Another psychobiological view of sexual differentiation

The major psychobiological theory of sex differences is based on the hypothesis that hormones induce sex differences in neural organization. Hormonally masculinized or feminized brains are thought to underlie subsequent behavioral sex differences. This theory and the constructs, arguments, and evidence used in its support are closely examined. Some conceptual problems with widely used arguments are identified and discussed. Behavioral, physiological, and anatomical evidence from studies of animal sexual behavior is reviewed. It is concluded that the evidence fails to support generally accepted views that early hormones affect behavior through direct effects on brain differentiation and that behavioral differences must be located in the brain. It is argued instead that hormones coact and interact with other factors throughout development, that brain differences may result from as well as cause functional differences, and that hormone-based sources of sex differences may be located throughout the body and in the social surround. Directions for new research are suggested and implications for interpretation of human sex differences are discussed.     

Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise

ABSTRACT

Systemic injustices exclude counter-experts from telling their stories and influencing the collective imagination. Four papers and some discussant essays illustrate the ways in which counter-experts cross boundaries to contest knowledge claims, legal institutions, and forms of data in order to resist various forms of injustice. Literature on counter-expertise, socio-technical imaginaries, and epistemic injustice highlights how marginalized groups are prevented from participating in the process of collective imagining. A definition of counter-expertise and a new typology of counter-expertise demonstrate how marginalized groups navigate boundaries to pursue epistemic justice. The four papers in the special issue exemplify the ways in which counter-experts navigate identity politics. To combat epistemic injustice within our field, STS scholars can be more inclusive with teaching, mentoring, reviewing and other forms of scholarly gatekeeping.