Eine interessante Aufstellung geförderter Projekte in den Gender Studies
Teilprojektleitung: Prof. Dr. Kerstin Palm (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin); Verbundleitung.: Prof. Dr. Gabriele Bolte (Universität Bremen)
Eine interessante Aufstellung geförderter Projekte in den Gender Studies
Liebe Gender Studies,
Hier die Gründe, warum man euch nicht für wissenschaftlich hält:
Liebe Gender Studies,
wenn ihr euren schlechten Ruf loswerden wollt und eine Wissenschaft sein wollt, dann solltet ihr euch auch kritischen Fragen stellen und Studien wahrnehmen, die euren Theorien entgegen stehen
Ich bin gespannt, wie wissenschaftlich ihr das angeht.
Vielen Dank im voraus
Hier die Studien:
Male Gender Identity and Masculine Behavior: the Role of Sex Hormones
in Brain Development
From studies in both clinical and non-clinical samples, it seems safe to infer that prenatal exposure to androgens influence certain male gender role behaviors. Not only 46,XY but also 46,XX individuals who are exposed to high levels of testosterone, exhibit behaviors that are typically attributed to males. With regard to gender identity, we cannot draw similar
conclusions with the same level of confidence.
Elevated percentages of gender dys phoria have been found in 46,XX individuals with known exposure to atypical levels of androgens, but there is not a one-to-one relationship between such exposure and gender identity problems. Also, in individuals with a gender identity that does not correspond to their natal sex, there are indications of exposure to atypical levels of sex hormones. However, these results again do not point to a one-to-one relationship between gender identity and prenatal sex hormone levels. With regard to male development, it seems likely, on the basis of the current evidence, that sex hormones, androgens in particular, lay important groundwork for gender development. Prenatal androgens result in male-appearing genitals at birth. As a result, the envi ronment
will consider the child as a boy and treat him likewise. Prenatal brain exposure to androgens also results in various male- typical behaviors. The developing boy will consider (male genitals) and label himself ( cognitive
development) as a boy, choose male models and increasingly create his own social environment. If all these factors (body/ genitals, perception of the environment, selfperception, behaviors, and preferences) work in accordance with each other and reinforce each other, there seems to be no other possible outcome in adulthood than a firmly established male gender identity and correspond ing male behavior patterns, including sexuality. However, when some of these elements work for some reason against a male pathway, it is likely that the adult will have a gender variant identity and/or show gender variant behaviors and preferences
Sex differences in personality are believed to be comparatively small. However, research in this area has suffered from significant methodological limitations. We advance a set of guidelines for overcoming those limitations: (a) measure personality with a higher resolution than that afforded by the Big Five; (b) estimate sex differences on latent factors; and (c) assess global sex differences with multivariate effect sizes. We then apply these guidelines to a large, representative adult sample, and obtain what is presently the best estimate of global sex differences in personality.
Personality measures were obtained from a large US sample (N = 10,261) with the 16PF Questionnaire. Multigroup latent variable modeling was used to estimate sex differences on individual personality dimensions, which were then aggregated to yield a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis D). We found a global effect size D = 2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D = 1.71 (24% overlap). These are extremely large differences by psychological standards.
The idea that there are only minor differences between the personality profiles of males and females should be rejected as based on inadequate methodology.
We assessed core gender identity, sexual orientation, and recalled childhood gender role behavior in 16 women and 9 men with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and in 15 unaffected female and 10 unaffected male relatives, all between the ages of 18 and 44 years. Women with CAH recalled significantly more male‐typical play behavior as children than did unaffected women, whereas men with and without CAH did not differ. Women with CAH also reported significantly less satisfaction with the female sex of assignment and less heterosexual interest than did unaffected women. Again, men with CAH did not differ significantly from unaffected men in these respects. Our results for women with CAH are consistent with numerous prior reports indicating that girls with CAH show increased male‐typical play behavior. They also support the hypotheses that these women show reduced heterosexual interest and reduced satisfaction with the female sex of assignment. Our results for males are consistent with most prior reports that boys with CAH do not show a general alteration in childhood play behavior. In addition, they provide initial evidence that core gender identity and sexual orientation are unaffected in men with CAH. Finally, among women with CAH, we found that recalled male‐typical play in childhood correlated with reduced satisfaction with the female gender and reduced heterosexual interest in adulthood. Although prospective studies are needed, these results suggest that those girls with CAH who show the greatest alterations in childhood play behavior may be the most likely to develop a bisexual or homosexual orientation as adults and to be dissatisfied with the female sex of assignment.
We investigated playmate and play style preference in children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) (26 females, 31 males) and their unaffected siblings (26 females, 17 males) using the Playmate and Play Style Preferences Structured Interview (PPPSI). Both unaffected boys and girls preferred same-sex playmates and sex-typical play styles. In the conflict condition where children chose between a same-sex playmate engaged in an other-sex activity or an other-sex playmate engaged in a same-sex activity, boys (both CAH and unaffected brothers) almost exclusively chose playmates based on the preferred play style of the playmate as opposed to the preferred gender label of the playmate. By contrast, unaffected girls used play style and gender label about equally when choosing playmates. Girls with CAH showed a pattern similar to that of boys: their playmate selections were more masculine than unaffected girls, they preferred a boy-typical play style and, in the conflict condition, chose playmates engaged in a masculine activity. These findings suggest that prenatal androgen exposure contributes to sex differences in playmate selection observed in typically-developing children, and that, among boys and girls exposed to high levels of androgens prenatally, play style preferences drive sex segregation in play.
Cloacal exstrophy is a rare, complex defect of the entire pelvis and its contents that occurs during embryogenesis and is associated with severe phallic inadequacy or phallic absence in genetic males. For about 25 years, neonatal assignment to female sex has been advocated for affected males to overcome the issue of phallic inadequacy, but data on outcome remain sparse.
We assessed all 16 genetic males in our cloacal-exstrophy clinic at the ages of 5 to 16 years. Fourteen underwent neonatal assignment to female sex socially, legally, and surgically; the parents of the remaining two refused to do so. Detailed questionnaires extensively evaluated the development of sexual role and identity, as defined by the subjects‘ persistent declarations of their sex.
Eight of the 14 subjects assigned to female sex declared themselves male during the course of this study, whereas the 2 raised as males remained male. Subjects could be grouped according to their stated sexual identity. Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex. All 16 subjects had moderate-to-marked interests and attitudes that were considered typical of males.Follow-up ranged from 34 to 98 months.
Routine neonatal assignment of genetic males to female sex because of severe phallic inadequacy can result in unpredictable sexual identification. Clinical interventions in such children should be reexamined in the light of these findings.
A biosocial theory of gender is constructed on both the macro and micro levels. A micro-model of within-sex differences among females integrates the biological model current in primatology with the prevailing social science model. It shows how sex differences in hormone experience from gestation to adulthood shape gendered behavior (that is, behavior that differs by sex). On the macro level, this model also illustrates how socialization and environment shape gendered behavior. It then demonstrates how hormone experiences can facilitate or dampen the effects of socialization and environment on gendered behavior. Data were analyzed from a sample of 163 White women who were studied from before they were born to the end of their 3rd decade. Results show that prenatal androgen exposures from the 2nd trimester affected gendered behavior, but not exposures from the 1st or 3rd trimesters. Further, the basic hormone model shows that in this sample, mothers‘ prenatal hormones had an effect on the gendered behavior of the Ss 3 decades later. The author speculates about the constraints placed by biology on the social reconstruction of gender.
The magnitude and variability of sex differences in vocational interests were examined in the present meta-analysis for Holland’s (1959, 1997) categories (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional), Prediger’s (1982) Things–People and Data–Ideas dimensions, and the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) interest areas. Technical manuals for 47 interest inventories were used, yielding 503,188 respondents. Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d 0.93) on the Things–People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d 0.84) and Investigative (d 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d 0.35), Social (d 0.68), and Conventional (d 0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d 1.11), science (d 0.36), and mathematics (d 0.34) interests. Average effect sizes varied across interest inventories, ranging from 0.08 to 0.79. The quality of interest inventories, based on professional reputation, was not differentially related to the magnitude of sex differences. Moderators of the effect sizes included interest inventory item development strategy, scoring method, theoretical framework, and sample variables of age and cohort. Application of some item development strategies can substantially reduce sex differences. The present study suggests that interests may play a critical role in gendered occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.
Und noch ein paar nur als Links:
(Aus diesem Video)
Sex differences in personality/cognition:
Lynn (1996): http://bit.ly/2vThoy8
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2fBVn0G
Weisberg (2011): http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
Del Giudice (2012): http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx
Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (These findings run precisely contrary to social constructionist theory: it’s been tested, and it’s wrong).
Differences in men and women’s interest/priorities:
Lippa (1998): http://bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2wyfW23
See also Geary (2017) blog: http://bit.ly/2vXqCcF
Life paths of mathematically gifted females and males:
Lubinski (2014): http://bit.ly/2vSjSxb
Sex differences in academic achievement unrelated to political, economic, or social equality:
Stoet (2015): http://bit.ly/1EAfqOt
The general importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
Hines (2015) http://bit.ly/2uufOiv
Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992): http://bit.ly/2uKxpSQ
Beltz (2011): http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
Baron-Cohen (2014): http://bit.ly/2vn4KXq
Hines (2016): http://bit.ly/2hPYKSu
Personality and political belief:
Gerber (2010): http://bit.ly/2hOpnHa
Hirsh (2010): http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
Gerber (2011): http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
Xu (2013): http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Burton (2015): http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
Bakker (2016): http://bit.ly/2vMlQ1N
Occupations by gender:
Microaggressions: Strong claims, weak evidence:
Lilienfeld (2017): http://bit.ly/2vS28lg
Heute soll eine „konzentrierte Aktion“ Aktion zu Gunsten der Gender Studies starten:
aus dem Feld der Gender Studies planen wir am 18.12.2017 eine „konzertierte Aktion“, um in die derzeit öffentlich bzw. medial geführte Debatte um Gender Studies einzugreifen.
Anlass sind die derzeit scharf formulierten Angriffe in verschiedenen reichweitenstarken Zeitungen, wie z.B. FAZ, New York Times, oder Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
Es gibt jenseits solcher Beiträge auch sehr gute Berichterstattung und auch seitens der Medien ein produktives Interesse an Infos und Debatte zum Begriff ‚Gender‘ und zu den Gender Studies.
Das Verfassen von Kurzstatements an Zeitungsredaktionen der Tagespresse, Positionierungen auf Homepages, Texte auf Blogs, Twitteraktionen,… von Forschungszentren, Fachgesellschaften und Fachgruppen, Zeitschriftenredaktionen, Netzwerken, aus Konferenzzusammenhängen, Workshops oder auch von Einzelpersonen können daher einen Beitrag dazu leisten, die Wahrnehmung der Gender Studies als Forschung mit gesellschaftlich hoch relevanten Beiträgen für ein demokratisches Zusammenleben zu fördern.
Für Posts in Sozialen Medien könnten wir den Hashtag #4genderstudies nutzen.
Ausgangspunkte für Statements könnten Fragen sein wie:
- Wozu arbeiten und forschen wir? Inwiefern sind Gender Studies Wissenschaft? Was meint der Gender Begriff in Ihrem/Eurem Feld? Wer hat was (nicht) von unserer Forschung? Und ist das überhaupt eine sinnvolle Frage? Wie kooperiert Ihr / wie kooperieren Sie mit den Gender Studies? Wie ist das international?
- Darüber hinaus aber auch: Inwiefern werden mit den Angriffen auf die Gender Studies womöglich auch weitere Disziplinen und Felder der Geistes-, Sozial- und Naturwissenschaften adressiert, d.h. welches Verständnis von Wissenschaft artikuliert sich in den Gender Studies und den Phantasien um diese?
Wir freuen uns über eine rege Beteiligung und sind gespannt auf viele Beiträge, Tweets, Einlassungen am 18.12.2017!
Gerne dürfen Sie diesen Call for Action weiterleiten, damit Vernetzung und gegenseitige Bezugnahme möglich werden.
Vielleicht können wir hier ein paar der dortigen Bemühungen sammeln.