What is gender essentialism, and how has it historically served to justify women’s subordinate social status?
All the advice in books like those mentioned at the start of this chapter rests on the pervasive assumption that people can neatly fit into two gender categories and that there is something fundamentally different between those who are women and those who are men. The sex/gender binary, or the idea that there are only two sexes, dictates that a person must be assigned a sex of either female (F) or male (M) and that the assignment will align with a predictable gender identity and, in turn, a predicable gender expression. The sex/gender binary assumes that difference lies at the essence, or core, of the person and generally arises from biological or genetic factors. As we discussed in Chapter 1, this perspective is known as gender essentialism (Prentice & Miller, 2006).
It’s easy to understand the idea of essential differences between groups by thinking about animals. We know that a dog is a dog and a cat is a cat because fundamental differences make up their essence—for example, dogs bark and cats meow; dogs leave their poop uncovered and cats do not. Because dogs and cats have different essences, knowing that an animal is a dog as opposed to a cat provides a lot of information about how it will behave. Gender essentialism makes the same assumptions about human gender. The idea is that because women and men have biological differences (a topic we’ll continue to complicate in Chapter 4), they must also have differences in behavior, attitudes, expectations, hopes, goals, talents, and skills (Dupre, 2016).
List all the ways in which you think women and men are different. Next, ask five of your friends, of different genders, to come up with as many examples of differences between women and men as they can. Then list all the ways in which you think women and men are similar and ask your friends to list similarities too. Which list was easier to generate? Have you or your friends been influenced by gender essentialist media like that featured at the beginning of this chapter?
Gender essentialist assumptions appear to have an intuitive appeal—likely because they often reinforce stereotypic belief systems and justify maintaining the status quo. However, data show that women and men are more similar than different in most ways and that characteristics such as cognitive ability and personality cannot be organized along a sex/gender binary (Hyde, 2005; Zell et al., 2015). Despite this finding, the popular media typically take any difference—even a small one—and focus on it, creating a magnifying effect.
Let’s consider the following example. One group of researchers found a small sex/gender difference in the left and right hemispheres of the brains of women and men, such that the two halves of women’s brains were somewhat better able to communicate than the men’s (Ingalhalikar et al., 2014). The researchers didn’t link the brain difference with actual differences in behavior or abilities. However, the press release about the study suggested that this small difference explained why women and men have distinct sets of cognitive skills, such as better memory and social understanding in women and better spatial skills in men (Penn Medicine, 2013). Although, as we’ll discuss later in this chapter, other research has found small differences in some cognitive and social skills, this particular study didn’t actually link the brain difference to any behavioral or cognitive differences.
But because gender essentialist ideas quickly gain traction, in response to that press release the popular press and social media used the research findings to make statements expressing stereotyped views of women and men—usually reflecting the assumption that women are inferior to men (O’Connor & Joffe, 2014). This one research article and related press release generated at least 87 popular press articles, 162 blog posts, and 420 blog comments. Some were overtly sexist. One commenter said, “C’mon Ladies . . . let’s face facts. Men invented piratically [sic] everything you use and enjoy. The Telephone, The Computer, The Jet Engine, The Train, the Motor Car, Etc Etc the list is endless. Without us, you would still be scratching around in caves so lets [sic] have no more of this nonsense and concentrate on your hand bags” (O’Connor & Joffe, 2014, p. 7). Housework wasn’t mentioned in the research article or the press release, but another commenter noted that the article showed that “Men are less likely to notice dust, which, women tell me, is a mix of fine particles that settle on furniture” (p. 6). As you can see, a very small finding snowballed into something bigger that could influence people’s thoughts and help them justify sexist beliefs.
Alarmingly, some people reference gender essentialism as “scientific evidence” for excluding and discriminating against trans and/or gender nonbinary people (Sun, 2019). Gender essentialism has been used as a rationale for bans in the military and athletics, exclusionary bathroom bills, and medical discrimination (Sun, 2019). Despite considerable scientific evidence of sex and gender variation (which we’ll cover in Chapter 4), it’s clear that some people are invested in keeping structures and systems in place that maintain a binary and ensuring that all people conform to it. This is an example of how scientific findings, when misrepresented, influence public opinion and result in policies that restrict and harm people.
Misunderstandings like this happen because psychological research is nuanced, yet the way research findings are reported in the popular press is generally oversimplified. Many people also have limited education and experience in reading research, including research in psychology. Learning about the research process is an effective way to become a better consumer of research findings shared in the popular press. It’s also important to recognize that science is not without bias. Bias occurs because researchers have assumptions about the world, whether articulated or unarticulated, and these assumptions influence how they design, carry out, and interpret research. Therefore, another way to reduce the likelihood of misinterpreting research findings is to understand how bias can affect the research process and how the decisions researchers make can influence outcomes.