchor a conception of sex as biologically fixed and unalterable binary” amidst political challenges to gender roles (2). Against all evidence otherwise, researchers recruited chromosomes into a political agenda to create and reinforce the gender-sex binary. In the 1960s chromosomes came to “represent the essence of maleness and femaleness…the ultimate naturalness of social customs and practices organized around the different roles, interests, and capacities of the two sexes” (9). This had more to do with cultural beliefs than biological facts.
Dr. Richardson concludes that the evidence used to justify chromosomal determination of sex is “limited, uneven, and contradictory” (34) There is “woefully little empirical evidence” (122) for the idea that the presence of the Y chromosome is a mediator of difference between males and females. Studies that seek to establish this connection often “neglect interacting variables such as age, weight, and hormones that are known to affect gene expression” (201). Indeed, chromosomes did not “obey regular laws from species to species, nor were they adequate to explain sex determination in many species” (35). However, the narrative that the X chromosome is the carrier of female-specific traits and that the Y chromosome is the essence of maleness continues to persist. Dr. Richardson argues that it would be more accurate to refer to distinctions in chromosomes as “sex differences in the human genome” rather than “male genome” or “female genome” (200).
Describing X and Y as sex chromosomes was “neither obvious nor inevitable” (201). Initially, scientists were hesitant to posit chromosomes as the genetic determinant of sex. The leading early theories “assumed a model of sex determination that was nondeterminate” (40). Rather than “sex chromosomes,” they used the language of “odd chromosomes,” (35) or “accessory chromosomes” (41). Some researchers recognized that sex was a spectrum trait and that sex involved a host of genetic and developmental factors. Ultimately this fluidity and complexity was compromised, and X and Y were marked as “sex chromosomes.”
Cultural gender stereotypes governed this scientific research: shaping the questions that were asked, the models that were proposed, the research practices employed, and the descriptive language in the field of sex chromosome research (3). For example: femaleness was unquestionably understood as passive, deceitful, absence and maleness as active, simple, presence. This gendering of chromosomes glossed over naturally occurring variations such as Klinefelter’s Syndrome. To this day people may live their entire lives not knowing they have XXY and are frequently described as “XXY Males” (107).
Ultimately, Dr. Richardson argues that it was cultural pressure, not biological evidence, that led to the binary gendering of chromosomes. Amidst the destabilization of gender norms and roles, patriarchal society needed an essence to re-entrench its political division of society into to the binary. Chromosomes became a convenient feature to accomplish this political goal.
Dr. Richardson concludes that the evidence used to justify chromosomal determination of sex is “limited, uneven, and contradictory” (34) There is “woefully little empirical evidence” (122) for the idea that the presence of the Y chromosome is a mediator of difference between males and females. Studies that seek to establish this connection often “neglect interacting variables such as age, weight, and hormones that are known to affect gene expression” (201). Indeed, chromosomes did not “obey regular laws from species to species, nor were they adequate to explain sex determination in many species” (35). However, the narrative that the X chromosome is the carrier of female-specific traits and that the Y chromosome is the essence of maleness continues to persist. Dr. Richardson argues that it would be more accurate to refer to distinctions in chromosomes as “sex differences in the human genome” rather than “male genome” or “female genome” (200).
Describing X and Y as sex chromosomes was “neither obvious nor inevitable” (201). Initially, scientists were hesitant to posit chromosomes as the genetic determinant of sex. The leading early theories “assumed a model of sex determination that was nondeterminate” (40). Rather than “sex chromosomes,” they used the language of “odd chromosomes,” (35) or “accessory chromosomes” (41). Some researchers recognized that sex was a spectrum trait and that sex involved a host of genetic and developmental factors. Ultimately this fluidity and complexity was compromised, and X and Y were marked as “sex chromosomes.”
Cultural gender stereotypes governed this scientific research: shaping the questions that were asked, the models that were proposed, the research practices employed, and the descriptive language in the field of sex chromosome research (3). For example: femaleness was unquestionably understood as passive, deceitful, absence and maleness as active, simple, presence. This gendering of chromosomes glossed over naturally occurring variations such as Klinefelter’s Syndrome. To this day people may live their entire lives not knowing they have XXY and are frequently described as “XXY Males” (107).
Ultimately, Dr. Richardson argues that it was cultural pressure, not biological evidence, that led to the binary gendering of chromosomes. Amidst the destabilization of gender norms and roles, patriarchal society needed an essence to re-entrench its political division of society into to the binary. Chromosomes became a convenient feature to accomplish this political goal.
March 17, 2015
Wow. I'm really glad I read this book even though it took me a while because it is DENSE. It's very well-written, but it does get extremely technical at certain points. Richardson quotes directly from primary literature on genomic research throughout the book, and the book contains a fair amount of scientific jargon as well.
For the most part, she goes through the technical details in a very readable way – I particularly like the way she points out the differences in molecular genetics and comparative evolutionary genomics and why scientists from each field may have different views on sex chromosomal research. I really enjoyed learning about the history of the discovery of the X and Y chromosomes and sex determination more broadly. Who knew that scientists once thought of sex as environmentally determined? It makes sense, of course, if you think about certain reptiles whose sex depends on egg incubation temperature. Even the term "sex chromosome" was up for debate when scientist first discovered the X and Y chromosome. We may have referred to them as "heterochromosomes" if some other scientists had gotten their way and maybe avoided some really, really bad science. (I definitely cringed at some of the stuff that passed for science in the section on XYY supermale theories.)
Moving forward, she proposes a gender critical way of examining research on sex. For starters, it would be good if researchers stopped confusing "gender" with "sex" in their research papers. I can't believe how many papers she cited still use "gender" in their title when there's no consideration of socio-environmental factors in the study. But more importantly, I agree with her goal for the future of genetic research:
The question should not be "how can we get all of this gender politics out of genetics?" but rather "how can we enlarge and critically hone our ideas about gender, which are central to our scientific theories of sex?"
For the most part, she goes through the technical details in a very readable way – I particularly like the way she points out the differences in molecular genetics and comparative evolutionary genomics and why scientists from each field may have different views on sex chromosomal research. I really enjoyed learning about the history of the discovery of the X and Y chromosomes and sex determination more broadly. Who knew that scientists once thought of sex as environmentally determined? It makes sense, of course, if you think about certain reptiles whose sex depends on egg incubation temperature. Even the term "sex chromosome" was up for debate when scientist first discovered the X and Y chromosome. We may have referred to them as "heterochromosomes" if some other scientists had gotten their way and maybe avoided some really, really bad science. (I definitely cringed at some of the stuff that passed for science in the section on XYY supermale theories.)
Moving forward, she proposes a gender critical way of examining research on sex. For starters, it would be good if researchers stopped confusing "gender" with "sex" in their research papers. I can't believe how many papers she cited still use "gender" in their title when there's no consideration of socio-environmental factors in the study. But more importantly, I agree with her goal for the future of genetic research:
The question should not be "how can we get all of this gender politics out of genetics?" but rather "how can we enlarge and critically hone our ideas about gender, which are central to our scientific theories of sex?"
July 26, 2016
A thick history of the complex relationship between ideology and science in terms of gender/sex/biology. Should probably be on the shelves of anyone interested in gender studies, women's studies, genetics, or science & technology studies. The case studies presented in this book highlight how society and science interact to produce shifting conceptions of what biological "sex" is. I've added it to my syllabus at the grad level and will be incorporating into my undergrad readings. This book should be accessible to science majors as well as those students more interested in the social sciences.
non-fiction-to-read
February 14, 2014Unsure if reading this will make me angry or depressed.
July 17, 2020
Brilliant book tracing the history of thinking about sex as a biological binary, which clearly outlines and explains how gendered assumptions in human genetics research have led to inaccurate methodologies, and biased research questions and interpretation of evidence
Several highlights include:
Dispelling the Mendelian notion that sex is determined by a whole chromosome, rather it is merely one of many factors in sex determination and clearly explaining the difference between a marker of sex, a measurable indicator of a biological state, which a chromosome is and a determinant of sex, which a chromosome isn't
Dismantling the popular myth that male characteristics and behaviours associated with masculinity are contained within the y chromosome, as well as the disproved theory of the xxy "supermale" that were hypothesised via biased and flawed research
Explaining how the "synecdochic" error in the sciences of sex - culturally attributed properties that have been ascribed to the whole, which are then attributed to subcategories of the whole - has resulted in certain objects of scientific knowledge becoming gendered including egg and sperm, testosterone and estrogen, and X and Y chromosomes as a result of dividing human bodies into male and female
The role feminism and gender criticism has played in furthering the frontiers of scientific knowledge and disproving the SRY master gene theory and the sexist theory that "humans are initially female and then have masculinity imposed on them", which reflected biases of male researchers
Several highlights include:
Dispelling the Mendelian notion that sex is determined by a whole chromosome, rather it is merely one of many factors in sex determination and clearly explaining the difference between a marker of sex, a measurable indicator of a biological state, which a chromosome is and a determinant of sex, which a chromosome isn't
Dismantling the popular myth that male characteristics and behaviours associated with masculinity are contained within the y chromosome, as well as the disproved theory of the xxy "supermale" that were hypothesised via biased and flawed research
Explaining how the "synecdochic" error in the sciences of sex - culturally attributed properties that have been ascribed to the whole, which are then attributed to subcategories of the whole - has resulted in certain objects of scientific knowledge becoming gendered including egg and sperm, testosterone and estrogen, and X and Y chromosomes as a result of dividing human bodies into male and female
The role feminism and gender criticism has played in furthering the frontiers of scientific knowledge and disproving the SRY master gene theory and the sexist theory that "humans are initially female and then have masculinity imposed on them", which reflected biases of male researchers
October 20, 2014
Terrific history of the genomics of sex. Not gender. Not sexual preference. Sex.
Ms Robinson illustrates how post-feminist thinking informs science when the topics are freighted with cultural norms, and how bad science results when post-feminist thinking is ignored.
There must be a strong connection between ideas she develops here and race, another topic of great interest to her.
Prepare to learn that much of what you know (on this subject) just ain't so.
Highly recommended, but not for everyone, of course.
Ms Robinson illustrates how post-feminist thinking informs science when the topics are freighted with cultural norms, and how bad science results when post-feminist thinking is ignored.
There must be a strong connection between ideas she develops here and race, another topic of great interest to her.
Prepare to learn that much of what you know (on this subject) just ain't so.
Highly recommended, but not for everyone, of course.
June 8, 2016
This book really begs a better review than I am capable of giving it. Intended for an academic audience, it is not an easy read without a background in genetics classes over and above highschool. That said, it ought to be a must read, dictionary in hand, for anyone interested in what makes us male or female or more like, what does not. Sex is far more complicated than X and Y chromosomes. It is NOT binary. Once you get past the chromosomes and gonads, it is pretty much a continuum.
The description of the book is quite good and there are a few good reviews below as well.
The description of the book is quite good and there are a few good reviews below as well.
April 10, 2020
I was drawn to the book because I wanted to learn more about the history of how the X and Y chromosomes became gendered and to consider evidence that they do not play as big of a role in the dichotomous determination of sex that we attribute to them. I got that, and much more about the history of sex research. It was interesting, but also quite dense both from the genetics side, but also in terms of some of the feminist theory presented. Appropriate for an academic audience, but probably not at the undergraduate level.
April 6, 2016
The science in this book and the way it is laid out make this a tough read at times. But the underlying story of how we know and what we know about the way sex is expressed genetically is important. The shorthand we create, that X and Y chromosomes are what determine sex/gender, is incomplete enough to be useless, for the most part. Having a better understanding of X and Y and what they are and are not is useful for a better understanding of our fellow human beings.
March 1, 2016
You would never think that a book about sex could be this boring.
February 19, 2021
This book probably requires a second or third reading while taking notes & reviewing them. It's interesting but it is dense and is pretty energy consuming to read.
July 6, 2016
Not what I expected it to be - this book is rather about what sex is not : with many specific examples it basically shows a deeper overview of how gender and sex biases have unfortunately shaped the history of sex research. That's it, but don't get me wrong, the author does this excellently, but the reader may expect quite a different book: the back cover blurb synopsis is not itself misleading, yet when you really show what sex is not and how its research was biased, I think you have to show me what is is! I think this comparison would satiate the reader, or at least me, since I am so eager to know! That's indeed why I picked up the book in the first place. I think it serves its purpose when you demystify something that you teach us what actually lies in the limbo.
I am really interested in what sex really is and I wanted to read a book that would - devoid of the aforementioned biases - illuminate this subject to a larger audience. What is it really? I did not find it here... I mean I did but only here and there in the form of author's short notes about how this and that turned out to be untrue and how this and that actually is true or might be in the future.
I think the author tries to be extremely comprehensive and in a way avoiding stating her own opinion - in fact I think she does this only when her opinion is actually widely accepted and hand-in-hand with a scientific fact (e.g. no the SRY gene on Y chromosome really does not have any impact on male aggression and its research was a rather embarrassing and unfortunate story for the science community since now I has to admit how biased the search for the link was).
In fact Sarah S. Richardson's way of being "distant" and just guiding us through science's sex research biases in the course of the history made it very hard for me to distinguish what actually is true. Many of the biased and hence untrue studies were stated as in the eyes of the people who researched them and believed in their claims - this made it hard for me to actually believe anything. So women X-mosaicism had big consequences? This and this and this showed it to be untrue. But are they mosaics or not? What does it really mean and imply? Like really?
Similarly, there have been quite a few theories on the Y's role (say "pro-Y importance" and "Y low importance" theories) with a few diagrams. One showed how the Y has evolved from X by degeneration. Only later in the book did I find out that was actually a fact! I thought that it was just a diagram of one of the studies beliefs.
I have even more question than I had prior to reading the book and I mean this a negative way. Overall the book is good at what it is - a little bit boring journey through the history of sex difference research to present times with a few recommendations and hopes of the author. However the title and the back cover can be misleading, one might think this is a book that illuminates what sex is, how it works, how little differences there actually are between males and females ... and basically what sex really is without the gendered-bias affecting its theories. But Richardson is to be applauded for such a comprehensive look at the biases in sex research!
I really do not know much more about the topic of sex itself, only about the biases and gender valence and what sex is not. The book only confirmed to me that there are little differences between the sexes, but did not show me more, it did not show me what SEX ITSELF really is.
I am really interested in what sex really is and I wanted to read a book that would - devoid of the aforementioned biases - illuminate this subject to a larger audience. What is it really? I did not find it here... I mean I did but only here and there in the form of author's short notes about how this and that turned out to be untrue and how this and that actually is true or might be in the future.
I think the author tries to be extremely comprehensive and in a way avoiding stating her own opinion - in fact I think she does this only when her opinion is actually widely accepted and hand-in-hand with a scientific fact (e.g. no the SRY gene on Y chromosome really does not have any impact on male aggression and its research was a rather embarrassing and unfortunate story for the science community since now I has to admit how biased the search for the link was).
In fact Sarah S. Richardson's way of being "distant" and just guiding us through science's sex research biases in the course of the history made it very hard for me to distinguish what actually is true. Many of the biased and hence untrue studies were stated as in the eyes of the people who researched them and believed in their claims - this made it hard for me to actually believe anything. So women X-mosaicism had big consequences? This and this and this showed it to be untrue. But are they mosaics or not? What does it really mean and imply? Like really?
Similarly, there have been quite a few theories on the Y's role (say "pro-Y importance" and "Y low importance" theories) with a few diagrams. One showed how the Y has evolved from X by degeneration. Only later in the book did I find out that was actually a fact! I thought that it was just a diagram of one of the studies beliefs.
I have even more question than I had prior to reading the book and I mean this a negative way. Overall the book is good at what it is - a little bit boring journey through the history of sex difference research to present times with a few recommendations and hopes of the author. However the title and the back cover can be misleading, one might think this is a book that illuminates what sex is, how it works, how little differences there actually are between males and females ... and basically what sex really is without the gendered-bias affecting its theories. But Richardson is to be applauded for such a comprehensive look at the biases in sex research!
I really do not know much more about the topic of sex itself, only about the biases and gender valence and what sex is not. The book only confirmed to me that there are little differences between the sexes, but did not show me more, it did not show me what SEX ITSELF really is.
Read
June 19, 2015611.01816 R525 2013
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews