|
Academic/Biomedical Research
News & Jobs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free Newsletters
Archive
My Subscriptions

News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
PLoS
Search News
Post Your News
JoVE

Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers

Regional News
US & Canada
Biotech Bay
Biotech Beach
Genetown
Pharm Country
BioCapital
BioMidwest
Bio NC
BioForest
Southern Pharm
BioCanada East
US Device
Europe
Asia


Company Profiles

Research Store

Research Events
Post an Event

Real Estate
Business Opportunities
|
|
|
|
|
PLoS By Category | Recent
PLoS Articles
|
|
Non-Clinical Medicine - Science Policy
|
A Conceptual Muddle: An Empirical Analysis of the Use of ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender’ in ‘Gender-Specific Medicine’ Journals
Published:
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Author:
Anne Hammarström et al.
by Anne Hammarström, Ellen Annandale
Background At the same time as there is increasing awareness in medicine of the risks of exaggerating differences between men and women, there is a growing professional movement of ‘gender-specific medicine’ which is directed towards analysing ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ differences. The aim of this article is to empirically explore how the concepts of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are used in the new field of ‘gender-specific medicine’, as reflected in two medical journals which are foundational to this relatively new field. Method and Principal Findings The data consist of all articles from the first issue of each journal in 2004 and an issue published three years later (n?=?43). In addition, all editorials over this period were included (n?=?61). Quantitative and qualitative content analyses were undertaken by the authors.Less than half of the 104 papers used the concepts of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. Less than 1 in 10 papers attempted any definition of the concepts. Overall, the given definitions were simple, unspecific and created dualisms between men and women. Almost all papers which used the two concepts did so interchangeably, with any possible interplay between ‘sex’ and gender’ referred to only in six of the papers. Conclusion The use of the concepts of ‘sex’ and gender’ in ‘gender-specific medicine’ is conceptually muddled. The simple, dualistic and individualised use of these concepts increases the risk of essentialism and reductivist thinking. It therefore highlights the need to clarify the use of the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in medical research and to develop more effective ways of conceptualising the interplay between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in relation to different diseases.
More...
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|