What do you think?
Rate this book
Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality
Now updated with groundbreaking research, this award-winning classic examines the construction of sexual identity in biology, society, and history.
Why do some people prefer heterosexual love while others fancy the same sex? Is sexual identity biologically determined or a product of convention? In this brilliant and provocative book, the acclaimed author of Myths of Gender argues that even the most fundamental knowledge about sex is shaped by the culture in which scientific knowledge is produced.
Drawing on astonishing real-life cases and a probing analysis of centuries of scientific research, Fausto-Sterling demonstrates how scientists have historically politicized the body. In lively and impassioned prose, she breaks down three key dualisms -- sex/gender, nature/nurture, and real/constructed -- and asserts that individuals born as mixtures of male and female exist as one of five natural human variants and, as such, should not be forced to compromise their differences to fit a flawed societal definition of normality.
Why do some people prefer heterosexual love while others fancy the same sex? Is sexual identity biologically determined or a product of convention? In this brilliant and provocative book, the acclaimed author of Myths of Gender argues that even the most fundamental knowledge about sex is shaped by the culture in which scientific knowledge is produced.
Drawing on astonishing real-life cases and a probing analysis of centuries of scientific research, Fausto-Sterling demonstrates how scientists have historically politicized the body. In lively and impassioned prose, she breaks down three key dualisms -- sex/gender, nature/nurture, and real/constructed -- and asserts that individuals born as mixtures of male and female exist as one of five natural human variants and, as such, should not be forced to compromise their differences to fit a flawed societal definition of normality.
496 pages, Paperback
First published February 10, 2000
252 people are currently reading
10947 people want to read
About the author
Anne Fausto-Sterling
14 books129 followersAnne Fausto-Sterling is the Nancy Duke Lewis Professor of Biology and Gender Studies at Brown University. She participates actively in the field of sexology and has written extensively on the biology of gender, sexual identity, gender identity, gender roles, and intersexuality.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews
May 5, 2021
There’s a popular misconception that even though gender might be socially created, sex is fixed and firmly rooted in biology. This is not true. Biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling reminds us: “labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision. We may use scientific knowledge to help us make the decision, but only our beliefs about gender – not science – defines our sex” (3). The criteria we use to define and categorize sex is dependent on historical, cultural, and social decisions. The sex binary – dividing billions of people into one of two opposite sexes – is a political choice, not a biological truth. Nature offers us more than two biological sexes. It’s Western society that denies this biological reality for the sake of control.
The sex binary erases intersex people who are born with “anatomical components conventionally attributed to both males and females” (33). By the mid-20th century, scientists developed procedures to disappear intersex people in the name of “correcting nature’s mistakes” (39). Doctors like John Money began to label intersex children as possessing “gonadal anomalies” and “sex chromosome anomalies” to suggest that intersex children were “unusual in some aspect of their physiology, not that they constitute[d] a category other than male or female” (54). Non-consensual surgeries of intersex people are still practiced today.
Sex is not a purely physical category. “Our bodies are too complex to provide clear-cut answers about sexual difference…what bodily signals and functions we define as male or female come already entangled in our ideas about gender” (5). In other words: cultural ideas of what a man or a woman should be dictate how we define and divide biological sex.
In the early 1900s male critics argued that feminists advocating for women’s suffrage were “psychologically abnormal” “evolutionary throwbacks” that possessed the “feelings and desires of a man” (158). Policing women’s behavior by redefining women’s biology continued with the International Olympic Committee beginning to conduct chromosomal tests on women’s athletes out of fear that “women’s participation in sports threatened to turn them into manly creatures” (3).
Challenging gender stereotypes is not about erasing biology. It’s actually about engaging biology and therefore refusing the false binary between nature and nurture. Our genocentric world that approaches “genes as a blueprint for development” (246) prevents us from considering other explanations for human behavior and physiology. Anatomy as well as “less visible physical connections among nerve cells, target organs, and the brain” are constantly changing, even into our adult years. Anatomical change “results when the body’s nervous system respond to, and incorporates, external messages and experiences” (250). Our bodies are dynamic systems that are constantly shifting over time based on exposure to environmental factors – including gender norms.
Dr. Fausto-Sterling argues we should stop looking for “universal causes of sexual behavior and gender acquisition” and instead study the interaction between bodies and environments over time. How might genetic variability interact with environmental stimulus to produce anatomical difference” (149). For example we could investigate how cultural norms that specify that girls wear dresses but not boys “produce gender/sex differences in some types of motor skills” (274). We could understand gender “like nitrogen, oxygen, or carbon dioxide” as one of the “predominant atmospheric elements” that shape’s body and consciousness” (309). idea that gender/sex is an ongoing process of materialization embraces spectrum and complexity. That’s why it’s de-prioritized in a social world that requires fixed identity for “birth certificates, bathroom signs, government identity forms” (279).
In recognition of biological sexual diversity, Dr. Fausto-Sterling imagines a medical science that doesn’t seek to coerce people into pre-determined categories, but rather one “placed at the service of gender variability” (101). This new “ethic of medical treatment” “permits ambiguity to thrive” (101) and moves away from sex stereotypes toward human specificity.
The sex binary erases intersex people who are born with “anatomical components conventionally attributed to both males and females” (33). By the mid-20th century, scientists developed procedures to disappear intersex people in the name of “correcting nature’s mistakes” (39). Doctors like John Money began to label intersex children as possessing “gonadal anomalies” and “sex chromosome anomalies” to suggest that intersex children were “unusual in some aspect of their physiology, not that they constitute[d] a category other than male or female” (54). Non-consensual surgeries of intersex people are still practiced today.
Sex is not a purely physical category. “Our bodies are too complex to provide clear-cut answers about sexual difference…what bodily signals and functions we define as male or female come already entangled in our ideas about gender” (5). In other words: cultural ideas of what a man or a woman should be dictate how we define and divide biological sex.
In the early 1900s male critics argued that feminists advocating for women’s suffrage were “psychologically abnormal” “evolutionary throwbacks” that possessed the “feelings and desires of a man” (158). Policing women’s behavior by redefining women’s biology continued with the International Olympic Committee beginning to conduct chromosomal tests on women’s athletes out of fear that “women’s participation in sports threatened to turn them into manly creatures” (3).
Challenging gender stereotypes is not about erasing biology. It’s actually about engaging biology and therefore refusing the false binary between nature and nurture. Our genocentric world that approaches “genes as a blueprint for development” (246) prevents us from considering other explanations for human behavior and physiology. Anatomy as well as “less visible physical connections among nerve cells, target organs, and the brain” are constantly changing, even into our adult years. Anatomical change “results when the body’s nervous system respond to, and incorporates, external messages and experiences” (250). Our bodies are dynamic systems that are constantly shifting over time based on exposure to environmental factors – including gender norms.
Dr. Fausto-Sterling argues we should stop looking for “universal causes of sexual behavior and gender acquisition” and instead study the interaction between bodies and environments over time. How might genetic variability interact with environmental stimulus to produce anatomical difference” (149). For example we could investigate how cultural norms that specify that girls wear dresses but not boys “produce gender/sex differences in some types of motor skills” (274). We could understand gender “like nitrogen, oxygen, or carbon dioxide” as one of the “predominant atmospheric elements” that shape’s body and consciousness” (309). idea that gender/sex is an ongoing process of materialization embraces spectrum and complexity. That’s why it’s de-prioritized in a social world that requires fixed identity for “birth certificates, bathroom signs, government identity forms” (279).
In recognition of biological sexual diversity, Dr. Fausto-Sterling imagines a medical science that doesn’t seek to coerce people into pre-determined categories, but rather one “placed at the service of gender variability” (101). This new “ethic of medical treatment” “permits ambiguity to thrive” (101) and moves away from sex stereotypes toward human specificity.
November 12, 2017
Great book, as long as you know nothing about race and racism. I would suggest reading it alongside Mary K. Bloodsworth-Lugo's "In-between Bodies: Sexual Difference, Race and Sexuality," which does a much better job of racially contextualizing our notions of the sexed body. Fausto-Sterling writes in a racial void, missing a great deal of important information on the history of sex as a category of science and silently pedestalizing the white body at the center of her research. Another example of gender and sexuality theorizing gone wrong due to a lack of a racialized lens.
July 17, 2011
It's remarkable how quickly some things can become dated in eleven years (transsexuals have a website!), but the scientific history given here still holds. Fausto-Sterling gives a remarkably thorough look at how our current ideas about sex, gender, identity and orientation all came to exist. The most striking fact she illuminates is how as our ideas changed, so did the way these things presented themselves in society.
There's something comforting about biological determinism, which is why people return to it again and again. The "born this way" mentality has deep roots in the human psyche, but Fausto-Sterling (a queer woman herself) offers a more complex vision. From the cellular level to the organism, to culture, to personal relationships and to personal history, we are defined. No single sphere of influence can truly be said to control everything and no sphere can operate in a vacuum. Though she doesn't make mention of epigenetics by name, the influence of history on our gene expression should make her point clear.
This was one of the best books examining gender and science I've ever read and I tore through it quickly. If someone doesn't have at least a rough understanding of some of the science she dissects it may be dry, but I found it absolutely fascinating, particularly with the way she began each chapter with the story of a specific individual.
There's something comforting about biological determinism, which is why people return to it again and again. The "born this way" mentality has deep roots in the human psyche, but Fausto-Sterling (a queer woman herself) offers a more complex vision. From the cellular level to the organism, to culture, to personal relationships and to personal history, we are defined. No single sphere of influence can truly be said to control everything and no sphere can operate in a vacuum. Though she doesn't make mention of epigenetics by name, the influence of history on our gene expression should make her point clear.
This was one of the best books examining gender and science I've ever read and I tore through it quickly. If someone doesn't have at least a rough understanding of some of the science she dissects it may be dry, but I found it absolutely fascinating, particularly with the way she began each chapter with the story of a specific individual.
March 23, 2023
This book is a thought-provoking and insightful examination of the ways in which gender and sexuality are constructed in our society. Anne Fausto-Sterling presents a wealth of research and analysis to support her arguments, making a compelling case for the need to rethink traditional notions of gender and sexuality. Her writing is clear and engaging, making this book accessible to a wide audience. I will say, it is definitely academic and scientific and not exactly an enjoyable read whilst in the thick of it. However, it challenged a lot of common assumptions and 100% broadened my worldview. This is a good source for gender studies and extremely relevant in today's political climate.
July 31, 2014
Professor Boyd-Kramer recommended this to me after the Lierre Keith transphobia fiasco at Lawrence. I wanted to dive deeper into feminist theories of gender and the biological background of sex and gender.
The book started looking like it was going to scratch those itches, but in retrospect it was kind of disappointing. Sterling spends most of the book critiquing scientific investigations of gender from a biological perspective. For instance, chapters 2-4 cover intersexes (formerly known as hermaphrodites) while chapters 6-8 cover "sex" hormones. The two parts are not very well connected - in the first, she is acting to display natural human genital variation and complexify the biological concept of sex, but also acting as an intersex advocate, while in the second she is doing a feminist critique of science with a side project of undermining a simplistic biochemical view of sex.
In these histories, she makes a good point in an eminently clear way: these investigations were not carried out in a scientifically appropriate manner. Rather than seeking to describe the breadth of human anatomical and behavioral variation and get a handle on the forces that control their expression, they essentially took social ideas of gender for granted and asked how they were biologically determined. This mode of inquiry produced some good biological leads - we know a lot more about embryology and hormones and corpora callosa than we did when we started, certainly. But it is fundamentally biased towards results and interpretations that justify the prevailing ideology about gender, or at least fit into its terms.
That is a good point, but it doesn't answer the question I asked. It's unclear if Sterling is suggesting that these biases have prevented good science from being done up to the present day. Perhaps that's her point, and the answer is that we don't have good answers to these questions yet and what we do know is too complicated to interpret clearly. Regardless, the book is not a good review of the state of science on gender and sex biology.
When she's not critiquing the modes of thought that biased science for the past century, Sterling sort of develops her own alternative perspective. However, it's not done very specifically or very well. She makes a hand-wavey suggestion that we should treat the body and social ideas as a dynamic system, acknowledging that the body is plastic and can actually change in response to changes in gender politics and identity and expression in a really complex and interesting way. This is her way of refuting biological essentialism of any stripe and carving out intellectual space for investigations of historical gender that allow for the possibility that all cultures aren't just "working with the same fundamental stuff." Those are good and interesting ideas. They seem believable and suggest a whole set of research questions that will probably yield fascinating answers. But the expression of the position in the book is weak and bland, I thought.
Sterling's science writing could use some work too. She explores a dizzying array of complicated hormone work and failed to make it comprehensible to me. It was usually unclear what exactly the scientist was doing and why, and what conclusions Sterling wanted us to draw from the story - beyond the basic "social belief systems weave themselves into the daily practice of science."
The discussion of psychological gender and transgender people was almost an afterthought, a way to explore other concepts. There was one interesting point she made though: transgender people have literally been forced to express social gender norms to a greater degree than they would otherwise, or than they necessarily identify as, in order to convince medical practitioners they are "serious" and gain access to surgery and other care.
Overall, it was somewhat interesting but not what I was looking for.
The book started looking like it was going to scratch those itches, but in retrospect it was kind of disappointing. Sterling spends most of the book critiquing scientific investigations of gender from a biological perspective. For instance, chapters 2-4 cover intersexes (formerly known as hermaphrodites) while chapters 6-8 cover "sex" hormones. The two parts are not very well connected - in the first, she is acting to display natural human genital variation and complexify the biological concept of sex, but also acting as an intersex advocate, while in the second she is doing a feminist critique of science with a side project of undermining a simplistic biochemical view of sex.
In these histories, she makes a good point in an eminently clear way: these investigations were not carried out in a scientifically appropriate manner. Rather than seeking to describe the breadth of human anatomical and behavioral variation and get a handle on the forces that control their expression, they essentially took social ideas of gender for granted and asked how they were biologically determined. This mode of inquiry produced some good biological leads - we know a lot more about embryology and hormones and corpora callosa than we did when we started, certainly. But it is fundamentally biased towards results and interpretations that justify the prevailing ideology about gender, or at least fit into its terms.
That is a good point, but it doesn't answer the question I asked. It's unclear if Sterling is suggesting that these biases have prevented good science from being done up to the present day. Perhaps that's her point, and the answer is that we don't have good answers to these questions yet and what we do know is too complicated to interpret clearly. Regardless, the book is not a good review of the state of science on gender and sex biology.
When she's not critiquing the modes of thought that biased science for the past century, Sterling sort of develops her own alternative perspective. However, it's not done very specifically or very well. She makes a hand-wavey suggestion that we should treat the body and social ideas as a dynamic system, acknowledging that the body is plastic and can actually change in response to changes in gender politics and identity and expression in a really complex and interesting way. This is her way of refuting biological essentialism of any stripe and carving out intellectual space for investigations of historical gender that allow for the possibility that all cultures aren't just "working with the same fundamental stuff." Those are good and interesting ideas. They seem believable and suggest a whole set of research questions that will probably yield fascinating answers. But the expression of the position in the book is weak and bland, I thought.
Sterling's science writing could use some work too. She explores a dizzying array of complicated hormone work and failed to make it comprehensible to me. It was usually unclear what exactly the scientist was doing and why, and what conclusions Sterling wanted us to draw from the story - beyond the basic "social belief systems weave themselves into the daily practice of science."
The discussion of psychological gender and transgender people was almost an afterthought, a way to explore other concepts. There was one interesting point she made though: transgender people have literally been forced to express social gender norms to a greater degree than they would otherwise, or than they necessarily identify as, in order to convince medical practitioners they are "serious" and gain access to surgery and other care.
Overall, it was somewhat interesting but not what I was looking for.
November 7, 2020
Este es un libro sumamente erudito (y, en este sentido, bastante arduo en numerosos pasajes). Sin embargo, propone muchos elementos de crítica y reflexión que valen mucho la pena. Es esa clase de libro que cierras con más preguntas que respuestas, pero en un sentido muy constructivo. Fausto-Sterling pone en cuestión la "sacrosanta" ciencia y la objetividad de sus relatos. No hay investigación científica carente de intenciones ideológicas, y cuando se trata de ciencia sobre el sexo y la sexualidad esto se vuelve más evidente que nunca. ¿Por qué llamamos a la testosterona y al estrógeno "hormonas sexuales", si interactúan con órganos y sistemas del cuerpo que no tienen que ver con la reproducción ni la sexualidad? ¿De dónde viene esa noción popular de que las mujeres tenemos un cerebro con un cuerpo calloso mayor? ¿La orientación sexual está genéticamente determinada? ¿Cómo se ha conceptualizado científica y médicamente la intersexualidad? ¿Qué implicaciones tienen las cirugías de asignación de sexo para los recién nacidos intersexuales? Fausto-Sterling aborda estos temas y muchos más en este libro.
No coincido plenamente con algunas de sus conclusiones o interpretaciones, pero su trabajo investigador es, desde luego, admirable (según ella relata, ha dedicado seis años a este libro). Es la clase de libro que querría recomendar a todo el mundo por sus implicaciones (es interesantísimo aprender más sobre historia y sociología de la ciencia para mejorar la capacidad crítica), pero que es realmente demasiado "ladrillo" como para recomendarlo efectivamente. En este sentido, yo invito a leerlo sintiéndose en el pleno derecho de saltarse páginas y párrafos enteros. 'Cuerpos sexuados' tiene una faceta divulgativa, pero a la vez no renuncia en absoluto a ser un libro académico, por lo que a menudo se dilata en relatos muy detallados de determinadas disputas científicas que quienes no somos expertos del área podemos mirarnos perfectamente por encima porque, de todos modos, tampoco recordaremos todos los pormenores del asunto para cuando acabemos de leer. Lo mismo pasa con las notas, que están especialmente dirigidas al lector especializado. Hace falta paciencia para no desmoralizarse con esos pasajes eruditos (en este sentido, si Fausto-Sterling tenía esa intención de hacer un libro a la vez académico y divulgativo, creo que podría haber cuidado más la faceta divulgativa o bien, directamente, haber hecho dos libros), pero merece la pena si logramos quedarnos con lo esencial de cada capítulo.
No coincido plenamente con algunas de sus conclusiones o interpretaciones, pero su trabajo investigador es, desde luego, admirable (según ella relata, ha dedicado seis años a este libro). Es la clase de libro que querría recomendar a todo el mundo por sus implicaciones (es interesantísimo aprender más sobre historia y sociología de la ciencia para mejorar la capacidad crítica), pero que es realmente demasiado "ladrillo" como para recomendarlo efectivamente. En este sentido, yo invito a leerlo sintiéndose en el pleno derecho de saltarse páginas y párrafos enteros. 'Cuerpos sexuados' tiene una faceta divulgativa, pero a la vez no renuncia en absoluto a ser un libro académico, por lo que a menudo se dilata en relatos muy detallados de determinadas disputas científicas que quienes no somos expertos del área podemos mirarnos perfectamente por encima porque, de todos modos, tampoco recordaremos todos los pormenores del asunto para cuando acabemos de leer. Lo mismo pasa con las notas, que están especialmente dirigidas al lector especializado. Hace falta paciencia para no desmoralizarse con esos pasajes eruditos (en este sentido, si Fausto-Sterling tenía esa intención de hacer un libro a la vez académico y divulgativo, creo que podría haber cuidado más la faceta divulgativa o bien, directamente, haber hecho dos libros), pero merece la pena si logramos quedarnos con lo esencial de cada capítulo.
August 17, 2008
This fascinating book explores the idea that sex (including gender roles and constructs) is not necessarily a cut-and-dry, two group system... (but you might want to skim the first and the last two chapters.)
Consider the sex of each example (and therefore the marrying and political rights):
-- an XY person who is androgen insensitive, looks physically/genitals feminine, undescended testes, raised female & wants to compete as a female in the Olympics
-- a XX person with facial and body hair, a phallus 5 cm long with a urethra (at age 21) and cyclic urethral bleeding, raised as a male
-- an athletic looking young man with a functioning ovary in his left groin and an undescended testis on the right
-- a child with a small penis/clitoris and divided scrotum (appears female) but during adolescence have their testes descend, and facial hair/penis grow
What should be done when an infant has neither/both genitalia? Or when an otherwise healthy baby girl has large, masculine looking clitoris? Most surgery "fixing" intersex people has poor results (based on any measure except aesthetics). Without surgery, most intersex people grow up as happy, well adjusted people, often marrying and with good sex lives.
Should transgender people be required to undergo surgery (possibly risky to their health, scarring, expensive, and with poor results) in order to legally change their gender? If not, should they be allowed to marry? Should the picture on your driver’s license/passport be a cultural match to your registered sex on that document (or can a man be pictured in make-up and long hair if this is how s/he normally dresses)?
"... in 1601, a young soldier named Daniel Burghammer shocked his regiment when he gave birth to a healthy baby girl. After his alarmed wife called in his army captain, he confessed to being half male, half female. Christened as a male, he had served as a soldier for seven years while also practicing as a blacksmith.... Uncertain of what to do, the captain called in the Church authorities, who decided to co ahead and christen the baby, whom they named Elizabeth. After she was weaned -- Burghammer nursed the child with his female breast -- several towns competed for the right to adopt her. The Church declared the child's birth a miracle, but granted Burghammer's wife a divorce, suggesting that it found Burghammer's ability to give birth incompatible with role of husband."
This book is filled with thought-provoking facts. It's sad that most of them never occured to me until I read this book.
Consider the sex of each example (and therefore the marrying and political rights):
-- an XY person who is androgen insensitive, looks physically/genitals feminine, undescended testes, raised female & wants to compete as a female in the Olympics
-- a XX person with facial and body hair, a phallus 5 cm long with a urethra (at age 21) and cyclic urethral bleeding, raised as a male
-- an athletic looking young man with a functioning ovary in his left groin and an undescended testis on the right
-- a child with a small penis/clitoris and divided scrotum (appears female) but during adolescence have their testes descend, and facial hair/penis grow
What should be done when an infant has neither/both genitalia? Or when an otherwise healthy baby girl has large, masculine looking clitoris? Most surgery "fixing" intersex people has poor results (based on any measure except aesthetics). Without surgery, most intersex people grow up as happy, well adjusted people, often marrying and with good sex lives.
Should transgender people be required to undergo surgery (possibly risky to their health, scarring, expensive, and with poor results) in order to legally change their gender? If not, should they be allowed to marry? Should the picture on your driver’s license/passport be a cultural match to your registered sex on that document (or can a man be pictured in make-up and long hair if this is how s/he normally dresses)?
"... in 1601, a young soldier named Daniel Burghammer shocked his regiment when he gave birth to a healthy baby girl. After his alarmed wife called in his army captain, he confessed to being half male, half female. Christened as a male, he had served as a soldier for seven years while also practicing as a blacksmith.... Uncertain of what to do, the captain called in the Church authorities, who decided to co ahead and christen the baby, whom they named Elizabeth. After she was weaned -- Burghammer nursed the child with his female breast -- several towns competed for the right to adopt her. The Church declared the child's birth a miracle, but granted Burghammer's wife a divorce, suggesting that it found Burghammer's ability to give birth incompatible with role of husband."
This book is filled with thought-provoking facts. It's sad that most of them never occured to me until I read this book.
July 26, 2014
This book is so good - a historical and cultural consideration of how biological knowledge about sex and gender is produced as a social act as well as how biological "facts" are directly incorporated into our bodies via the cultures of medicine and psychology.
Covering many avenues of biological research from studies of human intersex conditions to hormonal rat behavior, Fausto-Sterling makes the argument that many of the binaries we tend to apply to thinking about sex and gender, such as science/society, nature/nurture, or even sex/gender, are fundamentally false and that the two partners in each dualism are indivisible, a Möbius strip of interconnectedness. Sex as we know it is a "social construction," that is, observations generated by scientists (who are social actors and whose research is affected by cultural notions) are packaged as sex knowledge in ways that jive with pre-existing social beliefs. What we perceive as an objective process is instead wobbly and subjective. On the negative side, the book is about 14 years old and some parts do feel dated. But on the whole, it's well argued and supported.
I've found Fausto-Sterling's work rare and enjoyable, because it weighs heavily both on my scientific perspectives of my own research (despite my subject of interest having little to do with sex or gender!) and teaching, as well as my personal social views as a feminist. The last book I read that had similar reach was Jonathan Marks' Why I Am Not A Scientist, which I read years ago. In connecting these elements of thought, Sexing the Body has scratched an uncommon itch and I'll probably be thinking about it for a long time.
Covering many avenues of biological research from studies of human intersex conditions to hormonal rat behavior, Fausto-Sterling makes the argument that many of the binaries we tend to apply to thinking about sex and gender, such as science/society, nature/nurture, or even sex/gender, are fundamentally false and that the two partners in each dualism are indivisible, a Möbius strip of interconnectedness. Sex as we know it is a "social construction," that is, observations generated by scientists (who are social actors and whose research is affected by cultural notions) are packaged as sex knowledge in ways that jive with pre-existing social beliefs. What we perceive as an objective process is instead wobbly and subjective. On the negative side, the book is about 14 years old and some parts do feel dated. But on the whole, it's well argued and supported.
I've found Fausto-Sterling's work rare and enjoyable, because it weighs heavily both on my scientific perspectives of my own research (despite my subject of interest having little to do with sex or gender!) and teaching, as well as my personal social views as a feminist. The last book I read that had similar reach was Jonathan Marks' Why I Am Not A Scientist, which I read years ago. In connecting these elements of thought, Sexing the Body has scratched an uncommon itch and I'll probably be thinking about it for a long time.
March 8, 2016
Fear not, this is a dry academic book and the most lurid parts are probably the chapters describing the sexual behaviour of rats, complete with diagrams.
Despite the in-depth ratology, Fausto-Sterling does a very good job of challenging the very notion of our underlying assumptions of sex and gender. She draws on centuries of research (only her references covered 200 pages) and presents a very good case for how the way we think of bodies, what is normal/abnormal and how our preconceived notions of gender influence the very research meant to uncover the truth about sex and gender. With a flawed starting position, then this will also affect the conclusions, which Fausto-Sterling manages to show with startling ease.
The only thing that surprised me when reading this was why nobody had written this book before.
Further, her chapters on intersex bodies are also of great import, since it shines the light on how gender is imposed upon biology, even if there is no reason for this "correction" from a health point of view.
Together with Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl", "Sexing the Body" works as a harsh criticism of the very foundation of how we apply gender so rigidly, with and why the nature/nurture debate is a false debacle that should not have one single breath wasted on it ever again. Nature is variation, reality is complex. There is no simple scale with two ends points where either of them fit and it is useless to try, despite all the attempts to the contrary.
Despite the in-depth ratology, Fausto-Sterling does a very good job of challenging the very notion of our underlying assumptions of sex and gender. She draws on centuries of research (only her references covered 200 pages) and presents a very good case for how the way we think of bodies, what is normal/abnormal and how our preconceived notions of gender influence the very research meant to uncover the truth about sex and gender. With a flawed starting position, then this will also affect the conclusions, which Fausto-Sterling manages to show with startling ease.
The only thing that surprised me when reading this was why nobody had written this book before.
Further, her chapters on intersex bodies are also of great import, since it shines the light on how gender is imposed upon biology, even if there is no reason for this "correction" from a health point of view.
Together with Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl", "Sexing the Body" works as a harsh criticism of the very foundation of how we apply gender so rigidly, with and why the nature/nurture debate is a false debacle that should not have one single breath wasted on it ever again. Nature is variation, reality is complex. There is no simple scale with two ends points where either of them fit and it is useless to try, despite all the attempts to the contrary.
March 9, 2008
this book is really boring. but if you've never heard of intersexed anything ever, maybe you could skim it. i would just read the Intersexed Society of North America's (ISNA) web page instead.
fausto-sterling shows us, and very well, that medical gender is constructed, that scientific knowing is premeditated by social precepts, and that the most accute way to show these truths is by looking at every single medical horror practiced on intersexed people in the name of upholding the sex binary.
the method is a mix between scientific study and investigative journalism, but she neglects to really talk to any intersexed people in the process. she tears apart these medical studies, but still has enough investment in "science" to not say we should completely revamp the way we look at bodies and medical intervention.
and then she does this thing which unfortunately happens all over where she chastises transsexuals for upholding the gender binary while congradulating transgender people for breaking it down. for this, my entire class fired her.
fausto-sterling shows us, and very well, that medical gender is constructed, that scientific knowing is premeditated by social precepts, and that the most accute way to show these truths is by looking at every single medical horror practiced on intersexed people in the name of upholding the sex binary.
the method is a mix between scientific study and investigative journalism, but she neglects to really talk to any intersexed people in the process. she tears apart these medical studies, but still has enough investment in "science" to not say we should completely revamp the way we look at bodies and medical intervention.
and then she does this thing which unfortunately happens all over where she chastises transsexuals for upholding the gender binary while congradulating transgender people for breaking it down. for this, my entire class fired her.
December 28, 2011
Apparently being either a man or a woman is a lot more complicated than you might think - this book argues that social ideas about gender have a strong influence on what we consider to be the relatively uncontroversial realm of biological sex. Looking at, among other things, how hormones have been gendered, the problems posed to binary sex categories by intersex people and the ways scientists have looked for sexual difference in brain structure, the author argues for a more nuanced understanding of how nature and environment interact, with particular implications for our ideas about the flexibility of gender identity and sexuality. Fascinating and quite easy to read though I did find myself losing interest a bit when she went into lots of detail about rats. Though she had an eye to the bigger picture looking at how and why scientists did what they did and how the work and findings were considered relevant or not to humans, I was still a bit bored during that chapter.
Currently reading
January 19, 2011BEST BOOK...
September 24, 2015
Fausto-Sterling, in her Sexing the Body (Basic, 2000), explores the trend, over time and across disciplines, of how sexuality and gender have been described and defined by socio-cultural processes. She argues convincingly that facts and nature are rarely, if ever, truly factual or natural. Instead, she claims, “What we call facts about the living world are not universal truths.” (7) She agrees with scholarship that suggests identity is embodied, “not individual and fixed, but irredeemably social and processional.” (4) What is constructed becomes reality…
As new technologies and categories and biological phenomenon are discovered and require description, the very act of describing enters a new ‘thing’ into existence; hence, “scientists create truths about reality.” (5) Varying disciplines have identified and regulated (created?) gender – from religion, to law, science, and (most recently) medicine. However, what we think of as gender has actually been different across time and culture, most often being related directly to male political privilege. These disciplines, instead of merely identifying or categorizing gender, have been used by the status quo to regulate gender and punish or ‘correct’ deviance from a “two-sex system.” Science especially “was used as a tool to obliterate precisely the wonders it illuminated” (37) with scientists defining “some bodies as better and more deserving of rights than others.” (39)
Medicine takes a heavy beating in Fausto-Sterling’s critic, especially the practice of infant genital surgery, variously referred to also as “mutilation.” (79) Surgeries that “correct” biology, she claims, are actually motivated by social concerns, not “nature’s course,” as the language of doctors often suggests. She argues strongly in favor of discontinuing involuntary and unnecessary procedures that often are conducted without parental knowledge or consent.
In her concluding chapter, Fausto-Sterling focuses again on processes as the fundamental character of gender identity formation, that (using the example of blind Braille readers) “the environment and the body co-produce behavior and that it is inappropriate to try to make one component prior to the other.” (241) This fits well with her overriding thesis that “the divide between nature and nurture is indivisible.” [I lost the citation, but credit is hers] The name she gives to this framework is described variously as a “Development [or Dynamic] Systems Theory” and a “Systems Account” (25, 238, 243, 249, 254, etc.) of gender identity.
Obviously, a major theme of her work is that gender (and I kept reading into her claims ‘identity’ as well) is constructed over time and never totally crystallizes into one final and absolute form. Dynamic systems of physiology and environment co-produce the developing gendered person, even as society writ large suggests that gender is produced, perhaps at conception, by biological sex. I don’t know quite what to do with the (mildly amusing) contradiction to her overall claim, namely that if the construction is in fact of a two-sex system, then exactly how is it that these non-binary expressions emerge (if it’s a chicken that produces the egg, then where did this swan come from)? Maybe construction is not actually reality…
Fausto-Sterling suggests that “cells and culture mutually construct each other,” (242) a theme of her work is that nature and nurture are inseparable. Breaking down this dichotomy is helpful and encouraging. However, if we are to “erode the distinctions between the physical and the social body” (20), where does that leave rights claims? Seemingly, one of the classic claims of early feminisms in the West was that women had more claim over their bodies than did political (often masculine) entities, if not an absolute claim; if we are to erode that physical/social distinction, would that not reinforce certain assumptions she is trying to dissolve? Fausto-Sterling should possibly describe in more detail the permeability of this distinction, and defend why some of the distinctions not remain in place.
Finally, as a theology student with particular ethical commitments, I wonder how her use of the word “process” might interact with theological frameworks that share the same name that suggest ‘becoming’ should be privileged over ‘being.’ This might explain her aversion to notions of ‘essence’ and nature, but she does not clearly discredit that school of thought. Instead, she ostensibly suggests a fusion of nature/biology (essence) and nurture/culture (environment), though I am left wondering if in reality she holds more firmly to the latter than the former. After all, she spends little energy or ink to critiquing culture per se, instead focusing her energy on scientific and medical forms of gender essentialism.
Questions;
• How does DST fit with theological frameworks such as “Narrative/Post-Liberal” or “Process” (235) theological frameworks?
• If culture is so formative and co-productive, how should that shape the ethics of mass media, television, advertising, etc.?
As new technologies and categories and biological phenomenon are discovered and require description, the very act of describing enters a new ‘thing’ into existence; hence, “scientists create truths about reality.” (5) Varying disciplines have identified and regulated (created?) gender – from religion, to law, science, and (most recently) medicine. However, what we think of as gender has actually been different across time and culture, most often being related directly to male political privilege. These disciplines, instead of merely identifying or categorizing gender, have been used by the status quo to regulate gender and punish or ‘correct’ deviance from a “two-sex system.” Science especially “was used as a tool to obliterate precisely the wonders it illuminated” (37) with scientists defining “some bodies as better and more deserving of rights than others.” (39)
Medicine takes a heavy beating in Fausto-Sterling’s critic, especially the practice of infant genital surgery, variously referred to also as “mutilation.” (79) Surgeries that “correct” biology, she claims, are actually motivated by social concerns, not “nature’s course,” as the language of doctors often suggests. She argues strongly in favor of discontinuing involuntary and unnecessary procedures that often are conducted without parental knowledge or consent.
In her concluding chapter, Fausto-Sterling focuses again on processes as the fundamental character of gender identity formation, that (using the example of blind Braille readers) “the environment and the body co-produce behavior and that it is inappropriate to try to make one component prior to the other.” (241) This fits well with her overriding thesis that “the divide between nature and nurture is indivisible.” [I lost the citation, but credit is hers] The name she gives to this framework is described variously as a “Development [or Dynamic] Systems Theory” and a “Systems Account” (25, 238, 243, 249, 254, etc.) of gender identity.
Obviously, a major theme of her work is that gender (and I kept reading into her claims ‘identity’ as well) is constructed over time and never totally crystallizes into one final and absolute form. Dynamic systems of physiology and environment co-produce the developing gendered person, even as society writ large suggests that gender is produced, perhaps at conception, by biological sex. I don’t know quite what to do with the (mildly amusing) contradiction to her overall claim, namely that if the construction is in fact of a two-sex system, then exactly how is it that these non-binary expressions emerge (if it’s a chicken that produces the egg, then where did this swan come from)? Maybe construction is not actually reality…
Fausto-Sterling suggests that “cells and culture mutually construct each other,” (242) a theme of her work is that nature and nurture are inseparable. Breaking down this dichotomy is helpful and encouraging. However, if we are to “erode the distinctions between the physical and the social body” (20), where does that leave rights claims? Seemingly, one of the classic claims of early feminisms in the West was that women had more claim over their bodies than did political (often masculine) entities, if not an absolute claim; if we are to erode that physical/social distinction, would that not reinforce certain assumptions she is trying to dissolve? Fausto-Sterling should possibly describe in more detail the permeability of this distinction, and defend why some of the distinctions not remain in place.
Finally, as a theology student with particular ethical commitments, I wonder how her use of the word “process” might interact with theological frameworks that share the same name that suggest ‘becoming’ should be privileged over ‘being.’ This might explain her aversion to notions of ‘essence’ and nature, but she does not clearly discredit that school of thought. Instead, she ostensibly suggests a fusion of nature/biology (essence) and nurture/culture (environment), though I am left wondering if in reality she holds more firmly to the latter than the former. After all, she spends little energy or ink to critiquing culture per se, instead focusing her energy on scientific and medical forms of gender essentialism.
Questions;
• How does DST fit with theological frameworks such as “Narrative/Post-Liberal” or “Process” (235) theological frameworks?
• If culture is so formative and co-productive, how should that shape the ethics of mass media, television, advertising, etc.?
July 13, 2014
Good feminist critical appraisal of mainstream biological accounts of gender/sex/sexuality. Fausto-Sterling is an icon in this field, and this work clearly demonstrates why. That said, I was still somewhat underwhelmed by this text. If you're looking for an introduction to feminist biology that is heavily footnoted for further reading, you'll find it here. However, this text didn't go as deep as I was hoping for.
Some more significant limitations were a general lack of discussion of transgender and non-binary people (trans* folks get a few brief mentions but are never treated in depth) and a failure to account for the role that race played/plays in constructions of accounts of sexual difference.
I read this in tandem with Thomas Lacquer's "Making Sex," which was a great complement to this text. However, neither work seriously addressed race. I plan to read "The Specter of Sex" next to attempt to remedy this gap; it may be of interest to others for similar reasons.
Some more significant limitations were a general lack of discussion of transgender and non-binary people (trans* folks get a few brief mentions but are never treated in depth) and a failure to account for the role that race played/plays in constructions of accounts of sexual difference.
I read this in tandem with Thomas Lacquer's "Making Sex," which was a great complement to this text. However, neither work seriously addressed race. I plan to read "The Specter of Sex" next to attempt to remedy this gap; it may be of interest to others for similar reasons.
May 22, 2016
It's really great to see a gender studies text written by a scientist rather than a sociologist. Fausto Sterling brings a whole different perspective. While gender as seen as a social construct, sex is seen as biological. An Ivy league molecular biologist, Fausto Sterling talks about how biology does not in fact give two sexes. Sex is a social construct as well as gender. You will love this book if you're into academic books, science, and gender studies. She breaks up chapters with comic strips to make the whole thing more digestible. I learned a lot from reading this.
February 4, 2017
"The feminist theorist Donna Haraway has written that biology is politics by other means. This book provides an extended argument for the truth of that claim. We will, I am sure, continue to fight our politics through arguments about biology. I want us never, in the process, to lose sight of the fact that our debates about the body's biology are always simultaneously moral, ethical, and political debates about social and political equality and the possibilities for change. Nothing less is at stake."
April 14, 2019
While I've read excerpts of this canonical work mainly through other works, I have never sat down and read it thru. I'm of the nature & nurture school myself, being bisexual and gender nonbinary, so her history of the study of gender and sexuality proving it's mismeasure by man (lots of male mansplaining scientists actually) was fulfilling as a fight song at the gender pep rally. A lot of that history is also pretty dirty, especially in the ways people with intersex conditions were mistreated, used for "study", and harmed through misgendering.
May 28, 2008
INCREDIBLE BOOK! Possibly the best reason I went back to grad school. Fausto-Sterling takes a critical look at how science and scientific "fact" is socially constructed, and applies this argument to the narrow understanding of sex and gender by the medical community. A biologist and sexuality theorist, Fausto-Sterling brings together excellent insight into the much-too-easily accepted two-gender system, and breaks down intersexuality in a fascinating way.
January 28, 2017
This is one of the best books I have read on development and gender theory. The authors makes a big effort to cater the layperson and the scientists and she does a great job. She keeps the main text with an clean prose and leaves the more sophisticated information for the notes. Also, she has great metaphors that let you visualize several key concepts on dynamical systems. Most probably, I will revisit this book over and over. Every person interested on gender studies should read it.
August 15, 2010
Sometimes I have dreams where Anne Fausto-Sterling is my best friend and we sit around and avoid being gender normative and laugh at the rest of society. And then I wake up to a world where things are, shall we say, not like that. Nevertheless, Anne Fausto-Sterling's existence makes it all a bit better.
September 17, 2015
So much new info in here, with truly disruptive thoughts - especially the part about intersexuality was amazing. The second half gets a bit too much into details and therefore is quite difficult to read, but overall, it's been great and provides good ammo against people claiming gender expression is solely "natural".
July 26, 2007
Fausto Sterling reconsiders what it means to be man or woman, and along the way exposes why the science backing up traditional definitions may not have such a strong leg to stand on.
April 13, 2025
this was very interesting and challenging for me. i am definitely more interested and engaged by the social elements and anecdotes than by the hyper-scientific explanations. i especially appreciated the final chapter and the afterword that were added in the 2020 edition. i think it was super helpful and important to add more social context and updating certain ideas from the 2000 version. i found these last two chunks to be the most engaging, especially as i could connect them with my own experience of the world now. one of the most interesting and frustrating things i learned was about how international sports competitions deal with sex difference, particularly intersex people/people with differences in sex such as higher testosterone levels. to this day a woman with high testosterone levels is required to submit to humiliating medical examination, and either reduce testosterone levels of her own accord, or 1. compete in men’s competitions or 2. compete in non existent intersex competitions. and reading this from the perspective of the current world with this current administration don’t even get me started! in 2020 fausto-sterling referenced that the trump administration wanted to legally define only two sex categories and force citizens into those definitions and look where we are!
February 1, 2022
Lectura obligatoria sobre sistemas sexo/género
"Machos y hembras se sitúan en los extremos de un continuo biológico, pero hay muchos otros cuerpos, como el de Suydam, que combinan componentes anatómicos convencionalmente atribuídos a uno u otro polo. Las implicaciones de mi idea de un continuo sexual son profundas. Si la naturaleza realmente nos ofrece más de dos sexos, entonces nuestras nociones vigentes de masculinidad y feminidad son presunciones culturales. Reconceptualizar la categoría de 'sexo' desafía aspectos hondamente arraigados de la organización social europea y americana." (p. 48)
"El problema con el género, en su concepción actual, es la violencia --metafótica y real-- que ejercemos al generalizar. Ningún varón ni mujer se ajusta al estereotipo genérico universal." (p. 135)
"El cuerpo y las circunstancias en las que se reproduce no son entidades separables. De nuevo, algo que a menudo contemplamos como estático cambia a lo largo del ciclo vital, y sólo puede comprenderse en términos de un sistema biocultural." (p. 290)
"Un individuo no puede alcanzar o articular una comprensión de sí mismo fuera de su ubicación en los significados del mundo. Tales significados contextualizados pueden corresponder a lo que otros llaman esquema de género". (p. 336)
"Machos y hembras se sitúan en los extremos de un continuo biológico, pero hay muchos otros cuerpos, como el de Suydam, que combinan componentes anatómicos convencionalmente atribuídos a uno u otro polo. Las implicaciones de mi idea de un continuo sexual son profundas. Si la naturaleza realmente nos ofrece más de dos sexos, entonces nuestras nociones vigentes de masculinidad y feminidad son presunciones culturales. Reconceptualizar la categoría de 'sexo' desafía aspectos hondamente arraigados de la organización social europea y americana." (p. 48)
"El problema con el género, en su concepción actual, es la violencia --metafótica y real-- que ejercemos al generalizar. Ningún varón ni mujer se ajusta al estereotipo genérico universal." (p. 135)
"El cuerpo y las circunstancias en las que se reproduce no son entidades separables. De nuevo, algo que a menudo contemplamos como estático cambia a lo largo del ciclo vital, y sólo puede comprenderse en términos de un sistema biocultural." (p. 290)
"Un individuo no puede alcanzar o articular una comprensión de sí mismo fuera de su ubicación en los significados del mundo. Tales significados contextualizados pueden corresponder a lo que otros llaman esquema de género". (p. 336)
December 14, 2021
I read this in the early 2000s but I think it is still relevant today. I think it is worth referring to as society tries to correct pronouns and binary gender construction. She points out how biased gender hormone research was at its inception and how fluid gender has always been a reality. It is not a result of woke thinking but woke thinking can be, in my opinion, overly aggressive about correcting for this. Gender is a fluid construct in humans but some amount of constructed gender is necessary for reproduction in all species. I think that isolating people who feel binary is just as much a mistake as isolating people who feel that their gender is fluid. To that end, one can learn a lot from this book.
June 15, 2020
This was an *exhaustive* overview of the intersection between biological, social, and cultural constructions of gender. It was very thorough and well-researched, though the writing was dry at times. Written by a biologist, it nevertheless interrogates what we know to be “true” about the human body through a range of critical lenses.
September 30, 2025
On the whole I found this book to be hard going, being mostly historical, details of the history of how sex and gender have been studied, some of which is unpleasant to read. I realise that I don't need to know that scientists have found differences in people's brains or atonomies to understand that there are a range of people with different genders in the world, that I am happy to believe what people tell me about their understanding of themselves, and I'm not really sure that science can find the answer in why there are so many people who feel differently to the binary in a study of people's brains or bodies or upbringing.
February 4, 2022
One everyone should be reading.
May 14, 2020
I think that this book direly needs an update. It's important content, but I can't get behind going in on transsexuals, the use of racist terminology, or the view from being white.
November 17, 2024
Excellent book. Doesn't necessarily provide all the answers but certainly an important element of the conversation. Thoroughly researched with lots of detail approaching the issues from a range of angles.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews