1. See, for example, E. F. Keller, `Feminist Perspectives on Science Studies', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 13, Nos 3 & 4 (1988), 235-49.

2. E. Richards and J. Schuster, `The Feminine Method as Myth and Accounting Resource: A Challenge to Gender Studies and Social Studies of Science', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 4 (November 1989), 697-720.

3. See Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press, 1985); Keller, `The Gender/Science System: Is Sex to Gender as Nature is to Science', Hypatia, Vol. 2 (1987), 37-49.

4. It should be pointed out that none of this analysis appears in my book on McClintock, as they suggest, but is instead to be found in Reflections on Gender and Science, op. cit. note 3.

5. Erwin Chargaff, Heraclitean Fire (New York: Rockefeller University Press, 1978), 103.

6. See also J. Sapp, Beyond the Gene (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987); Biology and Gender Study Group, `The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology', Hypatia, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1987), 61-76; S. Gilbert, `Cellular Politics: Goldschmidt, Just, and the Attempt to Reconcile Embryology and Genetics', in K. Benson, J. Maienschein and R. Ranger (eds), The American Development of Biology (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 311-46.

7. Contrary to Richards's and Schusters' suggestion, neither her scientific vision, nor her `theory of transposition', is `now legitimated within conventional molecular biology'; it is only the occurrence of transposition that has been so legitimated.

Just What is so Difficult About the Concept of Gender as a Social Category? (Response to Richards and Schuster)

Abstract

Get full access to this article