Women’s Studies ht. Forum, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 459-471, 1991 0277-5395191 13.cul + .

oo
Printed in the USA. 0 1991 Pergamon Press plc

DUALISM IN BIOLOGY
The Case of Sex Hormones

NELLY OUDSHOORN
Science Dynamics, University of Amsterdam

and

MARIANNE VAN DEN WIJNGAARD

Womenstudies Biology, University of Amsterdam

Synopsis-In the last decades the subject of sex hormones has intruded into the lives of many
women, not only by the introduction of hormonal contraceptives but also by creating the image of
the hormonal woman. Biology tells us that our preference for dolls or cars, our sexual orientation,
and even our career choice is “all in our hormones.” In the early decades of this century biologists
introduced male and female sex hormones as the chemical messengers of femininity and masculini-
ty. Since the introduction in the 1920s the concept of male and female sex hormones has been
translated into innumerable theories on masculinity and femininity.
This paper presents an analysis of two episodes of the history of sex hormones: the birth of sex
hormones (1920-1940) and more recently the introduction of the theory on prenatal function of sex
hormones (1959-1985). We discuss how the development of research on sex hormones in both
episodes was structured by the cultural assumption of sexual duality, and how in the 1970s more
liberating views on sex differences emerged from endocrinology.

PROLOGUE particularly the study of sex hormones. The

In her book Science and Gender, Ruth Bleier
sketched the outlines for a research program
for feminist scholarship in the (natural)
sciences: “A first task in science is to exa-
mine the modes of thought that structure sci-
ence’s methodologies and its views of the
world. . . . An important task for feminist
scientists and, I believe, all feminist scholars
is to question and examine all dualisms, all
dichotomous ways in which nature, human
‘nature,’ and human activities are described,
analyzed and categorized. . . . Such dualis-
tic and universalistic concepts and modes of
thinking have not only damaged science as
well as scholarship in other areas . . . but
they have also structured our social world
and women’s place in it. They provided the
intellectual structure to accommodate the
subordinate status of women required by pa-
triarchal ideologies and institutions” (Bleier,
1984, p. 200,201).
In this paper we shall elaborate on the
question how the dualistic mode of thinking
has shaped the cognitive development of one
of the biomedical sciences: endocrinology,
introduction of the concept of sex hormones
had an enormous impact on women. In recent
decades the subject of sex hormones has in-
truded into the lives of many women, not only
by the introduction of hormonal contracep-
tives but also by creating the image of the
“hormonal” woman. This image propagates
the idea that hormonal hurricanes are govern-
ing women’s lives from their first menstrua-
tion through menopause (Fausto-Sterling,
1985). From this perspective we think it’s
worthwhile to analyze how the concept of sex
hormones is constructed in the laboratory.
In order to unravel the impact of dualism
on the study of sex hormones, we analyze
two major episodes in the history of research
on sex hormones: the time of birth of sex
hormones (approximately 1910- 1940), and
the theory of the prenatal function of sex
hormones in brain development (approxi-
mately 1959-1985). We argue that the devel-
opment of research on sex hormones in both
episodes was structured by the cultural as-
sumption of sexual duality. Furthermore, we
describe how since the 1970s this dualistic
mode of thinking has been challenged by
460 NELLY OUDSHOORN and MARIANNE VAN DEN WIJNGAARD
changing cultural ideas concerning the rela-
tion between the sexes, thus creating space
for the emergence of more liberating views of
sex differences.
THE BIRTH OF SEX HORMONES
Where and how did sex hormones originate?
To trace the birth of sex hormones we have to
return to the early decades of this century.
The idea of hormones was first suggested in
1905 by the British physiologist Ernest H.
Starling: “these chemical messengers or ‘hor-
mones’ as we may call them, have to be car-
ried from the organ where they are produced
to the organ which they affect, by means of
the blood” (Starling, 1905, p. 6). The chemi-
cal messengers believed to originate from the
sex glands were designated “sex hormones”:
male sex hormones were secreted by the
testes, and female sex hormones by the ova-
ries. In itself, this attention to the gonads
was not new. The general effects of the re-
moval of testes and ovaries had long been
known. In the days of Aristotle, farmers
were accustomed to removing the ovaries
from female domestic animals in order to
stimulate growth in size and fattness and to
inhibit sexual activity (Corner, 1965).
The concept of chemical substances secre-
ted by the glands and transported by the
blood provided scientists with a new model
to explain physiological processes and indi-
cated a new experimental approach in labo-
ratory science (Long Hall, 1975). The emerg-
ing field of the study of sex hormones
attracted different groups of actors to the
scene. Gynaecologists were the first to recog-
nize the relevance of the theory of sex hor-
mones. Surgical removal of the human
ovaries was a common practice in gynaecolo-
gical clinics, so gynaecologists were already
familiar with the changes in the body that
followed the removal of ovaries. They direct-
ed their research to the chemical messengers
of the ovaries: the female sex hormones
(Corner, 1965). Gynaecologists became inter-
ested in the glands because of their therapeu-
tic promise. The concept of female sex hor-
mones promised a better understanding and
therefore greater medical control over the
complex of female disorders, frequently as-
sociated with the ovaries, like disturbances in
menstruation and various nervous diseases
(Borell, 1985).
Although no one yet knew what the physi-
ological effects of injections of extracts of
the testes and ovaries might be, there already
existed a widespread paramedical practice in
gonadal preparations at the turn of the cen-
tury. Pills and powders prepared by midwives
and practitioners from dried ovaries and
testes were used against a wide variety of dis-
eases. Women were treated with ovary prepa-
rations for all sorts of disorders, physical as
well as mental, ascribed to malfunction of
the ovaries. Elderly men were treated with
testes preparations to restore their declining
sexual and mental abilities. This popularity
of testes and ovary preparations attracted a
second actor to the stage: the pharmaceutical
industry. Following the paramedical practice,
the pharmaceutical industry also became in-
terested in the glands. The manufacturing of
extracts from animal organs offered a new
and promising line of production. Pharma-
ceutical companies started manufacturing
ovary and testes preparations, and not with-
out success. At the turn of the century the
advertising pages of medical journals were
full of recommendations for the prescription
of these preparations under a wide variety of
trade names, indicating a flourishing phar-
maceutical trade (Corner, 1965).
Besides the gynaecologists and the phar-
maceutical industry, laboratory scientists, in
this period mainly physiologists, were also
gradually attracted to the study of the
glands. Physiologists were particularly inter-
ested in this study because the concept of
hormones provided a new model for under-
standing the physiology of the body (Borell,
1985).
The early development of research on sex
hormones was directed by the underlying as-
sumption of a dualistic concept of sex in
which male and female were defined as mu-
tually exclusive categories. On this assump-
tion the original concept of male and female
sex hormones was formulated in terms of
substances exclusively sex-specific, both in
origin and function. In the first textbook Sex
and Secretions, American biolo-
gist Frank Lillie described
follows:
 The Case of Sex Hormones
As there are two sets of sex characters, so
there are two sex hormones, the male hor-
mone controlling the “dependent” male
characters, and the female determining
the “dependent” female characters. (Lillie,
1939, p. 11)
This dualistic concept can be understood in
the cultural context of the beginning of this
century. In this period the dominant cultural
idea of sex was determined by the Doctrine
of the Bvo Sexes, a concept of sex developed
in Victorian times but still prevalent in the
opening decades of the 20th century. Accord-
ing to this doctrine, women’s activities were
in most respects the opposite of those of
men. Therefore female and male were under-
stood as opposite categories and not as two
independent or equivalent dimensions (Lew-
in, 1984).
SEX-SPECIFIC ORIGIN OF HORMONES
In the 1920s the idea of maleness and female-
ness as clearly defined hormonal states be-
came a topic of debate in the scientific com-
munity. A growing number of publications
appeared, contradicting the original concept
of sexual specificity. In these publications
scientists suggested that female and male sex
hormones were present in both sexes. Be-
cause the dualistic mode of thinking had
dominated the study of sex hormones for
years, scientists reacted to these observations
with surprise. Reading the American and Eu-
ropean scientific journals from this period
one can see and feel the astonishment and
confusion scientists were going through. Sci-
entists described the results of their experi-
ments using phrases like “to our surprise,”
“unexpected observations,” “paradoxical
findings, ” “strange and apparently anoma-
lous findings,” and the like (Frank, 1929;
Parkes, 1938a). This confusion reached a cli-
max in 1934, when, in the journal Nature,
the German gynaecologist Bernhard Zondek
described his observations as follows:
Curiously enough, as a result of further
investigations, it appears that in the urine
of the stallion also, very large quantities
of oestrogenic hormone (female sex hor-
mone) are eliminated ( . . . ). I found this
461
mass excretion of hormone only in the
male and not in the female horse. The de-
termination of the hormone content,
therefore, makes recognition of sex possi-
ble in the urine of a horse. In this connex-
ion we find the paradox that the male sex
is recognized by a high oestrogenic hor-
mone content. (Zondek, 1934a, p. 209,
210)
In the same year Zondek reported that the
testes of the stallion were an even richer
source of female sex hormones than urine
(Zondek, 1934b). Zondek’s observations
were startling at that time. Who could have
expected that the gonads of a male animal
would turn out to be the richest source of
female sex hormone ever observed? The fe-
male of the species did not escape this confu-
sion: In the same period, reports were pub-
lished on the presence of male sex hormones
in female organisms (de Jong, 1934; Siebke,
1931).
Many scientists found their own results so
surprising that they felt obliged to emphasize
the fact that they had used the urine and
blood of normal, healthy men and women.
In his book The Female Sex Hormone, the
American gynaecologist Robert Frank legiti-
mated the identity of his test subjects by the
statement that he had observed female sex
hormones in the bodies of males whose mas-
culine character and ability to impregnate fe-
males was unquestioned (Frank, 1929, p.
120). Other scientists concluded that the test-
ed subjects, though apparently normal, were
latent hermaphrodites (Parkes, 1966, p. 26).
Confronted with these unexpected data,
scientists had to find a plausible theory to
explain the presence of female sex hormones
in male organisms and vice versa. In the
1930s scientists hypothesized different ori-
gins for these “heterosexual” hormones (as
female sex hormones in male bodies, and
vice versa were named). In these hypotheses
scientists tried hard to maintain the dualistic
concept of sex according to which male and
female were defined as exclusive categories.
The gynaecologist Robert Frank suggested
that female sex hormones were not produced
by the male body itself, but that they origi-
nated from the food (Frank, 1929, p. 293).
The controversy over the sex-specific ori-
462 NELLY OUDSHOORN and MARIANNE VAN DEN WUNOAARD
gin of sex hormones ended with the chemical
identification of sex hormones. The focus on
the chemical identification and isolation of
sex hormones in the 1920s attracted a new
discipline to the emerging field of sex endo-
crinology: biochemistry. In the late 1920s
biochemists largely took over the study of
sex hormones from gynaecologists and phys-
iologists who had done the pioneer work
(Corner, 1965, p. 15). The biochemists
claimed a key position in the debate on the
sex-specific origin of sex hormones, as the
following citation illustrates:
In the second place I want to reflect on the
question if the oestrus producing sub-
stance that is present in organs and body
fluids of men, and apparently has a func-
tion there, is really female sex hormone.
In fact we know nothing more than that it
can cause the same effects as female sex
hormone. An identification can only be
possible after the chemical isolation from
this oestrus producing substance from
male products. (de Jong, 1934, p. 1213)
Thus, the biochemists claimed to provide
a definitive answer to the question of the
identity of female sex hormone in male or-
ganisms. Biochemists defined female and
male sex hormones as closely related chemi-
cal compounds, and suggested that these
substances could be detected by chemical
methods in both sexes. By 1940 biochemists
had persuaded their colleagues that the pro-
duction of female and male sex hormones
was not restricted to one sex.
SEX-SPECIFIC FUNCTION
Following the invalidation of the original
dualistic assumption of the sex-specific ori-
gin of sex hormones, scientists had to recon-
sider earlier assumptions regarding the func-
tion of sex hormones. If female sex
hormones are present in male organisms,
should the concept of an exclusively sex-spe-
cific function of sex hormones be considered
invalid as well? Can female sex hormones
have any function in the development of
male organisms? As in their early research
on the origin of sex hormones, scientists first
proposed hypotheses corresponding to the
dualistic assumption of sex. This concept
made it difficult to conceive of any function
of female sex hormones in the male body,
and therefore different hypotheses were pro-
posed suggesting a functionless presence of
female sex hormones in male bodies. First,
scientists suggested that female sex hormones
probably had no function in the male body
because the concentration of female sex hor-
mones was too small (de Jong, Laqueur, &
Dingemanse, 1929, p. 772). The assumption
that female sex hormones could not possibly
have any function in male bodies directed re-
search throughout the 1920s and 1930s. In
1934 Dutch scientists described how they had
simply overlooked the effects of female sex
hormones in male organisms (de Jong, 1934,
p. 1209). Other European scientists suggest-
ed that female sex hormones could be func-
tional in male organisms, but expected that
female sex hormones were the source of dis-
ease in the male body. Research was focused
on the presence of female sex hormones in
the bodies of men with sexual or psychologi-
cal dysfunctions (Beck & Schmitz, 1936;
Santgiorgi, 1937; Toulouse, Schiff & Sim-
monnet, 1935).
The concept of a sex-specific function al-
so created the image that female sex hor-
mones in male bodies could only cause a spe-
cifically female development, thus focussing
research on homosexuality. The basic as-
sumption underlying the hypothesis of hor-
monal causes of homosexuality was that ho-
mosexual men were considered more or less
“feminine,” so that a connection with female
sex hormone as the chemical agent of femi-
ninity seemed likely. An analogous concept
was developed for homosexual women, al-
though most studies were performed on men.
Although many of these studies failed to find
any difference in the amount of sex hor-
mones, there were numerous attempts to
treat male homosexuals with male sex hor-
mones all through the 1930s and 1940s (Mey-
er-Bahlburg, 1977, 1984).
By the end of the 1930s scientists had
gradually accepted the idea that “heterosex-
ual” hormones could have a function in the
normal development of male organisms.
Abandoning the dualistic concept of an ex-
clusively sex-specific function of sex hor-
mones, scientists now reported on the func-
tion of both male and female sex hormones
in processes like the growth of the uterus, the
 The Case of Sex Hormones
embryological development of the vagina,
and the growth of the seminal vesicles
(Korenchevsky, Dennison, & Hall, 1937). In
a review of the literature published in 1939,
the American zoologist Herbert Evans evalu-
ated the development of research in the 1930s
as follows:
The recent brilliant period of successful
isolation and chemical characterization of
the male and female sex hormones has
now been succeeded by an epoch of con-
fusion ( . . . ). The present epoch has
been characterized as one of confusion be-
cause of the demonstration of the close
chemical interrelationships of all the sex
hormones and the possibility of conver-
sion of one to the other( . . . ), the isola-
tion of male hormones from actual ovar-
ian tissue and the fact that all males
secrete estrogens and females androgens
( . . . ). Any superficial theory which con-
nects androgen excretion with male sexual
function breaks down completely when it
is shown that men can not be distin-
guished from women, or normal men
from eunuchs in respect of urinary andro-
gen. Discoveries of the last few years have
made it clear that androgenic hormones
will under some circumstances unfold es-
trogenic properties and the converse may
be said of estrogens: some of the sex hor-
mone substances in fact unfold male and
female properties with almost equal ease.
(Evans, 1939, p. 577)
What remained constant during this peri-
od was the belief that sex hormones were the
key to understanding what made a man a
man and a woman a woman, although not in
the way that had been expected from the
original concept of sex hormones. Scientists
transformed the idea that each sex could be
recognized by its own sex hormone into the
idea of a relative sexual specificity. Scientists
now suggested that, although female sex hor-
mones were more important for women (in
particular during pregnancy) than for men,
their potency was the same in both sexes.
Male sex hormones were thought to be of
greater importance for the development of
male bodies, but this was considered only as
a difference in degree. Herbert Evans de-
scribed this new theory in 1939 as follows:
463
It would appear that maleness or female-
ness cannot be looked upon as implying
the presence of one hormone and the ab-
sence of the other, but that differences in
the absolute and especially relative
amounts of these two kinds of substances
may be expected to characterize each sex
and, though much has been learned, it is
only fair to state that these differences are
still incompletely known. (Evans, 1939, p.
578)
With this change in conceptualization, the
terminology and classification of sex hor-
mones became a topic of debate in the scien-
tific community. The literature in this period
is filled with names like “homosexual hor-
mones” (referring to female sex hormones in
female organisms) and “heterosexual hor-
mones” (referring to female sex hormones in
male organisms). This type of naming was
heavily criticized by Alan S. Parkes (Parkes,
1938b). In the 1930s many scientists ex-
pressed their discontent with the terminology
and classification of sex hormones, referring
to these substances as “so-called” female sex
hormones or simply putting these names be-
tween brackets. British scientists proposed a
new classification of sex hormones into three
groups: purely male and female hormones
(active only in male or female organisms),
partially bisexual hormones (hormones with
chiefly male or female properties), and true
bisexual hormones (active in both sexes)
(Korenchevsky et al., 1937). However, this
proposal did not replace the existing classifi-
cation in two categories. Biochemists even
proposed to overthrow the entire concept of
sex hormones:
If we understand the hormones as cata-
lysts for certain chemical conversions in
cells, it would be easier to imagine the
manifold activities of each hormonal sub-
stance ( . . . ). Maybe the greatest discov-
ery in the area of sex hormones will be the
detection of the chemical conversions in
the cells which are caused by steroids with
certain structural qualities. Then the em-
pirical concept of sex hormones will dis-
appear and a part of biology will definite-
ly pass into the property of biochemistry.
(Freud, 1936, p. 12)
464 NELLYOUDSHOORN~~CIMARIANNEVANDENW~NGAARD
This prediction of the biochemists was not
fulfilled; the biological concept of sex hor-
mones did not disappear. During the 1930s
the names oestrogens and androgens became
generally accepted as scientific names. But
this new terminology did not replace the old
terms of female and male sex hormones.
From the 1930s until recently, the names
male and female sex hormones have been in
current use, both inside and outside the sci-
entific community (Oudshoorn, 1990).
HORMONES AND THE BRAIN
In reconstructing the history of research on
sex hormones in more recent years, we were
surprised to find that the dualistic idea of the
sex-specific function of sex hormones was
still very much alive. Since its introduction in
the 192Os, scientists have used the concept of
male and female sex hormones in innumera-
ble theories of masculinity and femininity. In
the remaining pages of this paper we shall
focus on one of the major theories: the or-
ganization theory.
In 1959 Charles Phoenix, Robert Goy,
Arnold Gerall, and William Young, biolo-
gists working in the Department of Anatomy
of the University of Kansas, introduced a
theory of the function of sex hormones in the
development of the brain, that became
known as the organization theory. This theo-
ry posited a hormonal basis for sex differ-
ences in the brain and for various types of
behavior.
Scientific interest in sex differences in the
brain was not new. In the last decades of the
19th century, scientists explained sex differ-
ences in behavior (and intelligence) by differ-
ences in brain volume, based on registration
of differences in skull diameter between
women and men (craniometry) (Fee, 1979;
Sayers, 1982). In this respect there are strik-
ing similarities in the historical context in
which research of sex differences in the brain
emerged. As Janet Sayers and Elisabeth Fee
have indicated, both episodes in brain re-
search resurfaced in times of feminist resur-
gence.
The organization theory had a tremen-
dous impact on scientific thought about sex-
differences. Following the introduction of
this theory, sex-differences in behavior have
more than ever been understood as rooted
primarily in biology. The theory connected
previously separated levels of brain, hor-
mones and behavior by means of functions
ascribed to hormones, thus providing a para-
digm that connected previously separated
disciplines such as embryology, endocrinolo-
gy, neurology, and even psychiatry and psy-
chology.
The development of research based on the
organization theory in the period from 1960
to 1980 illustrates that the dualistic mode of
thinking continued to structure research in a
manner similar to that in the 192Os, although
there have been important modifications.
Let us take a look at how the founders of this
theory introduced their ideas on hormones
and the brain:
. . * androgens (or some metabolite) ad-
ministered prenatally have an “organiz-
ing” action on the brain. The tissues in the
brain mediating mating behavior become
permanently masculinized by the presence
of androgens before birth, resulting in
masculine mating behavior. In animals
where no androgens are circulating, femi-
nine mating behavior develops. (Phoenix,
Goy, Gerall, & Young, 1959, p. 379)
Based on this theory scientists measured
brain differentiation by registration of mat-
ing behavior in animals. They defined male
mating behavior as mounting: An animal
climbs the back of another animal. Male
mating behavior was differentiated in several
distinct parts: mounts without intromission,
intromission-type responses, and ejacula-
tion-type responses. Scientists defined fe-
male mating behavior as lordosis: An animal
arches her/his back, and this is regarded as a
measure of receptivity.
This theory suggested that male develop-
ment of the brain and male sexual behavior is
the result of the presence of androgens be-
fore birth. For the attentive reader this argu-
ment must sound familiar. As in the 192Os,
scientists are suggesting a sex-specific func-
tion for androgens. Male development is reg-
ulated by “male” hormones. However, in
contradiction to the 192Os, in this theory sci-
entists suggested that female development is
not regulated by estrogens (“female” hor-
mones) but by the absence of “male” hor-
mones. Female brain development is consid-
 The Case of Sex Hormones
ered to be basic, the passive result of a lack
of hormones. Remarkably, estrogens as ac-
tive agents in brain development have disap-
peared from the picture. Androgens, “male”
sex hormones, are ruling the brain.
It is striking that in the 1960s scientists
kept referring to estrogens as female sex hor-
mones and to androgens as male sex hor-
mones. The frequent use of terms like “ap-
propriate” hormones (referring to androgens
in males and estrogens in females) and “he-
terotypical” hormones (referring to andro-
gens in females and estrogens in males) indi-
cate a dualistic mode of thinking. More
precisely, it was apparently expected that this
sex-specific function of the male and female
hormones would have an opposite effect if
administered to the other sex. The effect of
estrogen in a male rat, for example, was
thought to be that it differentiated “in the
opposite direction”; that it “feminised” his
brain. Estrogens were seen as opposite to and
disastrous for male behavior as the following
quotation illustrates:
It is possible that estrogen treatment dur-
ing infancy simply produces a functional
castration, and that infantile castration
leads to female like behavior. (Whalen,
1964, p. 181)
What kind of research questions were
posed in the 1960s based on this theory? The
theory provided a model to investigate the
sexual differentiation of the brain and the
development of sexual behavior. If we look
more closely at the data scientists published
in the 196Os, it becomes clear that some
questions were more important than others.
Scientists seemed to be particularly interested
in the question: “What establishes male sexu-
al behavior?” (Gorski, 1971, p. 259).
We may wonder why research into the bio-
logical background of male sexual behavior
and sexual behavior in general became popu-
lar. The resurgence of biological theories to
explain sexuality took place in the roaring
196Os, in which sexuality became a major
cultural and political issue. According to
Dutch endocrinologists, the organization
theory provided the answer to the world’s
preoccupation with homosexuality in the six-
ties (van der Werff ten Bosch, 1988). The
465
organization theory promised a biological
understanding for the development of mas-
culine and feminine behavior in general, and
for the occurrence of homosexuality and les-
bianism in particular. Based on this theory,
some scientists proposed to “cure” or even to
prevent this “deviation.” Gtinter Diirner, the
director of the Institute of Experimental En-
docrinology at the Humboldt University in
Berlin, suggested giving hormone treatment
to women, who were considered to be at risk
of giving birth to a homosexual son (Dbrner
& Hinz, 1968). Some scientists who we inter-
viewed responded that they felt that this went
too far. In this sense Dijrner is to be regarded
as controversial in the field of neuroendo-
crinology.
EXTENSION TO SEX DIFFERENCES IN
HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Inspired by the organization theory, the
American scientists Money and Ehrhardt ex-
tended the study of sexual differences in
brain development and behavior from ani-
mals to human beings. Best known are their
publications on the so-called “tomboys,”
girls who are born with masculinized genita-
lia due to “abnormal production of andro-
gens by the adrenal before birth” (Money dt
Ehrhardt, 1972). Money and Ehrhardt sug-
gested that “abnormal” amounts of andro-
gens affected these children’s brains, result-
ing in more active behavior than the control
group: “tomboy” girls liked to play with
boys, had a “high energy expenditure,” did
“rough and tumble play,” were not very inter-
ested in pretty dresses and preferred practical
clothing, and had fantasies about a career
instead of motherhood. Moreover, they
showed a tendency towards the development
of a higher IQ and a tendency towards the
development of a bisexual or lesbian sexual
orientation, ascribed to masculinization by
androgens.
This resurfacing interest in biological
models for human behavior coincided with
the emergence of the Women’s Liberation
Movement in the 1970s. Money and
Ehrhardt placed the theoretical implications
of their work explicitly in the context of the
feminist debate on the origins of sex stereo-
type behavior:
466 NELLY OUDSHOORN and MARUNNE VAN DEN WUNGAARD
Rapid advances in research from various
disciplines have opened new vistas against
which to reexamine traditional behav-
ioral opinions on masculinity and femi-
ninity. . . . We hope that the theoretical
implications may serve as a focus of fruit-
ful controversy. In connection with the
Womens’s Liberation Movement they have
in fact, already engendered dispute.
(Money & Ehrhardt, 1972, p. xi)
Money and Ehrhardt’s ideas fit seamlessly
into the dualistic image of masculinity and
femininity, including the metaphoric parallel
with Freud’s idea that masculinity is evoked
by the presence of a penis and femininity by
the lack of a penis. In Money and Ehrhardt’s
1972 book, masculinity, conceptualized as
presence of male hormones, is equated with
sexual initiative, action, intelligence and ca-
reer-orientation. Femininity is conceptual-
ized as absence of the male hormones, result-
ing in passivity, preoccupation with nice
clothes and motherhood (Birke, 1986; Bleier,
1984; Fausto-Sterling, 1985).
THE CHALLENGE TO DUALISM
The resurgence of the Women’s Liberation
Movement in the 1970s had also a major im-
pact on the development of hormone re-
search in laboratory animals. In the 197Os,
scientists preoccupation with male sexual be-
havior and homosexuality, characteristic for
the 196Os, gradually diminished. Scientists
reported results that challenged two basic
premises of the organization theory. Most
revolutionary was the suggestion that estro-
gens, and not androgens, had to be consid-
ered as the masculinizing agents. Scientists
now suggested that androgens had to be con-
verted into estrogens in order to become ac-
tive in the brain (McDonald et al., 1970),
although most scientists had difficulty with
this idea. Moreover, scientists abandoned the
idea that only male brain development and
behavior was mediated by hormones, thus
focusing research on female brain develop-
ment and behavior (van den Wijngaard,
1991).
The focus on female development and be-
havior is very clearly inspired by the emer-
gence of feminism. In 1975, Frank Beach,
director of the Department of Psychology of
the University of California, argued that fe-
male sexual behavior had been neglected by
male investigators and theorists. Beach ac-
knowledged that this argument came from
female students in the field. Based on experi-
ments by female researchers, Beach devel-
oped new concepts for the study of female
sexual behavior. In a (still) famous article
Beach suggested a (prenatal) hormonal ori-
gin for different aspects of female sexual be-
havior (Beach, 1976).
In 1978 an article appeared entitled: “Is
female sexual differentiation hormone me-
diated?” This title explicitly questioned the
original theory of sexual differentiation of
the brain, which suggested that female devel-
opment does not require any hormones. In
this article the German scientist Diihler sug-
gested that a relatively small amount of es-
trogens could stimulate female development,
whereas the presence of more estrogens could
stimulate a male differentiation (DGhler,
1978). In his model estrogens played a central
role in the process of brain differentiation for
males as well as for females; more estrogen is
required for male than for female develop-
ment. DBhler suggested that this extra
amount of estrogens might originate from
the conversion of androgens present in males
and not in females. Scientists still con-
strained by the dualistic mode of thinking
evaluated this report with mixed feelings:
We have the seemingly unusual situation
where estradiol appears to be the vehicle
for masculinization of the brain (Gorski,
1979, p. 111).
Of particular fascination has been the dis-
covery that estrogen, the potent fernare
sex hormone, normally masculinizes
the differentiating rat brain. (Shapiro,
1985, p. 167)
Remarkably, D(ihler seems to abandon the
strict dualistic function of sex hormones.
This might be explained by Diihler’s relative-
ly marginal position at this time in the field
of research: His first article was published in
1974. In addition to abandoning dualism in
hormonal function, Ddhler also introduced
an important change in the relation between
the concepts of masculinity and femininity.
His model recognized no categorical differ-
 The Case of Sex Hormones
ence between masculinity and femininity on
a theoretical level as in the original theory,
where femininity is due to an absence of male
hormones, and masculinity is due to the
presence of male hormones. In this model
sexual intermediates in brain development
and behavior can possibly develop, depen-
dent on the amount of estrogen. This ap-
proach is not dualistic in the sense of the
sexual duality of the organizational theory,
where masculinity and femininity were re-
garded as opposite and mutually exclusive
entities. Here the differences between mascu-
linity and femininity in the brain resulting
from prenatal hormones are continuous, but
actually still dualistic.
Besides criticizing the dualistic conceptu-
alization of sex hormones, scientists also
questioned the dualistic concepts of mascu-
linity and femininity in behavior. This ques-
tioning and the changes it invoked were
clearly rooted in feminist philosophy. In the
early 1970s feminist theory was oriented to-
ward rethinking the concepts of masculinity
and femininity. In this debate there were two
major positions. “Difference” feminists
chose to emphasize sexual difference and to
revaluate what was considered the core of
femininity: nurturing, which centered on the
image of woman as mother, as provider of
food, warmth, and emotional sustenance.
Some adherents of this thinking suggested
that women are different because of their dif-
ferent bodily experiences (Irigaray, 1974). In
contrast “equality” feminists chose to em-
phasize sexual equality and proposed to re-
place the dualistic model of masculinity and
femininity by androgynous models. In these
models men (Greek: andros) and women
(Greek: gynaikos) can-supposedly- devel-
op characteristics traditionally associated
with the other sex.
In the late 1970s the issue of androgyny
became a topic of debate. Many feminists
opposed the ideal of androgyny, arguing that
once again, it puts men first and more im-
portantly it leaves out the issues of power
differences between men and women. These
models would serve to make women fit into a
cultural ideal that is opposite to the femi-
nine. Moreover, they argued, these models
implicitly accept that the characteristics asso-
ciated with femininity are socially inferior.
The adherents of the androgynous models
467
argued that it is strategically important to
avoid essentialism and its connotation with
biological determinism (Vetterling-Braggin,
1982). Until today there is considerable debate
about the political implications of choices be-
tween androgynous models and models em-
phasizing difference (Alcoff, 1988).
This debate about conceptualization of
masculinity and femininity had important
implications for science, particularly psy-
chology. In 1972 the feminist psychologist
Sandra Bern rejected the dualistic definitions
of masculinity and femininity in psychologi-
cal studies. Bern argued that these character-
istics should not be considered as opposite
ends of a single continuum, but rather that
individuals should be assessed in terms both
of their “masculine assertive and instrumen-
tal dispositions as well as their feminine ex-
pressive and yielding natures” (Bern, 1972, p.
162).
This change in conceptualization of mas-
culinity and femininity in the science of psy-
chology also affected the biological sciences.
In 1974, the American psychobiologist Rich-
ard Whalen, obviously inspired by Sandra
Bern, published a remarkable article in which
he introduced a new way of conceptualizing
brain development and behavior:
Another way of conceptualizing the
change brought about by early androgen
treatment is to say that the androgen treat-
ment defeminizes. Of course, one can say
that defeminization is just a different, but
still sexist view of differentiation. This
would be true if masculinity and feminini-
ty were different ends of the same contin-
uum. Early work in our laboratory,
however, led me to the view that mascu-
linization and feminization are not differ-
ent sexist attitudes, but represent funda-
mental differences in the nature of the
hormonal control of differentiation. I call
this the orthogonal model of differentia-
tion to contrast it to the linear model.
(Whalen, 1974, p. 468)
The use of the word “sexist” is remarkable
in this quotation. In answer to our question
about why Whalen chose to use this word,
the author responded: “I believe that there
was some feeling that the concepts being de-
veloped had a positive male value and were
468 VANDEN WUNGAARD
NELLYOUDSH~~RNand MARIANNE
not socially neutral with respect to the differ-
ences between males and females” (Richard
Whalen, personal communication).
The similarity of Whalen’s revised concep-
tualization of masculinity and femininity
and Bern’s model is striking. Bern as well as
Whalen proposed to replace the dualistic, bi-
polar model of masculinity and femininity
with an orthogonal (rectangular) model.
With the orthogonal model Whalen intro-
duced another way of conceptualizing mas-
culinity and femininity in the biological sci-
ences. In the dualistic, bipolar model,
masculine and feminine characteristics were
defined each in terms of the other: The femi-
nine is not the masculine, and vice versa. In
the orthogonal model, feminine and mascu-
line characteristics are on different axes; they
are independent of each other. The rectangles
that can come into existence here do not re-
Fig. 1. (Above) The dualistic model. Femininity is ab-
sence of masculinity, femininity and masculinity both
being dependent entities. (Below) The orthogonal mod-
el. Femininity and masculinity are independent entities.
a. Individual with most feminine characteristics and
some masculine characteristics. b. Individual with most
masculine characteristics and some feminine characteris-
tics. (Reprinted with permission from Marianne van den
Wijngaard, in the Journal of the History of Biology,
Vol. 24, No. 1, 1991, pp. 19-49.)
fleet how male or female a character is, but
what potential behavioral capacities are at an
animal’s or a person’s disposal.
This model provided scientists with the
possibility of abandoning the dualistic con-
cept of masculinity and femininity in re-
search on brain development. Whalen con-
cluded that hormones can defeminize the
brain without masculinizing and masculinize
the brain without defeminizing. He empha-
sized the importance of this new sense of
masculinity and femininity as follows:
I believe this to be a critical issue because I
believe that our model of the sexual system
colors the observations we make, the exper-
iments we do, and our interpretation of re-
search findings. (Whalen, 1974, p. 468)
Summarizing the development of hormonal
brain research in the 197Os, it is clear that
Whalen and Ddhler abandoned the dualistic
mode of thinking. In the 1970s and 198Os,
scientists began to search for new models to
understand brain development and behavior,
models which could not have come into exist-
ence without the Women’s Liberation Move-
ment.
EPILOGUE
This reconstruction of two episodes in re-
search on sex hormones illustrates how the
dualistic mode of thinking has dominated
scientific research. At first sight this story
can be read as an affirmation of “objective”
science: first the “discovery” of sex hor-
mones, followed by a period of confusion
and debate about the proper interpretation
of the experiments, followed by a synthesis in
which experiments correct the cultural as-
sumptions of the scientists, thus revealing the
“truth” about sex hormones. “Objective” sci-
ence wins out in the end. This traditional
interpretation of how science works has been
heavily debated within the history of science
during the last 2 decades. In this debate phi-
losophers and sociologists of science have
criticized the notion of an objective science,
in which scientists register only what their
experiments tell them. They have argued that
science should instead be considered as a so-
cial construction: The cognitive development
of science is not dictated by “nature” or by
 The Case of Sex Hormones 469

experiments, but can only be understood focussed on the

cultural in which sci- function
ence (Latour, function as well, but focussed
spective a different story can be read
into the of sex hormones. A closer finally the synthesis of sex hormones. From
look at our reconstruction reveals this division
science that has won out, but fixated on sex dif-
that the cognitive development ferences, as in chemical analysis the question
directed by the cultural hormones are to sex is not as
important. Consequently, biochemists
emerges. cultural assumption
From this perspective history of sex duality, and this factor facilitated
endocrinology illustrates in the first place
how cultural assumptions about sex have
shaped the development history of the prenatal function of sex
hormones reveals how cognitive
proposed hypotheses changes affected by cultural changes.
corresponding to the cultural assumption of The challenge to the dualistic mode of think-
sexual duality. tenacity of the dualistic ing in the study of sex hormones
concept hormones can only be under-
stood from this cultural perspective. Women’s Liberation
The metaphoric parallel in the function
hormones with of “female” natural sciences affected by femi-
absence of a nist thinking changes in cultural
penis) is difficult to In both cases the female.
of male and female sex hormones This reconstruction episodes of the
provided a scientific opposite sexes of sex hormones
which fit seamlessly science. Many
between feminist scholars have described how biologi-
the sexes in this century.
however, also a story about feminist resurgence
changes. episodes in the between women and
of sex hormones, the dualistic concept men. These illustrated
theories mirror and reinforce the dominant
changes in the conceptualization
changes another major aspect of the
are not simply the result of experimental relations between and science.
episode in the of sex hor- feminist re-
mones tells a different story about how searchers turned out to be very valuable
in can take place. The early
of sex endocrinology reveals dominant cultural stereotypes and
changes can be a result of the in- incorporated feminist concepts of masculini-
flux of other disciplines.
respect it seems worthwhile
portant variable science more ex-
science. In the early plicitly positive impact of feminist
years of the study of sex hormones thinking on scientific development, particu-
brought about a different per- larly on the question feminist ideas be-
spective come incorporated science.
cultural as- analysis
sumptions as physiologists between feminism science
subject of may knowledge that us to
sex hormones differently. Both physiologists encourage a more liberating science.
470 NELLY and MARUNNEVANDEN WIJNGAARD
OUDSHOORN
REFERENCES
Alcoff, Linda. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-
structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory.
Signs, 13(3), 405-436.
Beach, Frank. (1976). Sexual attractivity, proceptivity
and receptivity in female animals. Hormones and
Behavior, 7, 105-138.
Beck, E. & Schmitz, G. (1936). Therapy of schizophre-
nia in males with progynon (female sex hormone),
Deutsch. Med. Wochenschr., 62. 544-545.
Bern, Sandra L. (1972). The measurement of psycholog-
ical androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Birke, Lynda. (1986). Women, feminism, and biology:
The feminist challenge. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Bleier, Ruth. (1984). Science and gender. A critique of
biology and its theories on women. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Borell, Merrilyn. (1985). Organotherapy and the Emer-
gence of Reproductive Endocrinology. Journal of the
History of Biology, 18, l-30.
Corner, George W. (1965). The early history of the oes-
trogenic hormones. The Sir Henry Dale lecture for
1%4. Proc. Sot. Endo, 3-18.
Diihler, Klaus D. (1978, November). Is female sexual
differentiation hormone mediated? Trends in Neuro-
science, 138-140.
Darner, Gihtther, & Him, G. (1968). Induction and pre-
vention of male homosexuality by androgen. J. En-
docrinol. 40,387-388.
Evans, Herbert M. (1939). Endocrine glands: Gonads,
pituitary and adrenals. In J. M. Luck & V. E. Hall
(Eds.), Annual review of physiology. California:
Stanford University.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (1985). Myths of gender: Biolog-
ical theories about women and men. New York: Bas-
ic Books.
Fee, Elizabeth. (1979). Nineteenth century craniology:
The study of the female skull. Bulletin of the History
of the Medicine, 53 415-433.
Frank, Robert T. (1929). The female sex hormone.
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Freud. John. (1936). Over aeslachtshormonen. [About
Sex Hormones] khem. Weekbl deel33 nr, 43, i-14.
Gorski, Roger A. (1971). Gonadal hormones and the
perinatal development of neuroendocrine function.
In L. Martini, & W. F. Ganong (Eds.), Frontiers in
neuroendocrinologv (pp. 273-290). New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Gorski, Roger A. (1979). The neuroendocrinology of
reproduction. An overview. Biology of Reproduc-
tion, 20, 111-127.
de Jongh, Samuel E., Laqueur, Ernst, & Dingemanse,
Elisabeth. (1929). Over vrouwelijk hormoon (men-
formon) in mannelijke organismen; iets over het be-
grip specificiteit. [About Female Hormones (menfor-
m&t)- in Male Organisms; something about the
concent of specificity]. Ned. Tiidschr. Geneesk, 73,
771-7‘75. - -- - Prog. Clin. Biol. Res. (US), 171, 151-173.
de Jongh, Samuel E. (1934), De beteekenis van vrouiwe-
lijk hormoon menformon, voor mannelijke indivi-
duen. [The Meaning of the Female Hormone Men-
formon for Male Individuals]. Ned. Tijdschr.
Geneesk., 78, 1208-1216.
Irigaray, Lute. (1974). Speculum de l’autre femme [Spe-
culum of the other woman]. Paris: Editions de Mi-
nuit. (English translation published 1985; Ithaca:
Cornell University Press)
Korenchevsky, Vladimir, Dennison, Marjorie, & Hall,
Katherine. (1937). The action of testosterone propio-
nate on normal adult female rats. Biochem. J, 31,
780-785.
Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in action. How to follow
scientists and engineers through society. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Lewin, Miriam. (1984). Rather worse than folly? Psy-
chology measures femininity and masculinity 1. In
Miriam Lewin (Ed.), In the shadow of the past. Psy-
chologyportrays the sexes (pp. 155-179). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Lillie, Frank R. (1939). Biological introduction. In Ed-
gar Allen (Ed.), Sex and internal secretions. Balti-
more: Williams & Wilkins.
Long Hall, Diana. (1975). Biology, sex hormones and
sexism in the 1920s. In Marx Wartofsky & Carol
Could (Eds.), Women and philosophy (pp. 81-95).
New York: Putnam.
McDonald P., Beyer, C., Newton, F., Brien, B., Bake,
R., ‘Rut, H. S., Sampson, C., Kitching, P. Greenhill,
R., & Pritchard, D. (1970). Failure of Sa-dihydrotes-
tosterone to initiate sexual behaviors in the castrated
male rat. Nature, 227, 964-965.
Meyer-Bahlburg, Heino F. L. (1984). Psychoendocrine
Research on Sexual Orientation. Current Status and
Future Options. Progress in Brain Research, 61,
375-399.
Meyer-Bahlburg, Heino F. L. (1977). Sex hormones and
male homosexuality in comparative perspective.
Arch. Sex. Beh.. 6(4), 297-326.
Money, John & Ehrhardt, Anke A. (1972). Man and
woman, boy and girl: Differentiation and di-
morphism of gender identity from conception to ma-
turity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Oudshoorn, Nelly. (19%). Endocrinologists and the
conceptualization of sex. Journal of the History of
Biology, 23(2), 165-187.
Parkes, Alan S. (1938a). Ambisexual activity of the go-
nads. Les Hormonnes Sexuelles. Paris, Colloque In-
ternational. Fondation Singer-Polignac, pp. 65-87.
Parkes, Alan S. (1938b). Terminology of sex hormones.
Nature, 141, 36.
Parkes, Alan S. (1966). The rise of reproductive endocri-
nology 1926:1940. Proc. Sot. Endocr., 24-32.
Phoenix. Charles H.. GOY, Roger W., Gerall, Arnold
A., William, Young, &-William C. (1959). drganiza-
tion action of propionate on the tissues mediating
mating behavior in the female guinea pig. Endocri-
nologv, 65, 369-382.
Santgiorgi, P. (1937). Androstine in diseases of women.
Rassegna internaz. di clin. e. temp., 18, 871-874.
Sayers, Janet. (1982). Biological politics. Feminist and
anti-feministperspectives. London: lhvistock.
Shapiro, Bernard H. (1985). A paradox in development:
Masculinization of the brain without receptors.
Siebke, H. (1931). Presence of androkinin in female or-
ganism.Arch. J: Gynaek.. 146,417~462.
Starlinn. Ernest H. (1905). The Croonian lectures on the
chemical correlations’ of the body. London: Wom-
en’s Printing Society.
 The Case of Sex Hormones
Toulouse, P., Schiff, H., & Simmonnet, R. (1935).
Search for female sex hormones in urine of men with
psychosexual disturbance. Ann. med.-psychol, 93,
440446.
Vetterling-Braggin, Mary. (1982). “Femininity”, “mascu-
linity” and ‘bdrogyny”. A modern philosophical
discussion. Littlefield, MA: Adams & Company.
van der Werff, ten Bosch, Johan, J., director of the
Department of Endocrinology at the Erasmus Uni-
versity in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Interview on
the 22th of dec. 1988.
Whalen, Richard. (1964). Hormone-induced changes in
the organization of sexual behaviors in the male rat.
J of Compamtive and Physiol. Psychol., 57, 175-
182.
471
Whalen, Richard. (1974). Sexual differentiation: Mod-
els, methods and mechanisms. In R. C. Friedman,
R. M. Richart, R. L. Van de Wiele (Eds.), Sexdiffer-
ences in behavior (pp. 467-481). New York: R. E.
Kruger.
van den Wijngaard, Marianne. (1991). Acceptance of
Scientific Theories and Images of Masculinity and
Femininity: 1959-1985. Journal of the History of
Biology, ~0124 no I, 19-49.
Zondek, Bernard. (1934a, February). Mass excretion of
oestrogenic hormon in the urine of the stallion. Na-
ture, 209-210.
Zondek, Bernard. (1934b). Oestrogenic Hormone in
the Urine of the Stallion. Nature (March 1934),
494.