ArticleNTM2026
["If Hormones Make the Man, What Makes the Woman?" : The Beginnings of Endocrinological Sex Development Research 1900-1950].
Article in NTM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The persisting presence of absence in female sex development: a critical interdisciplinary reflection.Biology of sex differences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
While the genetically and hormonally controlled prenatal development of male genital organs has been described in increasing detail since the beginning of the 20th century, and several genes involved in ovarian development have now been identified, the hormonal factors involved in female genital differentiation remain largely unexplored to the present day. The physiological model that continues to prevail today follows a binary logic of the presence and absence of hormonal and genetic factors: masculinity appears as the result of active biological processes, while femininity appears as their absence and passive "default pathway". Historically, this model can be traced back primarily to the animal experiments conducted by the French embryologist and endocrinologist Alfred Jost in the 1940s. Feminist criticism of science, some of which comes from the life sciences themselves, has for several decades been problematising the continuing dichotomy of activity and passivity as a reproduction of traditional cultural assumptions about gender, as well as the desideratum of researching prenatal female sex differentiation, which in their view requires explanation. This article takes up this longstanding critique and expands on it with a historical analysis of the material and technical conditions of early embryonic sex development research in the first half of the 20th century. Based on four central experimental systems-(1) the anatomical and morphological studies of Pol Bouin and Paul Ancel around 1900, (2) research on Freemartinism in the 1910s, (3) Eugen Steinach's sex reversal experiments in the 1910s, and (4) Vera Dantschakoff's embryological sex hormone research in the 1930s-it is shown how the binary, masculinity-focused model of embryonic sex development was already taking shape before the 1940s under the influence of specific material and technical research conditions of the early endocrinological experimental systems. The aim is to highlight the role of these material and technical conditions, and in particular of hormones as epistemic, technical and sometimes rebellious things within these systems, and to discuss possible path dependencies up to current experimental configurations in sex development research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.