Epistemic Exclusion and Invisibility in Sex Research: Revisiting the WEIRD Dichotomy

In our article titled, "How WEIRD and androcentric is sex research? Global inequities in study populations," we showed that the published sex research is dominated by male and WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) samples. The commentary on our article by Sakaluk and Daniel critiqued the dichotomous coding of WEIRD and non-WEIRD contexts. After acknowledging how the androcentric bias finding was disregarded in the whole discussion, we used this critique as an opportunity to expand our argument about the epistemic exclusion and invisibility of researchers and samples from the majority of the world in sex research. We think having this debate between two groups of researchers located at Western universities is at odds with our intention. Thus, we invited researchers from Global South countries to join the debate via a short survey, and expanded our recommendations from the original paper with the help of these voices.