3.6 Consequences of a Belief in Gender Essentialism

What are some of the consequences of believing in gender essentialism?

More information

A photo shows the back view of a comedian on a stage with bright lights, holding a microphone speaking to a darkly lit room.

Despite being overly simplistic, the belief in gender essentialism persists and has harmful consequences (Figure 3.12). Research demonstrates that a belief in gender essentialism predicts anti-trans attitudes (Axt et al., 2021; Norton & Herek, 2013). Specifically, a systematic review of 14 studies found that a belief in gender essentialism among children and adolescents predicted negative attitudes toward trans people (Read et al., 2020). Moreover, binary, essentialist views are related to support for policies and legislation that reward and recognize people who adhere to the sex/gender binary and that punish and exclude people who don’t (Morgenroth & Ryan, 2021). One study, for example, showed that people who held essentialist views were more vocal advocates for policies and practices that support segregated classrooms as well as legislation forcing trans and/or gender nonbinary people to use bathrooms associated with the sex assigned to them at birth (Roberts et al., 2017). Several recent policies, including those related to bathroom use and student participation in athletics, have sharply restricted the full participation in society of trans and/or gender nonbinary people. Additionally, as we described in Chapter 1, large numbers of trans people report experiencing hate crimes (Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2021). In one study, 93.7% of trans and/or gender nonbinary participants reported experiencing a hate crime based on their gender identity (Gauthier et al., 2021). Identifying as trans and/or gender nonbinary is much easier when policies and procedures are supportive (Katz-Wise et al., 2017), and gender-inclusive policies have been shown to reduce discrimination and harassment (Mallon & Perez, 2020; McCann & Brown, 2017; Reisner et al., 2015).

Other experimental research shows that exposure to gender essentialism increases anti-trans attitudes. In one study, heterosexual Chinese college students were asked to read one of three fictitious articles that explained sex/gender differences: One provided a biological explanation, one provided an explanation based on biological and environmental factors, and one provided no explanation (Ching & Xu, 2018). Those who read the biological explanation reported more negative stereotypes and stronger prejudicial attitudes toward trans people. In another correlational study, researchers found that people with higher levels of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation had stronger essentialist beliefs about sex/gender, which may contribute to the development of anti-trans prejudice (Ching et al., 2020).

Those who hold gender essentialist beliefs also tend to endorse non-egalitarian gender roles, support gender discrimination, and perceive gender-based treatment as fair (Skewes et al., 2018). In one study, men who believed in large sex/gender differences were more likely to endorse hostile sexism, and women who believed in large sex/gender differences were more likely to endorse benevolent sexism (Zell et al., 2016). In another study, researchers found that women who endorsed gender essentialism were more likely to stereotype themselves with negative gender-stereotypic characteristics, such as being gullible and childlike (Coleman & Hong, 2008). The researchers also found that sexism increased among participants who read a paragraph about how women and men are different, but it decreased among those who read a paragraph about how women and men are similar. Still another study showed that believing in gender essentialism was related to greater support for hiring men over women and negatively evaluating women who sought power (Skewes et al., 2018). Other research has shown that when students are taught about brain similarities between women and men, they’re less likely to hold sexist beliefs or justify gender inequality (Sahin & Yalcinkaya, 2021).

Gender essentialism influences men’s relationship toward masculinity, as well. In one study, researchers found that college men endorsed gender essentialist views at higher levels than college women (Smiler & Gelman, 2008). The same study showed that greater beliefs in gender essentialism were related to higher endorsements of traditional masculinity norms. The researchers concluded that those who saw themselves as “real men” were most likely to ascribe a biological basis to their masculinity and less likely to accept deviations from traditional gender norms from other men (p. 871). Another study found that men were reluctant to enter gender-atypical jobs, especially those that require care work, when they endorsed gender essentialist beliefs (Moskos, 2020). In this way, gender essentialist beliefs can maintain and reproduce gender inequality through self-stereotyping processes.

By the same token, a reduction in gender essentialist beliefs could promote greater support for gender equity, including among men. For example, one clinician found that challenging gender essentialism allowed men to talk more openly about their female partners’ abusive behavior and ultimately reduced overall violence in heterosexual couples (Augusta-Scott, 2007). Researchers believe that reducing gender essentialist belief systems could reduce the occupational sex segregation that continues to disproportionately place women in low-paying care-related work and prevents men from entering careers they may well be suited for (a topic we’ll cover in Chapter 10).

The belief in gender essentialism can also lead to poor research practices. For example, if a researcher thinks testosterone is relevant only for men, they won’t study it in people with other gender identities (Hyde et al., 2019). If they think caregiving is relevant only for women, they won’t study how, when, and why men and people with other gender identities engage in caregiving behavior. The sex/gender binary also ignores the experiences of people who fall outside of it—an issue we focus on in Chapter 4.