Lecture 1
In the year 2000, a paper called “gender differences in erotic plasticity: the female sex drive as socially flexible and
responsive” was published. The researcher's conclusion was that women are more nurture and men more nature. Women
adapt more to their group than men, they are more influenced by culture (education and religion). Hyde published
criticism to the article by stating that higher education is not culture but they are more empowered so the difference is
smaller. According to Hyde: “Men do what they want to do and what they believe in, whereas women often do not,
precisely because of men's influence on them.” Hyde had the gender similarities hypothesis that biologically men and
women are similar and all the differences are created by society. However, small differences in gender can be relevant in
the clinical perspective, because only the highs and lows are visible.
“Gender and sex are closely intertwined such that sex cannot be studied without consideration of gender, and studies of
gender can often benefit from considering sex as well. Use of the term gender/sex will be helpful.”
This review describes 5 sets of empirical findings that fundamentally undermine the gender binary.
1. Neuroscience findings that refute sexual dimorphism of the human brain (= mosaic brain)
2. Behavioral neuroendocrinology findings that challenge the notion of genetically fixed, overlapping, sexually
dimorphic hormonal systems (testosterone is not the male hormone)
3. Psychological findings that highlight the similarities between men and women (The small effect sizes for gender
differences found in meta-analyses imply large overlap in the distribution of scores for men and women, which
challenges the gender binary)
- No difference in mathematical performance men and women
4. Psychological research on transgender and nonbinary individuals’ identities and experiences
- Difference between doing gender and being gender. This ‘doing gender’ concept was so powerful that
some scholars wondered whether gender was nothing more than a series of stylized acts - nothing more
than performance that becomes felt as natural inclination. Yet transgender and nonbinary individuals
remind scholars that the ‘being gender’ concept also has a place in considering gender as a whole.
5. Developmental research suggesting that the tendency to view gender/sex as a meaningful, binary category is
culturally determined and malleable
- More than 20% of gen z consider themselves something other than heterosexual, while this was only
4.5% in generation x.
The new understanding of gender/sex that is emerging represents a serious challenge for clinical practice, as treatment
has been shaped by the belief in gender binary.
Hyde conclusion
The gender binary should be replaced by a conception of gender/sex that stresses multiplicity and diversity, including:
- A multiple-category (rather than binary) system
- Whose categories are not mutually exclusive (one can identify as more than one)
- Fluid (one's identity can change across time)
- And allow for the possibility that gender is viewed as irrelevant to the self.
David Reilly believes that Hyde's review obscures important contributions of a large number of psychological researchers
who for decades have treated gender as a continuous variable. With this came a range of new instruments for measuring
masculine and feminine personality traits and identification, with the two most popular being the Bem Sex Role inventory.
Michelle Cretella found it important to distinguish between the concepts of sex and gender. For sex, organ tissues are
sexually dimorphic at the molecular/hard-drive level due to sex specific genes and sex differentially expressed genes that
are present for fertilization. For gender, there are no biomarkers for gender or gender identity because these are heavily
socially and psychologically influenced concepts. “For these reasons and more, reorganizing psychological and medical
care around a flawed concept of a single sex/gender variable will cause serious harm to many patients.. psychologists,
health professionals, and researchers must maintain a distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender', as each represents a
separate variable critical to human health”
“Transgender identities are heterogeneous and are often conceptualized in ways that complicate binary assumptions of
gender/sex. Some transgender identities are conceptualized in relatively binary ways, including individuals who transition
(medically or socially) from one binary gender to the other, while other identities are conceptualized as nonbinary.”
,“... what happened clinically in the early years of gender-reassignment surgery decisions that were managed by
psychiatrists in specialized gender identity clinics who would only provide treatment to individuals attracted to their own
natal sex and would not endorse the medical creation of post-operative ‘homosexuals’
The future of sex and gender in psychology: five challenges to the gender binary
The view that humans comprise only two types of beings, women and men, a framework that is sometimes referred to as
the “gender binary,” played a profound role in shaping the history of psychological science. In recent years, serious
challenges to the gender binary have arisen from both academic research and social activism. This review describes 5
sets of empirical findings, spanning multiple disciplines, that fundamentally undermine the gender binary. These sources
of evidence include neuroscience findings that refute sexual dimorphism of the human brain; behavioral
neuroendocrinology findings that challenge the notion of genetically fixed, non overlapping, sexually dimorphic hormonal
systems; psychological findings that highlight the similarities between men and women; psychological research on
transgender and nonbinary individuals’ identities and experiences; and developmental research suggesting that the
tendency to view gender/sex as a meaningful, binary category is culturally determined and malleable.
Gender binary = The core belief that there are two discrete categories into which all individuals can be sorted and that
one's category membership is biologically determined, apparent at birth, stable over time, salient and meaningful to the
self, and a powerful predictor of a host of psychological variables.
Sex = Biological systems involving the X and Y chromosomes, pre- and postnatal sexual differentiation, and hormones
that influence sexual differentiation of the external genitals, which, in turn, serve as the basis for sex assignment at birth.
Gender = Sociocultural systems that include norms and expectations for males and females, which vary as a function of
intersections with other factors, as well as psychological processes such as identity, femininity, masculinity and
gender-conformity and nonconformity.
There are average differences between women and men in brain structure and function. These differences are, however,
often misinterpreted as innate or preprogrammed, context independent, and stable over time. Furthermore, it is often
implicitly assumed that these differences add up to create two types of brains, one typical of females and the other typical
of males.
Assumptions about sex
1. Sex is a dimorphic system (= a system that can take one of only two forms)
2. The effects of sex on other systems (e.g., the brain, gender identity) are characterized by a dimorphic outcome
(e.g. male vs female brain or identity)
- For a system to show sexual dimorphism, each of its elements should be dimorphic, that is, should exist in only
two different forms or categories, one typical of females and the other typical of males, and all the elements within
an individual should be internally consistent, that is, either all in the form typical of females or all in the form
typical of males.
Research on brain structure has shown that while there are average differences between men and women, these
differences are not strictly binary, with significant overlap between the sexes even in regions with pronounced differences,
such as the hypothalamus. Findings from rodent studies support this, revealing that brain characteristics often vary based
on environmental factors, suggesting that sex differences in the brain are context-dependent rather than fixed.
For example, stress exposure can reverse typical sex-based differences in cannabinoid receptor density in specific parts
of the rat hippocampus, indicating that brain structure is influenced by a dynamic interaction between sex and
environment, resulting in a complex, multimorphic structure rather than a simple male-female binary.
Human studies further support this complexity. Joel et al. (2015) examined over 1,400 human brains using MRI, analyzing
structural differences such as volume, cortical thickness, and connectivity. They found that the majority of brains displayed
a "mosaic" of male-end and female-end features, rather than consistent sex-specific characteristics. Mosaicism was far
more common (23% to 53%) than internal consistency (0.7% to 10.4%), suggesting that brains do not fit neatly into “male”
or “female” categories. Instead, human brains generally reflect a unique mix of features, challenging the notion of strictly
binary brain types.
Mosaicism = Having at least one element with the female-end form and at least one element with the male-end form.
,Assumptions gender binary in behavioral neuroendocrinology
1. Gonadal hormones are dimorphic (i.e. that there are 'female' hormones and 'male' hormones)
- Average levels of estradiol and progesterone do not differ between men and women.
- Fetuses and prepubertal children cannot be categorized into a gender binary on the basis of androgens
and estrogens. During adolescence, testosterone levels increase in both boys and girls, but at a much
higher average rate for boys, however, the difference is much smaller than believed.
2. Levels of these hormones are genetically determined and fixed
- While gonadal hormones are often assumed to be dimorphic, genetically determined, and fixed, this view
overlooks the biological flexibility that characterizes these hormones. Research shows that hormone
levels are not static but rather fluctuate widely within individuals and respond to social influences. For
instance, estradiol and progesterone vary across reproductive phases (e.g., menstrual cycle, pregnancy)
and in reaction to social contexts and behaviors, sometimes defying gendered expectations. For
example, estradiol and progesterone can increase in response to dominance contests, and progesterone
may rise with social closeness or rejection.
The idea that testosterone research supports an innate gender binary because of its heritability is challenged by evidence
showing that testosterone levels are influenced to a considerable degree by nongenetic factors, and by more recent
research demonstrating that they dynamically respond to social context.
Social neuroendocrinology explores this “reverse relationship” where behaviors affect hormone levels, with testosterone
decreasing in contexts of nurturance (e.g., parenting) and increasing during competition or resource acquisition. These
patterns align with evolutionary and sociocultural frameworks, suggesting that testosterone evolved to respond selectively
to certain social contexts.Emerging research even shows that gender norms and socialization can influence testosterone,
indicating that gendered experiences shape hormonal responses. This challenges the traditional view of testosterone as a
fixed, innate marker of biological sex and underscores its dynamic nature.
Internal consistency in personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors is extremely rare. In contrast, most humans
possess both feminine and masculine psychological characteristics. Thus, although stereotypes of women and men
clearly exist, individuals who consistently match these stereotypes are rare.
Gender similarities hypothesis = A hypothesis by Hyde which states that men and women are very similar on most, but
not all, psychological variables.
- Psychological research on gender differences provides massive evidence of similarities, which challenges the
gender binary.
This lack of integration of transgender and nonbinary experiences into mainstream psychological research limits the
understanding of how gender influences people's lives. By incorporating these perspectives, researchers can uncover
new experiences and highlight aspects of gender that are often obscured when focusing solely on cisgender identities.
Challenges gender binary according to transgender and nonbinary research:
1. Transgender and nonbinary individuals show that birth-assigned categories are imperfect for predicting how a
person will self-label their gender identity, thereby undermining a key assumption of the gender binary.
- Research by Olson, Key, and Eaton (2015) found that transgender children’s self-concepts as "girls" or
"boys" were similar to those of their cisgender counterparts who shared the same gender identity,
regardless of birth-assigned sex. This study indicates that gender identity is a stronger predictor of
psychological experience than the sex assigned at birth, highlighting the need to recognize and validate
individual gender identities beyond binary classifications.
2. Although many cis and trans women and men experience their identities as one category and not the other,
others experience their identity as nonbinary, challenging the assumption that gender/sex comprises only the
dichotomous categories of male and females.
- Studies have shown that agender individuals often
describe their identity as non-existent, using
metaphors like a coordinate (0,0) on a graph of
femininity and masculinity. The importance of
fluidity in gender identity has been emphasized,
indicating that experiences can change over time
and context. Research also reveals that nonbinary
experiences can exist among cisgender
individuals, suggesting broader relevance.
, 3. Some transgender experiences highlight the fact that self-labeling with respect to gender is separable from the
enactment of traits, roles and behaviors. (Being vs doing gender)
- Gender performativity = We conceive of gender as an emergent feature of social interactions: both as
an outcome of and a rationale for various social arrangements and as a means of generating one of the
most fundamental divisions of society.
- There is substantial variability in agreement with stereotypes and engagement in particular gendered
behaviors within gender groups, some of which is based on intersections with sexuality as well as
ethnicity and social class.
- Insights from transgender narratives suggest that a strong sense of one’s gender identity often precedes
the performance of gender behaviors, indicating that understanding one's self-assigned gender can
significantly impact how individuals engage with societal stereotypes and expectations associated with
that identity.
Psychologists' view of gender/sex contrast with that of most other social categories (e.g., groups based on race, ethnicity,
nationality, and social class), whose use and meaning are often considered context dependent and variable across
individuals, time, and situations. When integrated with studies of conceptual and language development, social
categorization research suggests that gender/sex emerges as a psychologically salient and meaningful dimension of
human variation during childhood, not as the inevitable result of an innate mechanism, but instead as the result of societal
practices that guarantee that children (over)learn to categorize the self and others into the binary categories of male and
female.
Developmental intergroup theory = Children's endogenous qualities, including their cognitive capacities (e.g.,
classification skill, perspective taking) and idiosyncratic characteristics (traits, interests), interact in dynamic ways with
their environmental context to induce children to attend to, categorize others, and develop stereotypes and prejudice
concerning gender/sex
Practices that establish gender/sex as a salient and binary category
1. Heightening the perceptual discriminability of gender/sex
- The claim is not that children and adults are unable to detect adults’ gender/sex without social markers.
Instead, based on the scientific evidence, the claim is that (a) gender/ sex can be made more or less
perceptually salient, and (b) children would be unlikely to habitually sort their peers into binary gender/sex
categories (i.e., boys and girls) were the cultural cues (e.g., hairstyles, clothing) that are currently linked
to gender/sex to disappear.
- However, the mere presence of a discriminable property does not necessarily lead children to use it
regularly as a basis of social categorization.
2. Linguistic labeling of gender/sex
- Category labels lead children to infer that the members of a category share deep, inherent, meaningful
commonalities, even in the absence of perceptual or conceptual clues concerning such similarities.
- There continues to be no widely accepted linguistic convention for marking individuals who fall outside of
or between the categories of male and female. Children raised within english-speaking environments are
literally forced by language to attend to gender and view it as a binary category.
3. Explicit and implicit use of gender/sex for sorting
- Explicit sorting occurs when authority figures clearly label and organize groups, as shown in studies
where teachers used novel color groups in classrooms. Children developed biases only in classrooms
where teachers emphasized these groups, suggesting that perceptual markers alone don’t lead to
biases—explicit labeling is key.
- Implicit sorting happens without direct labeling, as in socially segregated environments. Research shows
that children exposed to spaces organized by visible traits (e.g., shirt color, race) tend to categorize and
stereotype based on those traits. Children are frequently immersed in contexts where the gender binary
implicitly organizes social roles, careers, and relationships, which reinforces the binary view of gender
and leads to stereotypes and biases unless intentionally countered.
Costs of the gender binary
1. Reliance on the gender binary in research, despite evidence of its inadequacy, is an obstacle to scientific
progress. Scientifically, the use of a binary variable (female/ male, or woman/man) as a proxy for the many
variables that are included under gender/sex is an obstacle to understanding the contribution of the different
components of gender/ sex to a multitude of phenomena. Reliance on the gender binary leads researchers to
treat some variables as related to one category and not the other.
In the year 2000, a paper called “gender differences in erotic plasticity: the female sex drive as socially flexible and
responsive” was published. The researcher's conclusion was that women are more nurture and men more nature. Women
adapt more to their group than men, they are more influenced by culture (education and religion). Hyde published
criticism to the article by stating that higher education is not culture but they are more empowered so the difference is
smaller. According to Hyde: “Men do what they want to do and what they believe in, whereas women often do not,
precisely because of men's influence on them.” Hyde had the gender similarities hypothesis that biologically men and
women are similar and all the differences are created by society. However, small differences in gender can be relevant in
the clinical perspective, because only the highs and lows are visible.
“Gender and sex are closely intertwined such that sex cannot be studied without consideration of gender, and studies of
gender can often benefit from considering sex as well. Use of the term gender/sex will be helpful.”
This review describes 5 sets of empirical findings that fundamentally undermine the gender binary.
1. Neuroscience findings that refute sexual dimorphism of the human brain (= mosaic brain)
2. Behavioral neuroendocrinology findings that challenge the notion of genetically fixed, overlapping, sexually
dimorphic hormonal systems (testosterone is not the male hormone)
3. Psychological findings that highlight the similarities between men and women (The small effect sizes for gender
differences found in meta-analyses imply large overlap in the distribution of scores for men and women, which
challenges the gender binary)
- No difference in mathematical performance men and women
4. Psychological research on transgender and nonbinary individuals’ identities and experiences
- Difference between doing gender and being gender. This ‘doing gender’ concept was so powerful that
some scholars wondered whether gender was nothing more than a series of stylized acts - nothing more
than performance that becomes felt as natural inclination. Yet transgender and nonbinary individuals
remind scholars that the ‘being gender’ concept also has a place in considering gender as a whole.
5. Developmental research suggesting that the tendency to view gender/sex as a meaningful, binary category is
culturally determined and malleable
- More than 20% of gen z consider themselves something other than heterosexual, while this was only
4.5% in generation x.
The new understanding of gender/sex that is emerging represents a serious challenge for clinical practice, as treatment
has been shaped by the belief in gender binary.
Hyde conclusion
The gender binary should be replaced by a conception of gender/sex that stresses multiplicity and diversity, including:
- A multiple-category (rather than binary) system
- Whose categories are not mutually exclusive (one can identify as more than one)
- Fluid (one's identity can change across time)
- And allow for the possibility that gender is viewed as irrelevant to the self.
David Reilly believes that Hyde's review obscures important contributions of a large number of psychological researchers
who for decades have treated gender as a continuous variable. With this came a range of new instruments for measuring
masculine and feminine personality traits and identification, with the two most popular being the Bem Sex Role inventory.
Michelle Cretella found it important to distinguish between the concepts of sex and gender. For sex, organ tissues are
sexually dimorphic at the molecular/hard-drive level due to sex specific genes and sex differentially expressed genes that
are present for fertilization. For gender, there are no biomarkers for gender or gender identity because these are heavily
socially and psychologically influenced concepts. “For these reasons and more, reorganizing psychological and medical
care around a flawed concept of a single sex/gender variable will cause serious harm to many patients.. psychologists,
health professionals, and researchers must maintain a distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender', as each represents a
separate variable critical to human health”
“Transgender identities are heterogeneous and are often conceptualized in ways that complicate binary assumptions of
gender/sex. Some transgender identities are conceptualized in relatively binary ways, including individuals who transition
(medically or socially) from one binary gender to the other, while other identities are conceptualized as nonbinary.”
,“... what happened clinically in the early years of gender-reassignment surgery decisions that were managed by
psychiatrists in specialized gender identity clinics who would only provide treatment to individuals attracted to their own
natal sex and would not endorse the medical creation of post-operative ‘homosexuals’
The future of sex and gender in psychology: five challenges to the gender binary
The view that humans comprise only two types of beings, women and men, a framework that is sometimes referred to as
the “gender binary,” played a profound role in shaping the history of psychological science. In recent years, serious
challenges to the gender binary have arisen from both academic research and social activism. This review describes 5
sets of empirical findings, spanning multiple disciplines, that fundamentally undermine the gender binary. These sources
of evidence include neuroscience findings that refute sexual dimorphism of the human brain; behavioral
neuroendocrinology findings that challenge the notion of genetically fixed, non overlapping, sexually dimorphic hormonal
systems; psychological findings that highlight the similarities between men and women; psychological research on
transgender and nonbinary individuals’ identities and experiences; and developmental research suggesting that the
tendency to view gender/sex as a meaningful, binary category is culturally determined and malleable.
Gender binary = The core belief that there are two discrete categories into which all individuals can be sorted and that
one's category membership is biologically determined, apparent at birth, stable over time, salient and meaningful to the
self, and a powerful predictor of a host of psychological variables.
Sex = Biological systems involving the X and Y chromosomes, pre- and postnatal sexual differentiation, and hormones
that influence sexual differentiation of the external genitals, which, in turn, serve as the basis for sex assignment at birth.
Gender = Sociocultural systems that include norms and expectations for males and females, which vary as a function of
intersections with other factors, as well as psychological processes such as identity, femininity, masculinity and
gender-conformity and nonconformity.
There are average differences between women and men in brain structure and function. These differences are, however,
often misinterpreted as innate or preprogrammed, context independent, and stable over time. Furthermore, it is often
implicitly assumed that these differences add up to create two types of brains, one typical of females and the other typical
of males.
Assumptions about sex
1. Sex is a dimorphic system (= a system that can take one of only two forms)
2. The effects of sex on other systems (e.g., the brain, gender identity) are characterized by a dimorphic outcome
(e.g. male vs female brain or identity)
- For a system to show sexual dimorphism, each of its elements should be dimorphic, that is, should exist in only
two different forms or categories, one typical of females and the other typical of males, and all the elements within
an individual should be internally consistent, that is, either all in the form typical of females or all in the form
typical of males.
Research on brain structure has shown that while there are average differences between men and women, these
differences are not strictly binary, with significant overlap between the sexes even in regions with pronounced differences,
such as the hypothalamus. Findings from rodent studies support this, revealing that brain characteristics often vary based
on environmental factors, suggesting that sex differences in the brain are context-dependent rather than fixed.
For example, stress exposure can reverse typical sex-based differences in cannabinoid receptor density in specific parts
of the rat hippocampus, indicating that brain structure is influenced by a dynamic interaction between sex and
environment, resulting in a complex, multimorphic structure rather than a simple male-female binary.
Human studies further support this complexity. Joel et al. (2015) examined over 1,400 human brains using MRI, analyzing
structural differences such as volume, cortical thickness, and connectivity. They found that the majority of brains displayed
a "mosaic" of male-end and female-end features, rather than consistent sex-specific characteristics. Mosaicism was far
more common (23% to 53%) than internal consistency (0.7% to 10.4%), suggesting that brains do not fit neatly into “male”
or “female” categories. Instead, human brains generally reflect a unique mix of features, challenging the notion of strictly
binary brain types.
Mosaicism = Having at least one element with the female-end form and at least one element with the male-end form.
,Assumptions gender binary in behavioral neuroendocrinology
1. Gonadal hormones are dimorphic (i.e. that there are 'female' hormones and 'male' hormones)
- Average levels of estradiol and progesterone do not differ between men and women.
- Fetuses and prepubertal children cannot be categorized into a gender binary on the basis of androgens
and estrogens. During adolescence, testosterone levels increase in both boys and girls, but at a much
higher average rate for boys, however, the difference is much smaller than believed.
2. Levels of these hormones are genetically determined and fixed
- While gonadal hormones are often assumed to be dimorphic, genetically determined, and fixed, this view
overlooks the biological flexibility that characterizes these hormones. Research shows that hormone
levels are not static but rather fluctuate widely within individuals and respond to social influences. For
instance, estradiol and progesterone vary across reproductive phases (e.g., menstrual cycle, pregnancy)
and in reaction to social contexts and behaviors, sometimes defying gendered expectations. For
example, estradiol and progesterone can increase in response to dominance contests, and progesterone
may rise with social closeness or rejection.
The idea that testosterone research supports an innate gender binary because of its heritability is challenged by evidence
showing that testosterone levels are influenced to a considerable degree by nongenetic factors, and by more recent
research demonstrating that they dynamically respond to social context.
Social neuroendocrinology explores this “reverse relationship” where behaviors affect hormone levels, with testosterone
decreasing in contexts of nurturance (e.g., parenting) and increasing during competition or resource acquisition. These
patterns align with evolutionary and sociocultural frameworks, suggesting that testosterone evolved to respond selectively
to certain social contexts.Emerging research even shows that gender norms and socialization can influence testosterone,
indicating that gendered experiences shape hormonal responses. This challenges the traditional view of testosterone as a
fixed, innate marker of biological sex and underscores its dynamic nature.
Internal consistency in personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors is extremely rare. In contrast, most humans
possess both feminine and masculine psychological characteristics. Thus, although stereotypes of women and men
clearly exist, individuals who consistently match these stereotypes are rare.
Gender similarities hypothesis = A hypothesis by Hyde which states that men and women are very similar on most, but
not all, psychological variables.
- Psychological research on gender differences provides massive evidence of similarities, which challenges the
gender binary.
This lack of integration of transgender and nonbinary experiences into mainstream psychological research limits the
understanding of how gender influences people's lives. By incorporating these perspectives, researchers can uncover
new experiences and highlight aspects of gender that are often obscured when focusing solely on cisgender identities.
Challenges gender binary according to transgender and nonbinary research:
1. Transgender and nonbinary individuals show that birth-assigned categories are imperfect for predicting how a
person will self-label their gender identity, thereby undermining a key assumption of the gender binary.
- Research by Olson, Key, and Eaton (2015) found that transgender children’s self-concepts as "girls" or
"boys" were similar to those of their cisgender counterparts who shared the same gender identity,
regardless of birth-assigned sex. This study indicates that gender identity is a stronger predictor of
psychological experience than the sex assigned at birth, highlighting the need to recognize and validate
individual gender identities beyond binary classifications.
2. Although many cis and trans women and men experience their identities as one category and not the other,
others experience their identity as nonbinary, challenging the assumption that gender/sex comprises only the
dichotomous categories of male and females.
- Studies have shown that agender individuals often
describe their identity as non-existent, using
metaphors like a coordinate (0,0) on a graph of
femininity and masculinity. The importance of
fluidity in gender identity has been emphasized,
indicating that experiences can change over time
and context. Research also reveals that nonbinary
experiences can exist among cisgender
individuals, suggesting broader relevance.
, 3. Some transgender experiences highlight the fact that self-labeling with respect to gender is separable from the
enactment of traits, roles and behaviors. (Being vs doing gender)
- Gender performativity = We conceive of gender as an emergent feature of social interactions: both as
an outcome of and a rationale for various social arrangements and as a means of generating one of the
most fundamental divisions of society.
- There is substantial variability in agreement with stereotypes and engagement in particular gendered
behaviors within gender groups, some of which is based on intersections with sexuality as well as
ethnicity and social class.
- Insights from transgender narratives suggest that a strong sense of one’s gender identity often precedes
the performance of gender behaviors, indicating that understanding one's self-assigned gender can
significantly impact how individuals engage with societal stereotypes and expectations associated with
that identity.
Psychologists' view of gender/sex contrast with that of most other social categories (e.g., groups based on race, ethnicity,
nationality, and social class), whose use and meaning are often considered context dependent and variable across
individuals, time, and situations. When integrated with studies of conceptual and language development, social
categorization research suggests that gender/sex emerges as a psychologically salient and meaningful dimension of
human variation during childhood, not as the inevitable result of an innate mechanism, but instead as the result of societal
practices that guarantee that children (over)learn to categorize the self and others into the binary categories of male and
female.
Developmental intergroup theory = Children's endogenous qualities, including their cognitive capacities (e.g.,
classification skill, perspective taking) and idiosyncratic characteristics (traits, interests), interact in dynamic ways with
their environmental context to induce children to attend to, categorize others, and develop stereotypes and prejudice
concerning gender/sex
Practices that establish gender/sex as a salient and binary category
1. Heightening the perceptual discriminability of gender/sex
- The claim is not that children and adults are unable to detect adults’ gender/sex without social markers.
Instead, based on the scientific evidence, the claim is that (a) gender/ sex can be made more or less
perceptually salient, and (b) children would be unlikely to habitually sort their peers into binary gender/sex
categories (i.e., boys and girls) were the cultural cues (e.g., hairstyles, clothing) that are currently linked
to gender/sex to disappear.
- However, the mere presence of a discriminable property does not necessarily lead children to use it
regularly as a basis of social categorization.
2. Linguistic labeling of gender/sex
- Category labels lead children to infer that the members of a category share deep, inherent, meaningful
commonalities, even in the absence of perceptual or conceptual clues concerning such similarities.
- There continues to be no widely accepted linguistic convention for marking individuals who fall outside of
or between the categories of male and female. Children raised within english-speaking environments are
literally forced by language to attend to gender and view it as a binary category.
3. Explicit and implicit use of gender/sex for sorting
- Explicit sorting occurs when authority figures clearly label and organize groups, as shown in studies
where teachers used novel color groups in classrooms. Children developed biases only in classrooms
where teachers emphasized these groups, suggesting that perceptual markers alone don’t lead to
biases—explicit labeling is key.
- Implicit sorting happens without direct labeling, as in socially segregated environments. Research shows
that children exposed to spaces organized by visible traits (e.g., shirt color, race) tend to categorize and
stereotype based on those traits. Children are frequently immersed in contexts where the gender binary
implicitly organizes social roles, careers, and relationships, which reinforces the binary view of gender
and leads to stereotypes and biases unless intentionally countered.
Costs of the gender binary
1. Reliance on the gender binary in research, despite evidence of its inadequacy, is an obstacle to scientific
progress. Scientifically, the use of a binary variable (female/ male, or woman/man) as a proxy for the many
variables that are included under gender/sex is an obstacle to understanding the contribution of the different
components of gender/ sex to a multitude of phenomena. Reliance on the gender binary leads researchers to
treat some variables as related to one category and not the other.
