References
- ACRWH. (2014). 38th ACRWH Meeting (24 September). Videocast. Retrieved from https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=14687&bhcp=1.
- ACRWH. (2015). 40th ACRWH Meeting (20 October). Videocast. Retrieved from https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=15589&bhcp=1.
- ACRWH. (2016). 41st ACRWH Meeting (19 April). Videocast. Retrieved from https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=18490&bhcp=1.
- ACRWH. (2019). 49th ACRWH Meeting (23 October). Videocast. Retrieved from https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=34443&bhcp=1.
- ACRWH (Advisory Committee for Research on Women’s Health). (2007). Minutes of the 26th ACRWH Meeting (23 October).
- Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.
- Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- Begley, C., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483, 51–533.
- Birke, L. (2010). Structuring relationships: On science, feminism and non-human animals. Feminism & Psychology, 20(3), 337–349.
- Birke, L., Bryld, M., & Lykke, N. (2004). Animal performances: An exploration of intersections between feminist science studies and studies of human/animal relationships. Feminist Theory, 5(2), 167–183.
- Bleier, R. (1984). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon.
- Brooks, C. E., & Clayton, J. (2016). Sex/gender influences on the nervous system: Basic steps toward clinical progress. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 95(1–2), 14–16.
- Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 196–233.
- Callon, M., & Law, J. (1997). After the individual in society: Lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(2), 165–182.
- Clayton, J. A. (2015a). Considering sex as a biological variable in NIH-funded preclinical research. Letter from the Director, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 20 August 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.niams.nih.gov/about/about-the-director/letter/considering-sex-biological-variable-nih-funded-preclinical-research
- Clayton, J. A. (2015b) Happy 25th birthday, ORWH! Director's message, 31 October 2015. Retrieved from: https://orwh.od.nih.gov/about/director/messages/orwh-anniversary
- Clayton, J. A. (2016a). Sex as a biological variable: A step toward stronger science, better health. Director’s Messages, 1 February. Retrieved from https://orwh.od.nih.gov/about/director/messages/sex-biological-variable.
- Clayton, J. A. (2016b). Studying both sexes: A guiding principle for biomedicine. FASEB, 30(2), 519–524.
- Clayton, J. A., & Collins, F. S. (2014). Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies. Nature, 509(7500), 282–283.
- Colbert Report, The. (2014). Co-ed lab rats. 19 May 2014. Retrieved from http://www.cc.com/video-clips/el90zp/the-colbert-report-co-ed-lab-rats.
- Collins, F. S., & Tabak, L. A. (2014). NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505(7485), 612–613.
- Eliot, L., & Richardson, S. S. (2016). Sex in context: Limitations of animal studies for addressing human sex/gender neurobehavioral health disparities. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(47), 11823–11830.
- Epstein, S. (2007). Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
- Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., et al. (2009). Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 444–473.
- Fujimura, J. (2006). Sex genes: A critical sociomaterial approach to the politics and molecular genetics of sex determination. Signs, 32(1), 49–82.
- Fullagar, S. (2017). Post-qualitative inquiry and the new materialist turn: Implications for sport, health and physical culture research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(2), 247–257.
- Gendered Innovations. (2020). Sex and gender analysis policies of major granting agencies. Retrieved from http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/sex-and-gender-analysis-policies-major-granting-agencies.html.
- Gungor, N. Z., Duchesne, A., & Bluhm, R. (2019). A conversation around the integration of sex and gender when modeling aspects of fear, anxiety, and PTSD in animals. S&F Online, 15, 2.
- Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
- Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- Hess, D. J. (2004). Medical modernisation, scientific research fields and the epistemic politics of health social movements. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26(6), 695–709.
- Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., et al. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193.
- Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Joel, D. (2016). VIII. Captured in terminology: Sex, sex categories, and sex differences. Feminism & Psychology, 26(3), 335–345.
- Jordan-Young, R. M. (2012). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Jordan-Young, R. M., & Karkazis, K. (2019). Testosterone: An unauthorized biography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Karkazis, K. (2019). The misuses of ‘biological sex.’. The Lancet, 394(10212), 1898–1899.
- Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Klein, S. L., Schiebinger, L., et al. (2015). Opinion: Sex inclusion in basic research drives discovery. PNAS, 112(17), 5257–5258.
- Krieger, N. (2003). Gender, sexes, and health: What are the connections – and why does it matter? International Journal of Epidemiology, 32(4), 652–657.
- Latham, J. R. (2017). (Re)making sex: A praxiography of the gender clinic. Feminist Theory, 18(2), 177–204.
- Latour, B. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 107–123.
- Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm. Signs, 16, 485–501.
- McCarthy, M. (2015). Incorporating sex as a variable in preclinical neuropsychiatric research. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41(5), 1016–1020.
- National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2014). Request for Information (RFI): Consideration of Sex as a Biological Variable in Biomedical Research. Notice Number: NOT-OD-14-128.
- NIH. (2015). Enhancing reproducibility through rigor and transparency. NIH notice number: NOT-OD-15-103. Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-15-103.html.
- NIH. (2018). Frequently asked questions (FAQs): Rigor and reproducibility. Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/faqs#/rigor-and-reproducibility.htm?anchor=question54422.
- Office of Research on Women’s Health (ORWH). (2014a). Methods and Techniques for Integrating the Biological Variable Sex into Preclinical Research. Report. Bethesda, MD: Office of Research on Women’s Health, National Institutes of Health.
- ORWH. (2014b). Methods and Techniques for Integrating the Biological Variable Sex into Preclinical Research, October 20. Videocast. Retrieved from https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=14501.
- Pape, M. (2021). Co-production, multiplied: Enactments of sex as a biological variable in U. S. biomedicine. Social Studies of Science, 51(3), 339–363.
- Pape, M., Karkazis, K., Latham, J. R., & Ritz, S. (2020). Lab meeting: Resisting and remaking sex in the petri dish, the clinic, and on the track. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 6(2), 1–18.
- Prendergast, B. J., Onishi, K. G., & Zucker, I. (2014). Female mice liberated for inclusion in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neuroscience & Behavioral Reviews, 40, 1–5.
- Richardson, S. (2013). Sex itself: The search for male and female in the human genome. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Richardson, S. (2021). Sex contextualism. Unpublished manuscript.
- Richardson, S. S., Reiches, M., et al. (2015). Focus on preclinical sex differences will not address women’s and men’s health disparities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(44), 13419–13420.
- Ritz, S. A. (2017). Complexities of addressing sex in cell culture research. Signs, 42(2), 307–327.
- Ritz, S. A., Antle, D. M., et al. (2014). First steps for integrating sex and gender considerations into basic experimental biomedical research. The FASEB Journal, 28(1), 4–13.
- Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR). (2015). SWHR applauds NIH's new inclusion of sex as a biological variable. Retrieved from https://swhr.org/swhr-applauds-nihs-new-inclusion-of-sex-as-a-biological-variable/.
- Sorge, R. E., Martin, L. J., et al. (2014). Olfactory exposure to males, including men, causes stress and related analgesia in rodents. Nature Methods, 11, 629–632.
- Springer, K. W., Stellman, J. M., & Jordan-Young, R. M. (2012). Beyond a catalogue of differences. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1817–1824.
- Terry, J. (2000). “Unnatural acts” in nature: The scientific fascination with queer animals. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 6(2), 151–193.
- van Anders, S. (2012). Testosterone and sexual desire in healthy women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(6), 1471–1484.
- Zucker, I., & Beery, A. K. (2010). Males still dominate animal studies. Nature, 465(7299), 690.