4.7 Article

Autism spectrum disorders: Toward a gendered embodiment model

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 74, 期 11, 页码 1667-1674

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.013

关键词

Autism spectrum disorders; Gender; Sex; Biosocial; Gender socialization; Diagnostic bias; Developmental context

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Society
  2. Foundation for Worker, Veteran, and Environmental Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the most consistent observations in the epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is the preponderance of male cases. A few hypotheses have been put forth which attempt to explain this divergence in terms of sex-linked biology, with limited success. Feminist epidemiologists suggest the importance of investigating specific mechanisms for male-female differences in health outcomes, which may include sex-linked biology and/or gender relations, as well as complex biosocial interactions. Neither domain has been systematically investigated for autism, and the possible role of gender has been particularly neglected. In this article, we posit hypotheses about how social processes based on perception of persons as male or female, particularly patterns of social and physical interaction in early development, may affect the observed occurrence and diagnosis of ASD. We gesture toward an embodiment model, incorporating hypotheses about initial biological vulnerabilities to autism - which may or may not be differentially distributed in relation to sex biology - and their interactions with gender relations, which are demonstrably different for male and female infants. Toward building such a model, we first review the epidemiology of ASD with an eye toward male-female differences, then present a theory of gender as a pervasive developmental environment with relevance for the excess burden of autism among males. Finally, we suggest research strategies to further investigate this issue. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据