Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 823–841 | Cite as

Sexes, species, and genomes: why males and females are not like humans and chimpanzees

Article

Abstract

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

Comparative genomics Gender Genomics Human genome Sex Sex differences Species 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Elisabeth Lloyd, Helen Longino, and Joan Roughgarden for their valuable feedback and support for this project. An American Fellowship from the American Association of University Women and a Mary Anne Bours Nimmo Fellowship at Stanford University helped to support this research.

References

  1. Armour JAL (2009) Human genetics: sharp focus on the variable genome. Nature 461(7265):735–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bainbridge D (2003) He and she: what’s the real difference? A new study of the Y chromosome suggests that the genetic variation between men and women is greater than we thought. In: The Boston Globe: H1Google Scholar
  3. Bleier R (1984) Science and gender: a critique of biology and its theories on women. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown CJ, Carrel L et al (1997) Expression of genes from the human active and inactive X chromosomes. Am J Hum Genet 60:1333–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrel L, Willard HF (2005) X-inactivation profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females. Nature 434(7031):400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craig IW, Mill J et al (2004) Application of microarrays to the analysis of the inactivation status of human X-linked genes expressed in lymphocytes. Eur J Hum Genet 12(8):639–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Queiroz K, Donoghue MJ (1998 [1988]) Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. In: Hull DL, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 319–347Google Scholar
  8. Delongchamp RR, Velasco C, et al. (2005) Genome-wide estimation of gender differences in the gene expression of human livers: statistical design and analysis. BMC Bioinform 6 (Suppl 2):S13Google Scholar
  9. Dowd M (2005) X-celling over men. The New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  10. Dupré J (1993) The disorder of things: metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutch Scientists Sequence Female Genome (2008) Biotechniques weekly. Retrieved 29 May 2008Google Scholar
  12. Fausto-Sterling A (1985) Myths of gender: biological theories about women and men. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Fausto-Sterling A (2000) Sexing the body: gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Fehr CJ (2001) The evolution of sex: domains and explanatory pluralism. Biol Philos 16:145–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghiselin MJ (1974) A radical solution to the species problem. Syst Zool 23:536–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glick P, Fiske ST (1999) Gender, power dynamics, and social interaction. In: Ferree M, Lorber J, Hess B (eds) Revisioning gender. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 365–398Google Scholar
  17. Gould SJ (1996) The mismeasure of man. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory TR (2005) Genome size evolution in animals. In: Gregory TR (ed) The evolution of the genome. Elsevier, New York, pp 3–87Google Scholar
  19. Guterl F (2005) The truth about gender. Newsweek: 42Google Scholar
  20. Haraway DJ (1991 [1980]) Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In: Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. Routledge, New York, pp 149–181Google Scholar
  21. Hotz RL (2005) Women are very much not alike, gene study finds. Los Angeles Times:18Google Scholar
  22. Hull DL (1978) A matter of individuality. Philos Sci 45:335–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome (2005) Nature 437(7055):69–87Google Scholar
  24. International Haplotype Consortium (2004) Integrating ethics and science in the international HapMap project. Nat Rev Genetics 5:467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jay N (1981) Gender and dichotomy. Fem Stud 7(1):38–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keller EF (1992) Secrets of life, secrets of death: essays on language, gender, and science. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. King MC, Wilson AC (1975) Evolution at two levels in humans and chimpanzees. Science 188(4184):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koenig BA, Lee SS-J et al (2008) Revisiting race in a genomic age. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  29. Lahn BT, Ebenstein L (2009) Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity. Nature 461(7265):726–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lederberg J, McCray A (2001) ‘Ome sweet ‘omics: a genealogical treasury of words. Scientist 15(7):8Google Scholar
  31. Lee C (2005) Vive la difference. Nat Genet 37(7):660–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leroi AM (2005) On human diversity. Scientist 19(20):16Google Scholar
  33. Marks J (2002) What it means to be 98 percent chimpanzee: apes, people, and their genes. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  34. Mishler BD, Brandon RN (1998 [1987]) Individuality, pluralism, and the phylogenetic species concept. In: Hull DL, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 300–318Google Scholar
  35. Nguyen DK, Disteche CM (2006) Dosage compensation of the active X chromosome in mammals. Nat Genet 38(1):47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohno S (1979 [1971]) Major sex-determining genes. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Patsopoulos NA, Tatsioni A et al (2007) Claims of sex differences: an empirical assessment in genetic associations. JAMA 298(8):880–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rinn JL, Snyder M (2005) Sexual dimorphism in mammalian gene expression. Trends Genet 21(5):298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ross MT (2005) The DNA sequence of the human X chromosome. Nature 434:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roughgarden J (2004) Evolution’s rainbow: diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  41. Roughgarden J (2009) The genial gene: deconstructing Darwinian selfishness. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  42. Schiebinger LL (1993) Nature’s body: gender in the making of modern science. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapiro LJ, Mohandas T et al (1979) Non-inactivation of an X-chromosome locus in man. Science 204(4398):1224–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skaletsky H, Kuroda-Kawaguchi T et al (2003) The male-specific region of the human Y chromosome is a mosaic of discrete sequence classes. Nature 423(6942):825–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Talebizadeh Z, Simon SD et al (2006) X chromosome gene expression in human tissues: male and female comparisons. Genomics 88(6):675–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. The Cancer Genome Atlas (2008) Retrieved 4 January, 2008, from http://cancergenome.nih.gov
  47. The Cancer Genome Project (2007) Retrieved 4 January, 2008, from http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP
  48. Tuzun E et al (2005) Fine-scale structural variation of the human genome. Nat Genet 37(7):727–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Variation in women’s X chromosomes may explain difference among individuals, between sexes (press release) (2005) Duke Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy. Retrieved 1 September, 2005, from http://www.genome.duke.edu/pressevents/news/news_050316

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations