Endocrine Abstracts

Background: For much of the twentieth century, developmental endocrinology was structured around a binary framework in which male differentiation was understood as an active, hormone-driven process, while female development was conceptualized as the passive result of androgen absence. This model has profoundly shaped experimental designs, interpretive frameworks, and broader conceptualizations within reproductive and developmental biology. Yet, empirical evidence in molecular endocrinology, alongside insights from the history of science and feminist science studies, prompt renewed scrutiny of this paradigm and its enduring influence on scientific thought.

Methods: We conducted a multidisciplinary critical analysis combining historical, empirical, and material-semiotic approaches. First, we examined key experimental systems in twentieth-century embryological endocrinology to trace how the androgen-centered model of sex differentiation emerged and stabilized within the discipline. Second, we synthesized findings from developmental and molecular endocrinology concerning the roles of oestrogens and their receptors in mammalian female genital development. Finally, we situated the scientific “absence model” of femaleness within its broader cultural and symbolic contexts, analyzing how scientific concepts of sex are co-constituted with social meanings.

Results: Our historical analysis shows that experimental emphasis on androgens contributed to defining female development as a default or negative state. This methodological privileging rendered oestrogenic processes comparatively invisible. However, evidence from molecular and developmental endocrinology demonstrates that oestrogens and their receptors play active, regulatory roles in female genital differentiation. These findings support a shift away from reductionist, absence-based interpretations toward a model that recognizes female sex development as hormonally mediated and developmentally dynamic. The material-semiotic analysis further reveals that scientific representations of sex differentiation are shaped by, and help reproduce, broader cultural assumptions about gender and activity.

Conclusion: Integrating biomedical research with historical and feminist science studies perspectives, we argue for a more accurate and equitable understanding of female development - one that recognizes oestrogenic activity as central to sex differentiation and challenges the reduction of femaleness to hormonal absence. This cross-disciplinary approach demonstrates the transformative potential of critically re-examining foundational paradigms in developmental endocrinology.