Now reading: ‘A Large and Long Standing Body’: Historical Authority in the Science of Sex (2020), by @jw_lockhart 1/n https://twitter.com/jw_lockhart/status/1247907440823283713

"In this chapter, I ... use sociology of science to examine the competing claims to authority made by scientists studying sex. I argue that historical revisionism is a key means of establishing authority for scientists who advocate “essential sex differences ... " 2/

"Despite what proponents of essential differences would have us believe, there's a large & longstanding body of research literature that is critical of the “sex difference” paradigm. Many scientists have challenged the scientific basis for claims of essential sex differences" 3/

" ... arguing that biology is more complex, less deterministic, and less suited to categorical binaries than sex difference scholars claim. They include [see picture] ... Far from being anti-science, these scholars have dedicated much of their careers to biological research." 4/

"The terms of debate around sex differences are fraught. Neither feminist biologists nor sex difference scholars are homogeneous groups. Many resist simple labeling ... Simultaneously, many proponents of the sex difference paradigm refer to themselves as feminists ... " 5/

"How are we to decide between the competing claims of these scientists? Their claims to authority often come down to competing historical narratives, either explicit or implicit, about the nature of sex difference research to date." 6/

"I document three common types of historical revisionism used to bolster the authority of claims about sex differences. We have already seen the first type. ... asserts a history in which innate, biological causes of social differences [are] uncontested scientific facts." 7/

"Such a history is blatantly revisionist ... More subtly, many sex-difference publications present revisionist histories through citational practice, selectively citing only supportive material or even placing references next to ideas that they do not support." 8/

"2nd approach: sex difference scholars position themselves as historical underdogs, defenders of Science, Truth & Free Inquiry against “political correctness,” trans activists & feminists. This version of history is at odds w/ the 1st, in which sex differences go unchallenged" 9/

"3rd type of revisionism involves setting up & burning a straw man I call “the big, bad social constructionist.” By selectively reporting on & demonizing their critics, sex difference scholars are able to avoid substantive engagement with alternative explanations ..." 10/

"Before engaging with revisionist accounts, it is helpful to review some often-omitted aspects of the real history of sex difference research."

[Quote from Beth Hess] 11/

""Darwin himself infamously wrote in The Descent of Man that “the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman." 12/

"It was no accident that Darwin’s cousin coined the term “eugenics” in 1883, that Darwin’s son hosted the First International Congress of Eugenics, or that IQ testing was
largely developed by eugenicists" 13/

"evolutionary psychologists frequently cite Darwin’s theory of sexual selection to argue a priori that there must be innate, cognitive differences between human men & women, just as there are differences between tails of male & female peacocks, because of how evolution works" 14/

"They assume that everything, including complex social processes & historically recent behaviors, necessarily serves some evolutionary purpose. Whatever we do today, they argue, must have been advantageous in the distant evolutionary past" 15/

(I'm reading this historical analyses by @jw_lockhart and thinking it may help explain this bias: https://twitter.com/IrisVanRooij/status/1248920216119238656?s=20) 16/

"For the most part, none of this history appears in writing from proponents of sex differences. Science writing generally does not go into the history of its field. Sex difference research is no exception ..." 17/

"authors write centuries of controversy & their position in it out of sex science. In so doing, they perform the “god trick” of appearing to have a “view from nowhere” (with no social history/agenda), which lends their work scientific credibility by making it seem objective" 18/

"some sex diff scholars are actively hostile to historical perspectives ... Bringing the history of sex difference research into contemporary scientific discussions is framed as “offensive” & irrelevant. This hostility... is what Nancy Tuana calls “epistemology of ignorance” 19/

"Lorenz was a Nazi who defended his eugenicist beliefs and research long after the war. This revelation did not prevent Baron-Cohen from writing a glowing apologia for Lorenz. Indeed, Lorenz is brought up only because he is an example of the “male brain,” which is brilliant" 20/

"systematizing but poor at empathizing (thus prone to being a great scientist & Nazi, with no apparent conflict between the 2). Some sex diff scholars, then, aren't simply unaware of the political & social history behind their ideas; they're also unfazed by learning about it" /21

(This. This is what troubles me the most. Seeing evolutionary psychologists and neuroscientists being completely unfazed by sexism, racism, eugenics, etc. in our science. Being more upset by those pointing out the problems than by the problems themselves.) /22

(And no, this is not something of the past. This happens today. There's a troubling revival of "race science". Sexism is still mainstream in evolutionary psych and neuroscience, and not to even speak of how transphobia is seen by many as respectable science and philosophy). /23