Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41419956›Full record

ArticleBiology of sex differences2025

Reframing the sex debate in scientific research: three frameworks to support rigor without rigidity.

Stacey A Ritz, L Zachary DuBois

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of sex differences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stacey A RitzDepartment of Pathology & Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
L Zachary DuBoisDepartment of Anthropology, University of Oregon, 1218 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA. zdubois@uoregon.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Debates about the nature of sex are prominent in scientific, scholarly and public discourses. Scientific as well as societal debates largely focus on whether sex is appropriately conceptualized as a binary, a spectrum, or some other form. These have taken on particular urgency because of highly contested, polarizing, and consequential developments in the global landscape in which the political weaponization of binary sex has escalated. Here we propose three frameworks useful for retaining focus on why sex might be conceptualized in a certain way to address the aims of a given project to help avoid pitting binary versus non-binary approaches against one another in a continued impasse. These three frameworks are (a) sex as a system of classification, (b) sex as a trait, and (c) sex as a dynamic system. We also provide a series of questions and considerations to guide a critical read of scholarship and scientific engagement of sex in ways that might help mitigate the isolating effects of disciplinary silos and advance cross-disciplinary dialogue and collaboration. Thus, rather than recapitulating discussions of how sex should be conceptualized or trying to establish a universally applicable definition of sex, these three frameworks and guiding questions can be drawn on to consider why certain projects might employ particular definitions and methods of operationalization of sex over others, and outline the merits and drawbacks of each. By refocusing our scholarly attention on what sex is empirically being employed to do and why, and providing these frameworks to think with, we hope to bring some essential bridging between those for and those against binary thinking about sex and foster a diversity of approaches that might more effectively build on one another rather than exist in opposition. We can then continue to try to nimbly engage what it is sex is being leveraged to do and why in order to ask how a given conceptualization will help us to learn about a given phenomenon.

Indexed as

ResearchSex CharacteristicsFemaleHumansMaleBinary sexContinuumDynamic systemGenderOperationalizationSexSpectrum

Identifiers

PMID41419956
PMCPMC12717726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.