Biologie: materielle Dimensionen von Geschlecht in biologisch-kritischer Perspektive

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
Part of the Geschlecht und Gesellschaft book series (GUG, volume 65)

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag charakterisiert zwei zentrale Perspektiven der biologiebezogenen Geschlechterforschung: die biologieimmanente, methodisch und inhaltlich intervenierende Ebene und die geistes- bzw. sozialwissenschaftlich ausgerichtete, genderreflexive Wissenschaftsforschung.

Schlüsselwörter

Körper Embodiment Plastizität Methodenkritik Wissenschaftsreflexion 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literatur

  1. Ah-King, Malin, Hrsg. 2013. Challenging popular myths of sex, gender and biology. Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Birke, Lynda. 1986. Women, feminism and biology. The feminist challenge. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  3. Birke, Lynda. 1999. Feminism and the biological body. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bleier, Ruth. 1984. Science and gender. A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bleier, Ruth, Hrsg. 1986. Feminist approaches to science. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bluhm, Robyn, Anne Jaap Jacobson, und Heidi Lene Maibom, Hrsg. 2012. Neurofeminism. Issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Dahlberg, Frances, Hrsg. 1981. Women the gatherer. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1982. Teaching aids: Focus on women and science. Course closeup: The biology of gender. Women’s Studies Quarterly 10(2): 17–19.Google Scholar
  9. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1985. Gefangene des Geschlechts? Was biologische Theorien über Mann und Frau sagen. München/Zürich: Piper.Google Scholar
  10. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1992. Building two-way streets: The case of feminism and science. National Womenʼs Studies Association Journal 4(3): 336–349.Google Scholar
  11. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1995. Gender, race, and nation. The comparative anatomy of „Hottentot“ women in europe, 1815–1817. In Deviant bodies. Critical perspectives on difference in science and popular culture, Hrsg. Jennifer Terry und Jacqueline Urla, 19–48. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the body. Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2012. Sex/gender. Biology in a social world. New York/Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Fedigan, Linda M. 1982. Primate paradigms. Sex roles and social bonds. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gowaty, Patricia A. 1997. Introduction: Darwinian feminists and feminist evolutionists. In Feminism and evolutionary biology, Hrsg. Patricia Gowaty, 1–18. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hankinson Nelson, Lynn, und Alison Wylie, Hrsg. 2004. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy. Special issue: Feminist science studies. 19(1).Google Scholar
  17. Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate visions. In Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Honegger, Claudia. 1996. Die Ordnung der Geschlechter. Die Wissenschaften vom Menschen und das Weib 1750–1850. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. 1981. The woman that never evolved. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hubbard, Ruth, Hrsg. 1990. The politics of women’s biology. New Brunswick/London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hubbard, Ruth, Mary S. Henifin, und Barbara Fried, Hrsg. 1979. Women look at biology looking at women. A collection of feminist critiques. Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  23. Hubbard, Ruth, Mary S. Henifin, und Barbara Fried, Hrsg. 1982. Biological woman – The convenient myth. A collection of feminist essays and a comprehensive bibliography. Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  24. Jordan-Young, Rebecca M. 2010. Brain storm. The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Keller, Evelyn F. 1998. Das Leben neu denken. Metaphern der Biologie im 20. Jahrhundert. München: Verlag Antje Kunstmann.Google Scholar
  26. Krall, Lisa, und und Sigrid Schmitz. 2016. Potentiale epigenetischer Forschung für das Konzept ‚sex vs. Gender‘. GENDER. Zeitschrift für Geschlecht, Kultur und Gesellschaft 8(2): 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krieger, Nancy. 2005. Embodiment: A conceptual glossary for epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59:350–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laqueur, Thomas. 1996. Auf den Leib geschrieben. Die Inszenierung der Geschlechter von der Antike bis Freud. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, Emily. 1991. The Egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs 16(3): 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayberry, Maralee, Banu Subramaniam, und Lisa H. Weasel, Hrsg. 2001. Feminist science studies – A new generation. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Müller, Ruth, Martyn Pickersgill, Jörg Niewöhner, Paul Martin, und Sarah Cunningham-Burley. 2013. Mapping the new molecular landscape: Social and ethical aspects of epigenetics. New Genetics & Society 32(4): 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oudshoorn, Nelly. 1994. Beyond the natural body. An archeology of sex hormones. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richardson, Sarah. 2013. Sex itself. The search for male and female in the human genome. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rippon, Gina, Rebecca M. Jordan-Young, Anelis Kaiser, und und Cordelia Fine. 2014. Recommendations for sex/gender neuroimaging research: Key principles and implications for research design, analysis, and interpretation. Frontiers in human neuroscience 8:650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberts, Celia. 2002. A matter of embodied fact. Sex hormones and the history of bodies. Feminist Theory 3(1): 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosser, Sue V. 1986. Teaching science and health from a feminist perspective: A practical Guide. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rosser, Sue V., Hrsg. 1989. Women’s studies international forum. Special issue: Feminism and science. In memory of Ruth Bleier 12(3).Google Scholar
  38. Rosser, Sue V. 1992. Biology & Feminism. A dynamic Interaction. New York: Twayne Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Schiebinger, Londa. 1993. Schöne Geister. Frauen in den Anfängen der modernen Wissenschaft. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  40. Schiebinger, Londa. 1995. Am Busen der Natur. Erkenntnisse und Geschlecht in den Anfängen der Wissenschaft. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  41. Schiebinger, Londa. 1999. Forschen Frauen anders? Wie weiblich ist die Wissenschaft? München: Verlag C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  42. Schmitz, Sigrid, und Grit Höppner, Hrsg. 2014. Gendered neurocultures. Feminist and queer perspectives on current brain discourses. Wien: Zaglossus.Google Scholar
  43. Spanier, Bonnie B. 1995. Im/partial Science. Gender Ideology in molecular Biology. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Star, Susan L. 1979. The politics of right and left: Sex differences in hemispheric brain asymmetry. In Women look at biology looking at women. A collection of feminist critiques, Hrsg. Ruth Hubbard, Mary S. Henifin und Barbara Fried, 61–76. Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  45. Subramaniam, Banu. 2001. And the mirror cracked! Reflections of natures and cultures. In Feminist science studies – A new generation, Hrsg. Maralee Mayberry, Banu Subramaniam und Lisa H. Weasel, 55–62. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Subramaniam, Banu. 2014. Ghost stories for Darwin: The science of variation and the politics of diversity. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  47. Tanner, Nancy, und Adrienne Zihlman. 1976. Women in evolution. Part I: Innovation and selection in human Origins. Signs 1(3): 585–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. The Biology and Gender Study Group: Athena Beldecos, Sarah Bailey, Scott Gilbert, Karen Hicks, Lori Kenschaft, Nancy Niemczyk, Rebecca Rosenberg, Stephanie Schaertel, und Andrew Wedel. 1988. The importance of feminist critique for contemporary cell biology. Hypatia 3(1): 172–187.Google Scholar
  49. Tuana, Nancy, Hrsg. 1987. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy. Special issue: Feminism and science I. 2(3).Google Scholar
  50. Tuana, Nancy, Hrsg. 1989. Feminism and science. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Vandermassen, Griet. 2005. Who’s afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating feminism and evolutionary theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  52. Voß, Heinz-Jürgen. 2010. Making sex revisited. Dekonstruktion des Geschlechts aus biologisch-medizinischer Perspektive. Bielefeld: transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walter, Suzanna Danuta, Hrsg. 2003. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. Special Issue Gender and Science. 28(3).Google Scholar
  54. Weasel, Lisa H. 2004. Feminist intersections in science: Race, gender and sexuality through the microscope. Hypatia 19(1): 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zihlman, Adrienne. 1978. Women in evolution. Part II: Subsistence and social organization among early hominids. Signs 4(11): 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Geschichtswissenschaften, Gender and ScienceHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations