David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 25 (5):823-841 (2010)
This paper describes, analyzes, and critiques the construction of separate male and female genomes in current human genome research. Comparative genomic work on human sex differences conceives of the sexes as like different species, with different genomes. I argue that this construct is empirically unsound, distortive to research, and ethically questionable. I propose a conceptual model of biological sex that clarifies the distinction between species and sexes as genetic classes. The dynamic interdependence of the sexes makes them dyadic kinds that are not like species, which are individual kinds. The concept of sex as a dyadic kind may be fruitful as a remedy to the tendency to conceive of the sexes as distinct, binary classes in biological research on sex more generally
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
John Dupré (1993). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Harvard University Press.
Carla Fehr (2001). The Evolution of Sex: Domains and Explanatory Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy 16 (2):145-170.
Michael T. Ghiselin (1974). A Radical Solution to the Species Problem. Systematic Zoology 23:536-44.
David L. Hull (1978). A Matter of Individuality. Philosophy of Science 45 (3):335-360.
Evelyn Fox Keller (1992). Secrets of Life, Secrets of Death: Essays on Language, Gender, and Science. Routledge.
Citations of this work BETA
Angela Potochnik (2012). Feminist Implications of Model-Based Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (2):383-389.
Moira Howes (2012). Managing Salience: The Importance of Intellectual Virtue in Analyses of Biased Scientific Reasoning. Hypatia 27 (4):736-754.
Similar books and articles
M. M. Van de Pitte (1998). “The Female is Somewhat Duller”: The Construction of the Sexes in Ornithological Literature. Environmental Ethics 20 (1):23-39.
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Craig T. Palmer & Hasker P. Davis (2000). More Women (and Men) That Never Evolved. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):598-599.
Sally Haslanger (2000). Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them to Be? Noûs 34 (1):31–55.
Alison Stone (2007). The Incomplete Materialism of French Materialist Feminism. Radical Philosophy 145.
Mark Ridley (1989). The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem. Biology and Philosophy 4 (1):1-16.
Devin Henry (2007). How Sexist is Aristotle's Developmantal Biology? Phronesis 52 (3):251-69.
Sarah F. Brosnan & Frans B. M. de Waal (2005). A Cross-Species Perspective on the Selfishness Axiom. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):818-818.
Arthur C. Caplan (1980). Have Species Become Declasse? Psa 1980:71-82.
Joyce F. Benenson (1999). Females' Desire for Status Cannot Be Measured Using Male Definitions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):216-217.
Added to index2010-04-18
Total downloads63 ( #26,165 of 1,101,859 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #128,836 of 1,101,859 )
How can I increase my downloads?