Meeting Abstract
As scientists, we aim to be objective in all aspects of our research. We expect the scientific method and scientific practice to make our work objective, but this expectation has led to a cis-heteronormative and binary sex focused paradigm. Historically and currently, science has provided resources for continued oppression of women, reinforced sex behavioral differences, and reinforced gender roles. Scientific research is influenced by the context of its production, and this provides a concrete reason why biologists studying sex need an informed understanding of sex and gender. With regard to sex, there have been challenges to the traditional definitions of male and female for more than a millennium. People with a mosaic of sex characteristics or with nonbinary sex characteristics, those who are intersex, have been known across cultures and throughout history. Unfortunately, these historical data have been largely contained within the humanities and social sciences. The social and societal expectation of binary sex has led to institutional and medical regulation of people’s bodies, which has been the subject of increasing spotlight recently. In 2019, the first bill that proposed to outlaw cosmetic, medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex minors unable to give consent in the United States was introduced in California (SB201). This year has also seen notable regulation of intersex bodies by athletic associations. Regulation in the athletic community is neither new nor finished. This spotlight on nonbinary sex demonstrates the timeliness for examining the biases within the way we research and discuss sex. We know this paradigm is present within scientific research. It is reinforced by how we communicate science to various audiences, as well as how we introduce ourselves in the classroom, in meetings, and at conferences. This presentation provides actionable ways to address the paradigm at individual and institutional levels.
