a conceptual muddle an empirical analysis of the use of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in ‘gender-specific medicine’ journals概念混乱的实证分析使用u201c性u201d和u201c性别u201d的u201c性别医学u201d期刊.pdfVIP

A Conceptual Muddle: An Empirical Analysis of the Use of ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender’ in ‘Gender-Specific Medicine’ Journals ¨ 1 2,3 Anne Hammarstrom *, Ellen Annandale ˚ ˚ ˚ 1 Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umea Centre for Gender Studies in Medicine, Research Project Challenging Gender, Umea University, Umea, Sweden, ˚ ˚ 2 Department of Sociology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom, 3 Umea Centre for Gender Studies in Medicine, Research Project Challenging Gender, Umea ˚ University, Umea, Sweden Abstract Background: At the same time as there is increasing awareness in medicine of the risks of exaggerating differences between men and women, there is a growing professional movement of ‘gender-specific medicine’ which is directed towards analysing ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ differences. The aim of this article is to empirically explore how the concepts of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are used in the new field of ‘gender-specific medicine’, as reflected in two medical journals which are foundational to this relatively new field. Method and Principal Findings: The data consist of all articles from the first issue of each journal in 2004 and an issue published three years later (n = 43). In addition, all editorials over this period were included (n = 61). Quantitative and qualitative content analyses were undertaken by the authors. Less than half of the 104 papers used the concepts of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. Less than 1 in 10 papers