The Gender/Sex Binary in Research: A Relic of the Past

Early on in my university experience, I learned about the Misattribution of Arousal theory which suggests that people associate the feeling of intense arousal of any kind with passionate love. The key study in support of this, done by Donald Dutton and Arthur Aron, is known as the Capilano Suspension Bridge study. A female co-worker stood at the end of either a shaky, scary bridge or a sturdy bridge and talked to the males who had just crossed. The woman told a story and had the men come up with an ending. The idea was to see if the endings had more sexual undertones when the men had just crossed the scarier of the two bridges, which would support the idea that increased arousal leads to increased perception of passionate love. The researchers found this to be true. My first thought was, “Wow, cool, I’ve been there!”. My second thought was actually relevant: this study relied on the assumption that the men were cis-gender and straight. There was absolutely no acknowledgement of any gender outside the binary of cisgender males and females and there was no male co-worker waiting for his time to shine when a gay man crossed the bridge. Results of a study can only be applied to people that are represented in the sample used. These findings can, at best, be applied to cisgender and heterosexual people, yet are often assumed to be true for the whole population.

The gender/sex binary is the belief that both sex and gender are genetically determined, and are restricted to either male or female; those with XX chromosomes must be women while those with XY chromosomes must be men. Research has relied on this system in order to categorize participants and compare them. In fact, one analysis looked at all published articles in the journal Psychological Science between 2016-2018, and found that 76% of researchers relied on the gender binary in their sample. This means non-binary people were often either excluded from the samples or were not able to accurately disclose their gender identity, while transgender people were able to disclose their gender, many of the unique barriers they face were not accounted for. There are real consequences to excluding and misgendering transgender and non-binary people in research. One consequence is that misgendering an individual or participating in trans-erasure can be harmful, so much so that it goes against the American Psychological Association’s ethics guidelines that require psychologists to acknowledge and respect gender identity. Another consequence is that it threatens the validity of the experiment. Recording someone’s gender incorrectly does more damage than simply accounting for people who are transgender and/or non-binary. 

So, why is the gender/sex binary still so prominent in research? This is actually similar to something we have seen before. For a long time, samples were even more homogenous because the only people considered worthy of being studied were white, affluent, cis-gender men. There have been pushes to include people of colour and women in research as a result of more rights being gained for those marginalized groups. The way we understand gender is developing; even today, the gender/sex binary does not accurately represent our current understanding of gender and sex. It is important to adapt our practices to reflect our knowledge, especially because research informs real-world practices. Change, however, will not happen by itself. It will be resisted because it is new and can initially make data analysis more complicated, but it is necessary.

 There are both immediate and systemic changes that can be implemented in order to make research more accurate and representative. An immediate change that researchers can make is to use inclusive or open-ended gender measures. Instead of the typical question where you check either male or female, the questions could simply read, “My gender is ____”, or have a third write-in option. Another recommendation is to describe the gender identities of each participant in order to provide more accurate scientific data, but also to treat the individuals with respect. These changes result in transgender and non-binary people not only being acknowledged, but represented in research. While these immediate changes are useful, systemic change is the key factor. Increasing the amount of 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals in the field of research will increase representation in studies. Simply interacting with a diverse group results in more representative research because it requires people to better prepare; people expect that consensus will take more effort and they will also take others' viewpoints into account. An example of this can be seen regarding the sexual response cycle that was greatly improved upon when people with a vulva were able to include their knowledge and experiences; read more about that here! Increasing the amount of 2SLGBTQIA+ people in STEM requires these individuals to be given access to education and opportunities, which transgender and non-binary people often do not have equal access to. It also requires acknowledging and addressing workplace cultures that can often be harmful to 2SLGBTQIA+ people. 

The gender/sex binary is not a comprehensive system; it fails to account for many people that exist beyond the confines of strictly cis-male and cis-female. Research should aim to reflect society as accurately as possible, and to do so, must change the way gender is used. Non-binary and transgender people deserve to be represented. As such, it is time to retire the gender/sex binary in research. 

Edits and Contributions by: Amrita Sandhu and Sepideh Afshar