Women s Studies International Forum, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 587 599, 2000
Copyright © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0277-5395/00/$ see front matter
PII S0277-5395(00)00127-8
SITTING ON THE FENCE: BIOLOGY, FEMINISM AND
GENDER-BENDING ENVIRONMENTS
Lynda Birke
Talygarth Ucha, Glyn Ceiriog, Llangollen LL20 7AB, United Kingdom
Synopsis  In this article, I use the example of  gender-bending chemicals to explore some of the
ways we think about  nature. Feminist biologists occupy a tricky position, having both to accept the re-
ality of nature to some degree (especially if working in the lab, or when critiquing biological determin-
ism); but we must also recognize the ways in which knowing about nature is socially constructed.
I illustrate the tensions between these two viewpoints through a specific focus on chemicals thought
to damage reproduction. There has been much recent coverage on how much people are now exposed
to chemicals which can act like hormones (they are therefore called endocrine disrupters) and so alter
hormones within our bodies media accounts dub them  gender-bending because of their effects on
the sex of some wildlife. Through this, I explore the intertwined assumptions about gender and nature
that pepper both scientific and popular reporting. But looking at the social contexts of these ideas is not
enough; we have also to think about material effects on women s bodies and health (a realist position).
Apart from exploring these tensions between realism and how we think about it, the example of endo-
crine disrupters also poses questions for how we think about the body, and for feminist activism around
health and environmental issues. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.
INTRODUCTION in particular social contexts helped, for exam-
ple, to separate feminism from crude biologi-
It s rather tricky being a feminist biologist.
cal determinism (such as claims that how we
Within modern feminism, there has long been
behave is all down to the genes). But that em-
an ambivalence towards biology. On the one
phasis seems to deny or ignore the messy en-
hand, those working on activist or practical
tity known as the human body (despite much
projects such as women s health, reproduc-
theoretical concern with the cultural meanings
tive rights, environmental issues are likely to
of the body in current theory (see Birke, 1999).
assume the material reality of  the biological ,
As a result,  biology all too often comes im-
as they are dealing with issues of the health of
plicitly to mean an underlying bedrock, inac-
the body.1 On the other hand, feminist theory
cessible to analysis. It is just as often equated
has been concerned largely with social con-
with unchanging essence. No wonder feminist
struction of, say, gender or sexuality, in ways
theorists tend to avoid it.
that explicitly play down  the biological.
So, feminist biologists must occupy an un-
Feminist biologists thus sometimes find them-
easy position. We must at times act as critics of
selves sitting uncomfortable on both sides of
the methods of science (a position Sandra Har-
the fence at once.
ding has called feminist empiricism: Harding,
There have been good reasons for the intel-
1986). This stance assumes that science could
lectual preoccupation with social and cultural
be done better, that it could do a better job in
construction.2 Emphasizing the multitude of
describing the material world. A recent exam-
ways in which gender or sexuality are created
ple is critiques of claims that scientists have
found some biological basis for homosexuality;
feminist critics emphasized the flaws in the sci-
I am grateful to Consuelo Rivera Fuentes and to Mike
ence as a strategy for attacking the underlying
Michael for discussion and for commenting on an earlier
draft of this article. claim (see Fausto-Sterling, 1992).
587
588 Lynda Birke
Yet this stance is at odds with the insis- I begin with setting out some of the back-
tence, dominant in much feminist theory and ground to this story of chemical pollutants, and
in science studies, that what we claim to know then go on to discuss ways in which newspaper
about the  natural world is socially/culturally coverage perpetuated particular stereotypes of
mediated. Put another way, this is to say that gender and sexuality. Media discourses em-
we cannot  know nature except through our phasize not only threats of infertility but also
cultural representations of it. At its most ex- of  gender-bending ; through the multiple
treme, this view can take the form of virtually connections of popular media and mainstream
denying the existence of nature  out there. scientific literature,4 these accounts remind us
Perhaps not surprisingly, I have problems with of the constructedness of the categories by
this extreme view. I want it both ways (see which we might understand  nature (in this
Haraway, 1991; Prins, 1995); I cannot be a bi- case, the gendered body). In reading these lit-
ologist and not believe that there is a material- eratures, I did just that, analyzing and decon-
ity to the animals I study, even while I ac- structing categories.
knowledge that my knowledge claims, too, are But this literature also tell a tale of specific
constructed in a particular social context. biological effects on our bodies and their po-
To be sure, these tensions have become less tential to reproduce. I must, then, also engage
polarized; most theorists in science studies with this material in a more realist mode. What
tend now to adopt a more  in-between posi- we know about such effects is, of course, a
tion, drawing on the best insights of both ends complex and negotiated product of scientists
of the spectrum (Rose, 1997). From the em- actions, institutional positions and interests,
phasis on social constructionism, for example, and global politics; but it is also much more. If
we have become more sophisticated about an- certain chemicals have the potential to damage
alyzing how knowledge is created, and by/for our bodies, then emphasizing how socially con-
whom; while several theorists have countered structed our understanding is, or mapping out
constructionism with a (cautious) realism who influences whom in associated political
which acknowledges the material world [see, power plays, does little to stop that damage.5
for example, Soper (1995), and Dickens (1996) So, I also ask questions later in the article
analyses of concepts of  nature ]. about the possible impact of these chemicals
Yet problems remain. The tensions persist on women s health, before returning at the end
for example in the schism between feminist to the underlying problem of sitting on the
theorists and feminist activists; Noel Sturgeon fence.
(1997), in her analysis of ecofeminism, notes Surprisingly, perhaps, there seems to have
for instance how feminist theory (emphasizing been little concern about these chemicals in
constructivism) has tended both to reject biol- the pages of feminist journals. Partly, that may
ogism/ essentialism and to associate it with ac- be because of the emphasis on construction-
tivist groups (who tend towards realism). Ac- ism, which glides over  the biological. And
tivism is still largely separated from academic partly, too, it may be because feminist science
feminist theory. Relatedly, sophisticated theo- studies focuses (in my view) on certain areas of
retical attempts to bridge the constructivist/re- modern science (the new genetics, for exam-
alist divide do not necessarily suggest a politics ple, or cloning), while paying little attention to
(Michael, 1999). other areas of science. Some activist organiza-
In this article, I explore some of these ten- tions, such as the Women s Environmental
sions through one specific example, focusing Network in Britain, have produced material on
on growing concern about particular chemical endocrine disrupters and women s health (no-
pollutants namely those the media have tably in relation to breast cancer).6 But aca-
dubbed as  gender-bending . I use this exam- demic feminism has largely ignored them, even
ple to illustrate tensions between realist views in work on ecofeminist activism.7
(that  nature really exists) and ideas of social One purpose of this article, then, is to use
construction (that all we know is a social prod- the example of endocrine disrupters as a spe-
uct). According to some reports, these  gen- cific example which then enables me to ex-
der-bending chemicals (such as the phtha- plore the uncomfortable fence-sitting that I
lates, an ingredient of plastics) threaten our find myself in, as a biologist and a feminist
very capacity to reproduce as a species at all.3 critic. I see myself slipping uneasily between
Sitting on the Fence 589
the language of social constructionism, and the tors, the scientists found, had tiny penises (fe-
language of scientific facts perhaps what I males suffered problems with their ovaries and
need as a tool for reading/writing here is a play egg production; unsurprisingly, this was not
in two (or more) voices or, at the very least, a seen as so newsworthy). The males, the story
different metaphor (Haraway, 1991). So, a sec- went, had been feminized. The culprit was be-
ond purpose of the article is to explore these lieved to be chemicals in a chemical spill in
tensions, and to ask whether we can reconcile 1980 from a nearby factory (Guillette et al.,
them with practical politics. 1994).
Many other stories of effects of chemicals
on reproduction have since emerged; a whole
BACKGROUND: THE DISCOVERY OF
range of widely-used chemicals, it seems, can
ENDOCRINE DISRUPTERS
alter hormones and hence reproduction. Fish
Most people are familiar with the story that swimming near sewage outlets in British rivers,
some of the chemicals manufactured in indus- for example, appeared to change sex; more
trialized countries are highly toxic. But this is precisely, scientists later found, the males
not of course just a story, a narrative construc- started to produce the protein, vitellogenin,
tion: toxic chemicals can kill. Death and sick- normally produced by females in association
ness return us to the reality and limitations of with egg laying (Jobling & Sumpter, 1993).8
our biological bodies. We know, too, that Again, something in the water seemed to be
many toxic chemicals are carcinogenic (can- implicated, leading to changes in the reproduc-
cer-causing). And we know that many of these tive physiology of animals.
have wreaked enormous havoc on the environ- Yet what about people? Is there any evi-
ment. The pesticide DDT was banned in many dence that these chemicals can affect humans?
countries, for example, once its damaging ef- While many of these stories have been dis-
fects on wildlife were recognized. This was in puted by at least some scientists, there is much
large part thanks to the ground-breaking work circumstantial evidence. Reports have emerged
of biologist Rachel Carson, whose 1962 book of damage to the fertility of wildlife, and labo-
Silent Spring (Carson, 1962) catalogued the ratory experiments indicate that many chemi-
devastation caused by indiscriminate use of cals in common use have at least the potential
pesticides. The silence of the book s title re- to affect hormones. Might this, some scientists
ferred to the loss of birdsong: dead birds don t have wondered, be a factor in (for example)
sing (Lear, 1997; Raglon, 1997). the much-publicized decline in human sperm
Death and cancer have been the main indi- count?
cators of toxic effects; they are, moreover, the Again, scientists dispute the data;9 but sev-
endpoints of many laboratory toxicological eral studies have claimed that there has been a
studies. More subtle effects, not culminating in consistent decline in sperm count among men
death or tumors, can thus easily be missed (as over the last few decades (Sharpe & Skakke-
many critics of toxicological tests relying on an- baek, 1993). This, they suggest, might reflect a
imals deaths have pointed out: see, for exam- global change in male fertility. Others have
ple, Fano, 1997). So it was some time before looked at claims that breast cancer rates are
anyone noticed the less obvious effects of increasing. If so, then exposure to chemicals
chemical use in the environment in particu- that affect bodily estrogen levels (thus affect-
lar, the decline in fertility and damage to repro- ing breast tissue) might be a culprit.
duction. These are toxic effects, but they are The hypothesis is that the chemical pollut-
not immediately obvious, nor are they always ants can alter hormone levels within the body,
directly measurable in terms of the usual end- by various means. One route is that the chemi-
points of death or cancer. Rather, reproduction cal attaches itself to the body s own recep-
might be compromised by toxin exposure with- tors molecules on the surface of cells which
out any other noticeable health effects.  pick up specific hormones within the body
Perhaps the most publicized report indicat- (rather like a lock and key). Once the chemical
ing that something was amiss reproductively message is attached to the receptor, it can trig-
was that from scientists studying alligators in ger a whole chain of processes within the
Lake Apopka, Florida. Not only had the popu- body even if the chemical message has come
lation suffered a decline, but the male alliga- from an outsider molecule.
590 Lynda Birke
Doctors (and feminists) have long been Others believe that the evidence is too scanty,
aware of the tragedy of diethylstilbestrol without any clear indication that specific
(DES). DES was a synthetic estrogen first pro- chemicals cause specific damage.
duced in 1938 and later used to prevent mis- We are familiar enough with controversy in
carriages in women. Only much later, in the science; media reporting of various controver-
1970s, did its other effects become known, sies has ensured that most people are aware
when several young women were diagnosed that scientists often disagree over how to inter-
with a very rare form of vaginal cancer: their pret data. The story of endocrine disrupters is
mothers had been given DES during the preg- no different. Yet science has long been a slip-
nancy. pery ally for environmental campaigners: on
The curious thing about DES is that the the one hand, it is the products of science and
shape of the molecule is quite unlike that of technology that seem to present problems
the body s natural estrogens, yet somehow it through pollution, while on the other, cam-
seems to attach itself to the body s receptors paigners must turn to science in order to dem-
for estrogens. If that can occur, some scientists onstrate the problems (Powell and Leiss, 1997;
thought, then a whole range of other chemicals Yearley, 1991).
might do likewise and so disrupt fertility or fe- In the case of endocrine disrupters (as with
tal development. And, indeed, a wide range of other agents allegedly damaging the environ-
chemicals has been under suspicion from ment), trying to prove long-term damage is not
substances used as pesticides, to substances easy. Not only are there disagreements about
routinely incorporated into plastics. Moreover, the scientific details, but there are also clashes
they seem to find their way into the bodies of of interests individual careers, industrial con-
all of us, wherever we live; some chemicals are cerns, national and international politics.
concentrated in fatty tissue and appear even in Skeptics insist that there are few, or no, data
the breast milk of Inuit women living in the showing direct causal links; without these,
high Arctic, far from sites of chemical use and risks to human health cannot be proven. Scien-
manufacture. tists like Colborn, on the other hand, insist that
By the early 1990s, evidence was mounting there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence:
of damage to reproduction and fertility among chemical spills followed by dramatic declines
a wide range of wildlife species. The scientist in fertility; correlations between levels of par-
responsible for amassing the various data and ticular chemicals in the body and health prob-
for drawing conclusions from it was Theo Col- lems; claims that there are worldwide falls in
born; shocked by her conclusions, she went on sperm count. Do we, she asks, go on waiting
to look at the implications for human health. until definite proof is in (even if that were pos-
Like Rachel Carson, Theo Colborn was some- sible)? Or should we not act now on the as-
thing of an outsider. Bored with her career as a sumption that we might be jeopardizing the fu-
pharmacist, she did her Ph.D. in her fifties. ture of our children and of wildlife?
Working later as a wildlife biologist, she came
across several reports of anomalies in the de-
HORMONES AND
velopment of offspring among different spe-
 GENDER-BENDING : LESBIAN
cies of vertebrate animals. Piecing all these to-
GULLS AND THE UNMANNED MAN
gether, she finally concluded that the common
thread was disruption to the endocrine sys- These are powerful challenges. And they raise
tem the set of hormones and their glands several issues for feminists from the sensa-
which she then published as a popular book, tionalist language and its constructions of
Our Stolen Future (Colborn et al., 1996).  gender to the potential risks to women s
Colborn, and many other scientists, are con- health. To address these, however, I must
vinced that the evidence indicates endocrine move between different positions. In the sec-
disruption both in humans and in various wild- tion on background, above, I remained fairly
life species, and that chemicals in the environ- descriptive, and relatively uncritical of the sci-
ment are the likely cause. Not surprisingly, entific claims. Moving on to the language and
such claims have been contested. Some scien- concepts in this next section, however, re-
tists accept possible damage to wildlife, but are quires that I emphasize the social constructed-
doubtful about the claims about human health. ness of the categories involved; the very idea
Sitting on the Fence 591
of  gender-bending rests on many assump- in which the sex of fish in sewage effluent
tions about both gender and biology. played a part. In these accounts, the rather
Where does the idea of  gender-bending sensationalistic term  gender-bending is
come from? Culturally, it evokes concepts of used to frame further discussion of human fer-
transsexualism or transvestitism, implying a tility. One example is coverage of the much-
conscious (human) choice to alter the appar- publicized decline in sperm count; was it, jour-
ent sex of one s body or its external appear- nalists asked, all pointing to a feminization of
ance. In biological terms, the person remains males? Table 111 shows some illustrative exam-
the sex of their birth (in that they will have XX ples; these quotes identify two significant
or XY chromosomes, whatever the surgery), themes of media coverage, threats to masculin-
and there is no alteration of the internal repro- ity and hormones/feminization.
ductive tract beyond removal of part of it. But In newspaper headlines and coverage, the
that is not quite what is at stake in the refer- phrase  gender-bending chemicals has been
ences to gender-bending chemicals. Here, common. But note that what this signifies (at
there appears to be no choice; we are bom- least in terms of the frequency of reporting) is
barded with these chemicals. They appear to a chemical effect that  feminizes males (see
act, moreover, on the reproductive system it- examples in Table 1). This, perhaps not sur-
self, altering it permanently.  Gender-bend- prisingly, lends itself to hyperbole:  manhood
ing , then, implies not an act of will, to change is shrinking ; boys are  disappearing , while
the body s appearance to fit what the person men are  emasculated. The effects, more-
feels her/himself to be, but something which over, are presented as challenges to  sexual
might act on any of us:10 it thus threatens the identity , creating  transsexual animals such
social and cultural basis of our allocation into as fish.
binary sexes and takes us into new realms of What is striking about these reports (apart
what we might mean by  social construction from anxiety about masculinity) is the lan-
of gender. guage, and the assumptions lying behind it. Es-
Media coverage certainly emphasized the trogens are  female hormones , which are  to
growing concern about the future of human re- blame for the potential threat to manhood.
production and declines in fertility. But it also The word  sinister follows the use of the
played on the theme of  sex change , a theme phrase  gay gulls. There is a  sperm crisis.
Table 1. Some Examples of Descriptions of Endocrine Disruptors and Their Effects in Media Coverage
1.  Threats to Masculinity
 . . . baby boys disappearing . . . male genital defects are increasing . . . (Montague, 1997).
 evidence that . . . oestrogenic-like . . . chemical in the food chain are playing a role in the unmanning of man and
causing a decline in sperm count (Oliver, 1995).
  Top Scots boffin says manhood is shrinking . . . today s man is half the man his grandfather was . . . . These days, no
one wants to be  feminised , not even alligators and women (Showalter, 1997).
 . . . men who eat organic vegetables can it is claimed . . . boast dizzying amounts of super-sperm . . . is the very essence
of masculinity threatened . . . ? (Hunt, 1997).
 So are oestrogens in the body . . . female Trojan horses threatening to emasculate men and bring the human race as
we know it to a halt? . . . the threat and promise of a hormone that, while not perhaps strictly  female , retains a
touch of feminine mystique (Bower, 1997).
 . . . environmental pollutants are slowly subverting the male sex by lowering sperm counts (Hawkes, 1997).
2.  Transsexual Hormones and Feminisation
 This is not a feminist tract, but a very significant book . . . [the topic concerns the] sexual identity of animals in the
wild. Something very worrying is also occurring with the sexual identity of animals in the wild. Alligators . . . seem
to be changing sex (Wolpert, 1997).
 Phthalates, which are widely used to soften plastic, are among a group of  gender benders , thought to mimic the
female hormones and cause freak occurrences such as the feminisation of male fish (Cooper, 1996).
 It is the ultimate environmental horror story . . . the future of mankind threatened in the most fundamental way by
 gender-bending chemicals. . . . And the cunning twist in this particular plot line [of declining sperm count]? The
female hormone, oestrogen, appears to be to blame (Hunt, 1995).
 . . . lesbian seagulls . . . [are] male gulls  feminised by DDT? (Showalter, 1997).
 . . . gay gulls . . . [may provide evidence that] something strange and sinister is happening to life on earth (Lean, 1996).
592 Lynda Birke
No wonder the writers agonize over the future TWO BY TWO:
of sexual identity. HORMONAL DICHOTOMIES
What the newspaper reports (and to a
lesser extent the scientific papers) articulate is Both media representations and the originat-
a primary concern about the development of ing biomedical literature rely on binary con-
the male, not sex per se. Thus, subheadings ap- cepts of gender. Whatever the complex rela-
peared expressing anxiety about the possible tionship between these two sources, both draw
disappearance of baby boys, and the focus of on the trope of objectivity, on the belief in re-
many articles on wildlife fertility was the un- porting the truth (see Nelkin, 1987). Such em-
derendowed penises of the alligators of Lake phasis on reporting typically fails to address
Apopka. Similarly, a BBC television docu- the cultural assumptions underlying the claims,
mentary appeared, entitled  Assault on the in this case, cultural conventions of gender
Male .12 The possibility that males might be which are  read onto nature.  Gender-bend-
losing their biological manhood strikes terror ing  alterations to our  natural gender by
into many hearts. causes beyond our control is the predomi-
Moreover, it is human sperm that takes cen- nant narrative, framing also discussions of de-
ter stage in stories agonizing over the future of clines in fertility.
human reproduction. While declines in sperm Dichotomies of gender have long been chal-
count have been contested, there is more pub- lenged within feminism. But what about the di-
lished evidence for a potential effect on male chotomies within the narratives of science, of
fertility than on female. Indeed, one scientific the  underlying biology  how are cultural as-
report notes that  few recent reports have sumptions about gender inscribed there?
found environmental endocrine disruptions to Here, my concern is with binarism within the
be causative mechanisms seriously affecting science relating to endocrine disrupters, and
human female reproduction (Crisp et al., which therefore, informs both the scientific re-
1998, p. 20). ports of these chemicals and the consequent
Prioritizing the male is, of course, not ex- media coverage.
actly news to feminists, and we should perhaps From the beginning of endocrine research
not be surprised if journalists draw on particu- in the early 20th century, scientists have
lar phrases having currency in the wider cul- tended to write about hormones as binary, as
ture. One source of the media preoccupation  male or  female (Oudshoorn, 1994; van
with masculinity is the general bias in scientific den Wijngaard, 1997). It is a legacy with us still
accounts, now well documented by feminist (and perpetuated in popular culture), as
critics, towards a focus on (and valorization of) though certain hormones were the prerogative
the male. Even in scientific textbooks, sperm of one sex. Not only are hormones not usually
are heroic, unlike eggs (Biology and Gender exclusive to one sex, but in many animals
Study Group, 1989; Martin, 1987); bacteria changing sex (or  gender-bending ) occurs
with plasmids are more masculine than those quite commonly (Bagemihl, 1999). Fish, for in-
without (Spanier, 1995); and in developmental stance, might change sex depending on the so-
biology, having a Y chromosome is what mat- cial and environmental conditions, while a tur-
ters most (Fausto-Sterling, 1989).13 tle s sex depends upon the temperature at
Prioritizing maleness in narratives of  gen- which the egg is kept prior to hatching. The bi-
der-bending helps to perpetuate a rigid di- nary assumption, in short, is a projection of hu-
chotomy of gender.  Gender-bending in turn man cultural mores, and relies on a very lim-
becomes a problem in these tales because of ited range of animals (notably those most like
the assumption that gender is always one or us, the mammals).
the other; thus, altering the balance of hor- By labeling hormones as though they were
mones in the body poses a threat to the neat intrinsically gendered, endocrinologists have
either/or division because it might  feminize asserted a qualitative difference, hormones as
the body of males. We must then read poten- having essence. It does not matter that the sci-
tial threats to fertility within this narrative; de- entists themselves would not claim one hor-
clines in sperm count not only challenge the mone or other as belonging only to one sex. By
future of human reproduction, but they also labelling them as such, a binary narrative is
imply a loss of manhood. created, which in turn acquires currency in the
Sitting on the Fence 593
wider culture precisely because it fits so neatly rupted; but it is a disruption along a pole
with cultural stereotypes. It thus becomes masculinization or feminization. Even while
rather difficult to understand the possible ef- much of the literature acknowledges the mess-
fects of endocrine disrupters without recourse iness of the categories, it still perpetuates
to binary categories.14 them. For example, vom Saal s work with fetal
From the labels, binary hypotheses follow, positions indicates how variable can be the ef-
and return to the wider culture. One example fects of hormone exposure. Yet that variability
is the idea that, as a result of exposure to hor- remains within the binary division: females be-
mones during early development, the fetal come masculinized. It is that binary which fea-
brain is permanently organized into a  fe- tures so strongly in media representations.
male or  male pattern (the so-called  orga- Now, that is not to deny the effects of endo-
nization hypothesis ).15 Brains, the story goes, crine disruption, but it is to point to the frame-
are permanently organized by gender and sex- work within which the existing data are inter-
uality by means of these hormonal washes (a preted (or constructed). And that framework is
view supported by Simon LeVay s much-pub- a  gender-bending one, just because it relies
licized claim to have identified  gay brains : on rigid categories, which can thus be  bent.
LeVay, 1991). Smaller effects might thus become overlooked,
Among mammals producing many young, it while binarism implies a standard against
is a lottery where exactly in the womb any one which possible effects are evaluated. Differ-
offspring ends up; a developing female might ences between different bodies are thereby
find herself next to two males, two females, or downplayed, while emphasizing  deviation.
one of each, for example. That lottery, some Gendered dichotomy is etched deep into
scientists suggest, marks the animals for life. narratives of biology, particularly for mam-
Being next to two males in the womb means mals and particularly in the organization hy-
that a female mouse is exposed to higher levels pothesis. Femininity and masculinity thus be-
of androgens ( male hormones) than if she come products not of complex social
were next to females. She is permanently negotiations and cultural learning, but of inevi-
changed; she is, scientists believe, more aggres- table biological processes happening while we
sive than her sisters a working example of are still in the womb. These in turn are the
the organization hypothesis.16 products of equally dichotomous molecules,
Alerted to the possibilities of endocrine dis- already defined as gendered. Cultural conven-
ruption from environmental exposure, the sci- tions of gender have been read onto mole-
entists who discovered this effect in the womb cules, which in turn have come to define the
then wondered about some of the chemicals cultural conventions of gender. It is no won-
implicated in endocrine disruption (vom Saal, der, then, that newspaper stories focus on chal-
1989). What they reported was that there were lenges to the binarism from endocrine disrup-
indeed effects of even quite low doses of endo- tion  gender-bending indeed.
crine disrupting chemicals. Fetuses, moreover, Feminist theory has long challenged gender
are much more likely to be at risk from even dualism, while feminist biologists have pointed
tiny amounts of a toxic chemical. to its perpetuation within biomedical narratives
What is the context within which we must (e.g., Fausto-Sterling, 1992). In that sense, the
interpret these claims of endocrine disruption problems of binarism I have just noted are fa-
in the fetus? In the first place, there is global miliar to feminists. But these problems of inter-
concern about the concentration of toxic pretation in turn make it quite difficult to inter-
chemicals in food chains; that focus alerted pret the potential effects of chemical exposure.
vom Saal and his colleagues to consider poten- How far, for instance, does a difference have to
tial effects from the chemicals about which be from the  standard before it becomes a
there is current concern the endocrine dis-  deviation ? How do we respond to this ques-
rupters. The story that fetuses can be changed tion do we ignore the biological data and in-
by their neighbors thus gains new impetus. sist on social constructionism? is  risk only
Secondly, the theoretical framework of en- to be understood in terms of the social actors
docrine research remains a binary one. It as- and their debates?
sumes a dichotomous division between  male To be sure, we need to know something
and  female biologies, which can be dis- about whose interests are at stake in the con-
594 Lynda Birke
troversy, or about the global politics of indus- The possibility of damage to reproductive
trial production of, say, plastics. These socio- health is undoubtedly a feminist issue partly
logical concerns provide a context. But we because women must necessarily take the ma-
need also to acknowledge in the more realist jor role in human reproduction (which still re-
mode to which I must now turn that there quires women s bodies), and partly because of
may indeed be effects on our health that can- the extent to which medical control over
not be explained solely by recourse to social women s bodies operates through the pro-
and cultural categories. And if we do, given cesses of reproduction. So, the more that
the power of the binary model, how can we be- women s fertility is threatened by environmen-
gin to understand or interpret what toxic tal damage, the more likely it becomes that
chemicals might be doing to our bodies? they will encounter interventions in the form
of reproductive technologies. Infertility is in-
creasingly subject to medical  treatment ,
WOMEN S HEALTH ISSUES:
ranging from hormonal drugs, or artificial in-
HOW SAFE IS SAFE?
semination, to more extensive procedures such
Binary thinking and prioritizing males, com- as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or donation of
bined with language which denigrates female eggs.
biology,17 could mean that effects of environ- There are many feminist critiques of these
mental chemicals on women s health might be practices, underlining ways in which  infertil-
missed: women s health all too often takes sec- ity has become constructed as a specific medi-
ond place in toxicological studies (Messing & cal concern subject to medical treatment (e.g.,
Mergler, 1995). Headlines focusing on  gender- Birke et al., 1990; Stanworth, 1987). There are
bending do not help for here, too, any impli- also issues of consent, of the extent to which
cations of endocrine disruption for women and we can or should oppose new developments in
their health are shadowed by the apparently reproduction, of the relationship between new
neutral  gender to describe feminization of reproductive technologies and other practices
males. Even when we read of  threats to the fu- such as genetic manipulation. My point here,
ture of human reproduction , it is the declining however, is to note how modern Western bio-
sperm count that seems to cause most concern. medicine offers us these techniques, while the
And not only might women s health needs be same culture simultaneously produces the
neglected through concerns about sperm, but chemical products which, by (potentially)
any decline in male fertility is likely to bring damaging fertility, render interventionist tech-
women increasingly under medical surveillance niques more likely. And, of course, many of
through infertility clinics. the women who could be most affected by
That potential effects on women s health chemicals in the environment are those least
are neglected becomes a specific form of social able to access such high-tech medicine.
construction; toxicological studies all too often A particularly important aspect of medi-
establish standards based on white males. This cally assisted conception, however, is precisely
has little to do with biology, and much to do its reliance on hormones. Most techniques en-
with social/cultural categories and social inter- tail synchronizing the woman s endocrine sys-
ests. But in noting that, I do not mean that tem using hormonal drugs, so that she pro-
there are no effects on women s health only duces mature eggs at a specific time. Feminist
that the categories by which we might try to critics have often voiced fears that these hor-
understand them are constructed in gendered mones constitute a potential hazard; the high
and hierarchical ways. doses necessary to stimulate the ovary, for ex-
To turn to the scientific literature again, ample, mean that several eggs are produced at
there are several ways in which women s health once, thus risking multiple pregnancy, and
might become compromised through exposure may even cause hyperstimulation resulting in
to endocrine disrupting chemicals. As I have the woman s death.
noted, scientists dispute the evidence for ef- Now, if the fears of scientists like Theo Col-
fects on human health. Nonetheless, rising born are right, we are all being exposed contin-
breast cancer rates, endometriosis,18 and thy- ually to exogenous chemicals acting like hor-
roid dysfunction have all been attributed to mones through the environment. That, then, is
such chemical exposure (Crisp et al., 1998). the bodily context into which doctors are ad-
Sitting on the Fence 595
ministering hormones in procedures of as- tain itself fairly constant. That is the basis of
sisted conception. What might be the long- homeostasis; bodies do that sort of thing all the
term consequences for women of these cock- time. Furthermore, scientists knowledge of
tails of hormones? How might they interact how bodies do this balancing act relies to a
with receptors which are already  picking up large extent on studies of single variables.
the external chemicals acting like estrogens They can predict what chemical X does, or
from our environment? And how might femi- chemical Y. Perhaps they can predict what X
nists respond to these claims should we fear and Y will do if X and Y are in a living body
the worst in terms of our bodily health, or together at least some of the time. But what
should we focus our attention on critiques of science is not particularly good at doing is pre-
the categories? dicting how these different bits and pieces in-
If we begin with health, a critical question teract, especially over time.
for feminists to evaluate is the extent to which That is the trouble with critical evaluation
women are indeed at risk from exposure to of potential effects of toxic chemicals.
 extra hormones. That matters for all of us, Whether we speak of systems such as the hu-
since high levels of certain hormones can in- man body, or ecosystems, or anything else, we
crease risks of disease (breast or endometrial cannot know how such chemicals might alter
cancer, for example); it matters particularly to the balance, especially since the systems in
pregnant women, since the fetus may be more question might be exposed to a whole cocktail
susceptible to damaging effects of chemicals of chemicals. Science cannot readily tell us
(the DES story should remind us of that). And what to expect from such multiple and com-
women often take exogenous hormones, pre- plex exposure, because of its focus on single
scribed by doctors for contraception, to alle- variables.
viate problems of menopause or during proce- My desire to retain some sort of realism (to
dures such as IVF. We do not know how these allow me to speak about the processes of the
might alter our body s responses to external body) does not mean, however, that we must
endocrine disrupters, or vice versa. take on board notions of biology as fixity or es-
Evaluating the data is not easy, however. sence. While the body certainly does maintain
While there is some scientific consensus re- stability, that is not the same as fixity (see
garding effects on wildlife (such as the Florida Birke, 1999; Rose, 1998). On the contrary, ho-
alligators), there is much less agreement about meostasis is a dynamic process, enabling the
effects on human health. Even the much- body to maintain internal conditions around a
hyped decline in human sperm count could be norm, or set point (our bodies normally main-
a statistical artifact, a product of different tain core temperatures of 37 degrees Celsius,
methods of measurement, critics allege. Skep- for example). But there is no reason to sup-
tics argue that the levels of endocrine disrupt- pose that a setpoint cannot ever shift, perhaps
ing chemicals is quite low, and that the mam- because of external changes. One example of
malian body can stabilize levels of hormones such a shift happens during the menopause;
quite well. Some chemicals, moreover, may act the communication between pituitary gland
like estrogens, while others oppose the effects and ovaries does not break down (as the text-
of estrogens (Institute for Environment and book language of deficiency might convey) but
Health, 1995). Dioxins, for instance, can act as shifts to a different set point.
anti-estrogens, an effect which some scientists The fact that our bodies balance themselves
have suggested should be taken into account in homeostasis is not necessarily an argument
when measuring risks to health from exposure against possible harmful effects of chemicals
to environmental estrogens (Safe, 1995). Other acting like estrogens. They may, or may not,
scientists, skeptical of the claims for significant have serious long-term effects. We simply
levels of endocrine disruption, argue that we don t know, and partly because of the reduc-
humans have been eating plant estrogens for tionism of science answers are hard to come
thousands of years, which might also have ef- by. Indeed, to refer back to scientists and their
fects on our reproductive capability. 19 interests, most are heavily invested in scientific
On the other hand, feminists among others reductionism.
might want to urge caution. The human body, So, evaluating risks to health is fraught with
for example, may indeed stabilize and main- problems. There is clearly controversy among
596 Lynda Birke
scientists about how to interpret data; the data vert assumption. Tiny amounts of these chemi-
are unpredictable, as are the systems in which cals can enter the body and seem to be able to
the chemicals are acting. But some of the un- effect change. How significant that is, we can-
predictability is a product of the very processes not say; our understanding is limited by
of science and its deep-seated reductionism. among other things the prevailing dichot-
Predicting how complex systems work (such as omy. Small shifts may thus not be noticed. Yet
ecosystems suddenly loaded with chemical they could effect changes in how we live our
spills) is extraordinarily difficult.20 bodies (Grosz, 1994), or, indeed, in how we
Perhaps some of the data are indeed hard to perform gender. The biological body is not
interpret; our bodies are complex enough so hermetically sealed off from its physicochemi-
that small effects of chemicals can go unno- cal environment (including the presence of po-
ticed. And it may be true that the evidence for tentially toxic chemicals), nor is it sealed off
deleterious effects is clearer for wildlife ex- from the culture in which small changes to the
posed to high levels of chemicals through body acquire meaning. These are all reasons
chemical spills, than it is for human populations why the biological body should not be ignored
who are exposed normally to much lower lev- in  body theory ; endocrine disrupters and
els.21 But, the debate matters when it is framed their possible effects remind us that we simply
in terms that often play down women s health cannot assume the (gendered) biological body
needs. For women, the sensationalized head- to be forever unchanging.
lines may be more important than the caution Writing about the biological body brings
urged by skeptical scientists: perhaps our bodily me back to the uncomfortable fence-sitting I
futures are indeed at stake. Just because there referred to at the beginning. I must play the so-
is no clear evidence to date does not mean that cial constructionist game and unpick the cate-
our health is not at risk in subtle ways.22 gories by which we understand, say, gender; I
must trace the social interests of protagonists
in the controversy, and ponder the politics.
CATEGORIES AND CONSEQUENCES:
Yet at the same time, I must switch registers
BODIES, NATURE
and write about the much more material, bio-
AND ENVIRONMENTS
logical, notion of hazards to health the view
from inside, so to speak. But perhaps that is a
To conclude, I want to locate this discussion
back into two broad frameworks recent theo- strength; perhaps sitting on the fence can pro-
rizing of  the body , and the question of real- vide a better view, a means to try to articulate
with the worlds we study, instead of distancing
ism and biology. Apart from the question of
ourselves from them (Haraway, 1991).
potential risks to women s health, endocrine
disrupters also pose questions for how we con- Still, insistence on the social construction of
gender (etc) leads all too often to the exclusion
ceptualize the body, which has become a highly
of  the biological , I have often argued. We
fashionable topic in sociological and feminist
are embodied, we are part of  nature (how-
theory. The binary labeling of hormones, the
way in which  sex differences are overempha- ever we choose to interpret either: see Soper,
sized in biomedical literature, and the assump- 1995), and it does not help our theorizing if
 the biological drops out. But neither does it
tions behind the organization hypothesis all
help (as feminist critics have often noted) if we
these combine to exacerbate a view of bodily
rely on determinist notions of  the biological ,
gender as dichotomy. By contrast, the  body
of social theory is a much more malleable en- which rarely question the underlying catego-
ries. Either way, we leave the terrain of  the
tity, where gender can become performance
(see Butler, 1993). One problem with much re- biological to our enemies.
Like other feminist biologists, the fence-sit-
cent theorizing of the body, however, is that the
ting line I take might be called one of contin-
body thus becomes a surface on which culture
gent realism.23 That is, we can try to under-
is inscribed; its biological processes rarely then
become theorized but remain taken-for- stand how the categories are constructed
socially and culturally here, my unpicking of
granted, assumed constant. The material body
binary concepts of gender within biological
thus becomes, by default, a body hermetically
narratives is one example. But, in the process,
sealed and unchanging (see Birke, 1999).
Yet endocrine disrupters challenge that co- we also seek to draw on some of the scientific
Sitting on the Fence 597
data themselves (here, that might include my quires individual and collective action to
discussion of the multiple function of hor- bridge the gap between intellectual concerns
mones), as a resource in the process of decon- and the day-to-day struggles of environmental
struction. This might then help us to draw activists. Endocrine disrupters underline these
upon more complex accounts of  the biologi- points. However hard to evaluate, however
cal , of how bodies work. bendable the gendered concepts, however we
We ignore  the biological at our peril. Re- might map the social production of our knowl-
jecting it altogether for fear of collapsing into edge, we may still be changing because of
biological determinism means that we leave them. And we need to challenge them on
ourselves with no means of understanding how many fronts intellectually and practically.
things like bodies or ecosystems work. In this Women s health, our reproductive futures
article, I have used the case study of endocrine and  nature  could well be at stake.
disrupters to point partly to the problems of
interpreting the data, even within the terms of
ENDNOTES
science. Partly, too, I have used it to underline
1. I use quotation marks here because  biology is itself
the tensions between social constructionism
an ambiguous term. It can mean a subject of study
(which tends to ignore the biological) and the
what I learned as an undergraduate, for example. But it
realist position that scientists must inevitably can also mean the sum total of all the living processes
of something human biology, for instance, or the biol-
adopt if they are ever to do science (which
ogy of ecosystems.
tends to ignore the social).
2.  Social constructionism has perhaps become too fash-
Sitting on fences, though, does not neces-
ionable, to the point of being overused and tautologi-
sarily lead to a clear politics. I am not as san- cal and hence often unhelpful, as Ian Hacking (1999)
points out.
guine as some writers that we can (relatively
3. A great many chemicals have now been listed as having
easily) steer a middle course: something al-
hormonal effects. They range from tributyltin (TBT; a
ways seems to drop out (Wynne s discussion of
chemical used to prevent fouling on the underside of
 social realism in relation to debates about
boats) to phthalates used in plastics, and a wide range
global warming, for instance, return the hu- of other manufactured chemicals. Because of the wide
range, I have simply referred to a generic  chemicals.
man agent to the stage but still, it seems to me,
I recognize that this is not all specific.
play down recalcitrant  nature : see Radder,
4. In producing media stories about science, journalists
1998; Wynne, 1996). On the contrary, the
draw on original scientific papers and conference
course now charted seems to be one of hetero- reports, as well as personal interviews. The scientific
papers may themselves make specific sociocultural
geneity (Michael, 1999), in which we attempt
assumptions about  gender ; but these may be exacer-
to combine the multiple, fragmented, layers of
bated in the deliberately more attention-getting style of
knowledge(s) about the world(s) that we in-
the press release, written specifically for journalists
habit. Pursuing the navigational metaphor,
consumption. For more detailed analysis, see Dorothy
capsizing is what comes to mind in such turbu- Nelkin (1987).
5. Environmental issues, however, are typically framed in
lent seas.
scientific terms, thus playing down the social/political
These are not, I would argue, merely the ar-
ways in which knowledge is generated. To challenge
cane concerns of a stalwart fence-sitter, wor-
environmental issues effectively requires acknowledg-
ried about falling or capsizing. Feminist theo- ing both and acting accordingly (see Yearley, 1991;
Wynne, 1996).
rizing about, say, the body limits itself if it
6. See W.E.N. Webpage; and Ann Link (1991), Chlorine,
ignores the inner processes of that body; we
Pollution and the Parents of Tomorrow, Women s
are embodied, in messy and material ways and
Environmental Network, London.
we must find ways of incorporating that under-
7. Books on ecofeminism do not tend to mention endo-
standing into theory. In analyzing the ques- crine disrupters, despite the questions these raise for
women s reproductive health: see, e.g., Seager (1993),
tion, what is nature?, Soper (1995) reminds us
Sturgeon (1997).
that we are not only producers and consumers
8. The way that two sexes develop is different in different
of socially constructed discourses about na-
kinds of vertebrates. In mammals, the first step
ture, we are also affected by that  nature.
depends on genes which  push the embryo in either a
 male direction or a  female one. Once differenti-
Yet we are not only the material consumers
ated, the change is permanent. In fish, however, it is
of environmental damage (affected by toxins,
possible for some animals to  change sex ; whether
for instance). We are also producers of it, in
they do depends on various factors, such as their social
complex ways. And that requires taking re-
status and reproductive history, as well as environmen-
sponsibility, as Soper reminds us. To do so, re- tal factors.
598 Lynda Birke
9. The dispute concerns the validity of the statistics and the womb s lining become lodged in other areas of the
the accuracy of samples. Different statistical tests abdominal cavity. As hormones fluctuate with the
might invalidate the claim that there is a consistent menstrual cycle, these fragments enlarge and bleed,
decline. contributing to pain. The causes are not known.
10. In that sense, it is quite different from the  voluntary 19. Those who cast doubt on the effects of xenoestrogens
decision to enter transsexual surgery. However, often point out that we eat more estrogens from plants.
socially constructed that choice is, the person con- On the other hand, plant estrogens and the animals
cerned must gain appropriate allies the psychiatrist, that eat them have co-evolved over millions of years.
the surgeon, friends to facilitate the process. Expo- We may in the process have evolved mechanisms to
sure to chemicals is something that happens to us, by protect us; certainly, several plant estrogens seem to
contrast. lower risks of some forms of cancer (see discussion in
11. These are illustrative examples taken from a survey of Barrett, 1996).
80 articles (published primarily in British newspapers) 20. Some scientists now use a somewhat different approach,
making reference to endocrine disrupters between concentrating on the complexity of systems and the
1992 and 1998. emergence of order from (apparent) chaos in nature; see
12. The title of this program reminded me of another BBC Kauffmann (1995). This has not yet, unfortunately, led
production some years before, which outlined scientific to many practical predictions in terms of ecosystem sta-
studies of the biological processes by which embryos bility when threatened with chemical hazards.
differentiate into two sexes. The title of that program? 21. Human health is clearly affected if people are exposed
 The Fight to be Male . It is a hard life, it would seem, to higher levels of toxic spills (the disaster at Seveso, in
becoming a male. Italy, is one example). The dispute centers on the risk
13. Prioritising maleness also meant that there was much of exposure to low levels over a long period of time.
publicity about the discovery of the Sry gene on the Y 22. Certainly, potentially toxic levels of some compounds
chromosome of mammals. This gene is part of the have been found in people. Tributyltin (TBT; used as
chain of events, which pushes the developing embryo an antifouling agent on ships), for example, is known to
in a  male direction, leading to the secretion of cause changes in reproductive organs in dog whelks. It
 male hormones, which complete the masculinizing has now been found in dangerous levels in the bodies
task. Becoming female thus became the default option of humans, provoking fears that it might promote can-
in this story. cer (Pearce, 1999).
The tale that embryos are  basically female and 23. Though drawing also on the tradition of critical real-
require a genetic and hormonal push to become male is ism; see Benton, 1993; Soper, 1995; Dickens, 1996, for
a widespread one (and has become common even in recent examples.
feminist writing, where it has acquired the status of
myth). It is, however, based on scientific accounts that
themselves prioritized maleness. Scientists working on
hormones have long known or suspected that
REFERENCES
becoming female in form also required active hor-
mones: and now, geneticists have (finally) discovered a Bagemihl, Bruce. (1999). Biological exuberance: Animal homo-
gene that pushes embryos towards being female sexuality and natural diversity. London: Profile Books.
(Vainio et al., 1999). So, rather than the  heroic male Barrett, Julia. (1996). Phytoestrogens: Friends or foes?
story, in which the possessor of a Y chromosome van- Environmental Health Perspectives, 104, 478 482.
quishes all traces of passive femininity, both sexes seem Benton, Ted. (1993). Natural relations: Ecology, animal
to require active processes for their development. rights and social justice. London: Verso.
14. Ironically, scientific narratives themselves offer alter- Biology and Gender Study Group. (1989). The importance
native stories hormones are much more complex and of feminist critique for contemporary cell biology. In
nuanced in their effects than the binary model allows. Nancy Tuana (Ed.), Feminism and science. Blooming-
They are also interchangeable testosterone can be ton, IN: Indiana University Press.
converted to estrogen, for instance, belying its label as Birke, Lynda. (1999). Feminism and the biological body.
a male hormone. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
15. Now in drawing attention to this, I do not wish to imply Birke, Lynda, Himmelweit, Susan, & Vines, Gail. (1990).
that it is simply wrong. Hormones do get into brains, Tomorrow s child: Reproductive technologies in the
and do seem to have effects. Among these is the part  90s. London: Virago.
played by androgens in permanently altering the Bower, Hilary. (1997). Science: Not just a girl thing. The
potential of one part of the brain itself to affect hor- Independent, June 29th, pp. 45 46.
monal patterns. So, the brains of females tend to be Butler, Judith. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive
cyclic over a period of days (in women, that corre- limites of  sex . London: Routledge.
sponds to the menstrual cycle), while in males such 28- Carson, Rachel. (1962). Silent spring. Cambridge, MA: Riv-
day cycles are abolished. erside Press.
16. Part of this effect is mediated by the mother, who Colborn, Theo, Dumanoski, Dianne, & Peterson Myers,
responds to these infants differently, probably because John. (1996). Our stolen future. London: Little, Brown
they smell different. & Company.
17. Emily Martin (1987) notes for example how gynecolog- Cooper, Glenda. (1996). Cover-up claim in baby milk
ical textbooks typically portray female physiology as chemicals row. The Independent, May 27, p. 3.
lack, or deficiency, especially in relation to menstrua- Crisp, Thomas, Clegg, E.D., Cooper, R.L., Wood, W.P.,
tion and the menopause. Anderson, D.G., Baetcke, K.P., Hoffmann, J.L., Mor-
18. Endometriosis is a painful condition, in which parts of row, M.S., Rodier, D.J., Schaeffer, J.E., Touart, L.W.,
Sitting on the Fence 599
Zeeman, M.G., & Patel, Y.M. (1998). Environmental Montague, Peter. (1997). Review: Something is terribly
endocrine disruption: An effects assessment and analy- wrong. Rachel s Environment and Health Weekly, 576,
sis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 106, 11 56. 1 2. http://www.rachel.org
Dickens, Peter. (1996). Reconstructing nature: Alien- Nelkin, Dorothy. (1987). Selling science? How the press
ation, emancipation and the division of labor. Lon- covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
don: Routledge. Oliver, L. (1995). Letter to the Times. December 21, p. 19.
Fano, Alix. (1997). Lethal laws: Animal testing, human Oudshoorn, Nelly. (1994). Beyond the natural body: An
health and environmental policy. London: Zed Books. archeology of sex hormones. London: Routledge.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (1989). Life in the XY corral. Pearce, Fred. (1999). Indecent exposure. New Scientist,
Women s Studies International Forum, 12, 319 331. July 17, p. 23.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (1992). Myths of gender: Biological Powell, Douglas, & Leiss, William. (1997). Mad cows and
theories of women and men. New York: Basic Books. mother s milk: The perils of poor risk communication.
Grosz, Elizabeth. (1994). Volatile bodies: Towards a corporeal Montreal: McGill-Queen s University Press.
feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Prins, Baukje. (1995). The ethics of hybrid subjects: Femi-
Guillette, Lou, Gross, T.S., Masson, G.R., Matter, J.M., nist constructivism according to Donna Haraway. Sci-
Percival, H.J., & Woodward, A.R. (1994). Develop- ence, Technology and Human Values, 20, 352 367.
mental abnormalities of the gonad and abnormal sex Radder, Hans. (1998). The politics of STS. Social Studies of
hormone concentrations in juvenile alligators from con- Science, 28, 325 331.
taminated and control lakes in Florida. Environmental Raglon, Rebecca. (1997). Rachel Carson and her legacy. In
Health Perspectives, 102, 680 688. Barbara T. Gates & Ann B. Shteir (Eds.), Natural elo-
Hacking, Ian. (1999). The social construction of what? quence: Women reinscribe science. Madison, WI: Uni-
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. versity of Wisconsin Press.
Haraway, Donna. (1991). Situated knowledges: The sci- Rose, Hilary. (1997). Goodbye truth, hello trust. In Mary
ence question in feminism and the privilege of partial Maynard (Ed.), Science and the construction of women.
perspective. In Simians, cyborgs and women. London: London: University College London Press.
Free Association. Rose, Steven. (1998). Lifelines: Biology, freedom, determin-
Harding, Sandra. (1986). The science question in feminism. ism. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Safe, Steven. (1995). Environmental and dietary estrogens
Hawkes, Nigel. (1997). When science gets it wrong: Gen- and human health: Is there a problem? Environmental
der-bending error. The Times, August 4, p. 13. Health Perspectives, 103, 346 351.
Hunt, Liz. ((1995). Watch out, estrogen about: Warning: Seager, Joni. (1993). Earth follies: Coming to feminist terms
the plastic wrapper around your sandwich may contain with the global environmental crisis. London: Routledge.
certain  gender-bending chemicals. The Independent, Sharpe, Richard M., & Skakkebaek, Neil E. (1993). Are
July 26, pp. 2 3. estrogens involved in falling sperm counts and disor-
Hunt, Liz. (1997). Why today s man is losing his virility. ders of the male reproductive tract? The Lancet, 3441,
The Independent, January 6, p. 13. 1392 1395.
Institute for Environment and Health. (1995). Environ- Showalter, Elaine. (1997). An end of sperm report. Review
mental oestrogens: Consequences to human health and of Deborah Cadbury, The feminization of nature, citing
wildlife. Leicester, UK: I.E.H., University of Leicester. an article in the Scottish Daily Record. The Observer,
Jobling, S, & Sumpter, John. (1993). Detergent compo- June 29.
nents in sewage effluent are weakly oestrogenic to fish: Soper, Kate. (1995). What is nature?. Oxford: Blackwell.
An in vitro study using rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus Spanier, Bonnie. (1995). Im/partial science: Gender ideol-
mykiss). Aquatic Toxicology, 27, 361 372. ogy in molecular biology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
Kauffmann, Stuart. (1995). At home in the universe: The search University Press.
for the laws of complexity . Harmondsworth: Penguin. Stanworth, Michelle. (Ed.) (1987). Reproductive technolo-
Lean, Geoffrey. (1996). Sperm warning. The Independent, gies. Cambridge: Polity.
April 28, p. 17. Sturgeon, Noel. (1997). Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender,
Lear, Linda. (1997). Rachel Carson: Witness for nature. feminist theory and political action. London: Routledge.
New York: Henry Holt. Vainio, S., Heikkila, M., Andreas, K., Chin, N., & McMa-
LeVay, Simon. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic struc- hon, A. (1999). Female development in mammals is
ture between heterosexual and homosexual men. Sci- regulated by Wnt-4 signaling. Nature, 397, 405 409.
ence, 253, 1034 1037. van den Wijngaard, Marianne. (1997). Reinventing the sexes:
Link, Ann. (1991). Chlorine, pollution, and the parents of The biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity.
tomorrow. London: Women s Environmental Network. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Martin, Emily. (1987). The woman in the body. Milton Key- vom Saal, Frederick. (1989). Sexual differentiation in litter
nes: Open University Press. bearing mammals: Influence of sex of adjacent fetuses
Messing, Karen, & Mergler, Donna. (1995).  The rat couldn t in utero. Journal of Animal Science, 67, 1824 1840.
speak, but we can : Inhumanity in occupational health Wolpert, Lewis. (1997). No children of men. Review of
research. In Lynda Birke & Ruth Hubbard (Eds.), Rein- Deborah Cadbury The feminization of nature. The
venting biology: Respect for life and the creation of knowl- Times, July 3, p. 42.
edge. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Wynne, Brian. (1996). SSK s identity parade: Signing-up,
Michael, Mike. (1999). A paradigm shift? Connections with off-and-on. Social Studies of Science, 26, 357 391.
other critiques of social constructionism. In D. Nightin- Yearley, Steven. (1991). The Green case: A sociology of
gale & J. Cromby (Eds.), Social constructionist psychol- environmental issues, arguments and politics. London:
ogy. Buckingham: Open University Press. HarperCollins.