Stereotypes under the microscope. (Women's Studies, Women Scientists)

Like their sister critiques of other realms of knowledge, feminist critiques of the biological sciences are based on the argument that gender-the dichotomy of maleness and femaleness -- is a socially constructed concept (although it is derived from physical, particularly genital, differences among humans) with pervasive and deeply held meanings. The understanding of "gender" as a social construct contradicts several rooted beliefs in our society, including biological determinism.

The empirical evidence that confounds biological determinist claims of inherent differences between men and women is based on the wide range and plasticity of cultural meanings of male and female in different societies and times, and the fact that males and females experience overt and subtle treatment that is different depending on their perceived or ascribed sex; babies are handled and spoken to differently from birth on the basis of their "sex." In feminist analysis, "gender" and "race" are organized systems of power relations, not biological entities.

Feminist critics can point to a variety of common fallacies underlying biological research: First, superimposing stereotypical gender attributes and language onto animals and even plants; second, creating hierarchies of organization with assumptions of centralized control, casting power relationships of "domination" and subordination" as products of evolution; third, creating dualistic (mutually exclusive) categories such as nature versus nurture, homosexual versus heterosexual; fourth , claiming that biology determines behavior; and fifth, claiming science is separate from social, political and economic interests.

All these examples are drawn from the macroscopic level; but parallel distortions appear at the microscopic level. How could this happen in the field of molecular biology, where the subject matter is not gendered animals but supposedly nongendered cells, genes, and large molecules such as DNA and …