To Örebro University

An anthropologist shows why we should think beyond the binary.

När man inom biologin har studerat olika djurarter är det ofta hanarna man riktat in sig på. I boken ”Bitch: A revolutionary guide to sex, evolution and the female animal” visar den brittiska zoologen Lucy Cooke på den oerhörda mångfald av ”kvinnligt” beteende i naturen man därmed missat.

This book traces the history of how evolutionary biology transformed its understanding of females from being coy, reserved and sexually passive, to having active sexual strategies and often mating with multiple males. Why did it take so long to discover female active sexual strategies? What prevented some researchers from engaging in sexually active females, and what prompted others to develop this new knowledge?

The Female Turn provides a global overview of shifting perceptions about females in sexual selection research on a wide range of animals, from invertebrates to primates. Evolutionary biologist and feminist science scholar Malin Ah-King explores this history from a unique interdisciplinary vantage point. Based on extensive knowledge of the scientific literature on sexual selection and in-depth interviews with leading researchers, pioneers and feminist scientists in the field, her analysis engages with key theoretical approaches in gender studies of science. Analyzing the researchers’ scientific interests, theoretical frameworks, specific study animals, technological innovations, methodologies and sometimes feminist insights, reveals how these have shaped conclusions drawn about sex. Thereby, The Female Turn shows how certain researchers gained knowledge about active females whereas others missed, ignored or delayed it – that is, how ignorance was produced.

While it is widely acknowledged that Darwin’s descriptions of females were gender-biased, gender bias in modern sexual selection research is less recognized. This Perspective highlights that sexual selection theory and research are still male-centered and suggest strategies for alleviating biases in this field and beyond. While it is widely acknowledged that Darwin’s descriptions of females were gender-biased, gender bias in current sexual selection research is less recognized. An examination of the history of sexual selection research shows prevalent male precedence-that research starts with male-centered investigations or explanations and thereafter includes female-centered equivalents. In comparison, the incidence of female precedence is low. Furthermore, a comparison between the volume of publications focusing on sexual selection in males versus in females shows that the former far outnumber the latter. This bias is not only a historical pattern; sexual selection theory and research are still male-centered-due to conspicuous traits, practical obstacles, and continued gender bias. Even the way sexual selection is commonly defined contributes to this bias. This history provides an illustrative example by which we can learn to recognize biases and identify gaps in knowledge. I conclude with a call for the scientific community to interrogate its own biases and suggest strategies for alleviating biases in this field and beyond.

Traditionally, investigators and theorists have supposed that mate choice is directional and fixed within a species as well as static within individuals over time. Lately, accumulating evidence shows that mate choice is often flexible, so that individuals change their behavior, depending on the social or ecological situation they experience or their condition. Recent theory proposes that animals should change their mate choice adaptively moment by moment in response to changes in environmental, internal, and social factors. Mate choice plasticity should be explored more in empirical studies as well as its implications for mate choice evolution and sexual selection.

What cultural nerves are triggered by the mutations of sexed biologies associated with artificially produced hormones? Evolutionary biologist and gender studies scholar Malin Ah-King and gender studies scholar Eva Hayward question the essentialist and heteronormative assumptions that frame contemporary discourses on the toxicity of endocrine disruptors.

Det finns stora variationer i hur kön formas, i könsbyten och sexuella beteenden mellan olika djurarter. Gängse föreställningar om biologiskt kön som tudelat och oföränderligt är därmed ifrågasatta. Malin Ah-King och Sören Nylin har tillsammans utvecklat en dynamisk syn på biologiskt kön som en reaktionsnorm, det vill säga kön är föränderligt och påverkas av samspelet mellan gener och miljö. En sådan syn på kön och sexualitet kan motverka stereotypa föreställningar om kön i biologisk forskning – föreställningar som delvis bottnar i kulturellt betingade sätt att förhålla sig till begrepp om kön.

Gender equality (GE) is something we cannot not want’. Indeed, the pursuit of equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for all women and men throughout a society freed from gendered oppression is widely visible in recent organizational GE initiatives. In practice, however, GE initiatives often fail in challenging gendered norms and at effecting deep-seated change. In fact, GE measures tend to encounter resistance, with a gap between saying and doing. Using a GE project at a Swedish university, we examined the changing nature of reactions to GE objectives seeking to understand why gender inequality persists in academia. We used resistance’ to identify multiple, complex reactions to the project, focusing on the discursive practices of GE. Focusing our contextual analysis on change and changes in reactions enabled a process-oriented analysis that revealed gaps where change is possible. Thus, we argue that studying change makes it possible to identify points in time where gendered discriminatory norms are more likely to occur. However, analysing discursive practices does not itself lead to change nor to action. Rather, demands for change must start with answering, in a collaborative way, what problem we are trying to solve when we start a new GE project, in order to be relevant to the specific context. Otherwise, GE risks being the captive of consensus politics and gender inequality will persist.