CHAPTER 1: Introduction to sex and gender

Sex refers to the biological categories which are distinguished by genes, chromosomes, and
hormones. It is considered to be a stable category, even across the cultures; generally, the
distinction is understood as male or female, something that is assigned at birth.
The biological process of producing females and males
Humans generally have 46 chromosomes. Forty-four of these can be organized into 22
homologous pairs (look-alike couplets) of chromosomes. However, the other two come in two
distinctive configurations: either an XX set or an XY set (this nomenclature reflects their
alternative shapes, like an X and like a Y). In most instances, people possessing an XX pair are
female; people possessing an XY pair are male. This genetic distinction now allows an
alternative definition of sex to the traditional obvious observational means (boys are born with a
penis, girls with a vagina) and is called chromosomal sex. The configurations arise through the
half-set of chromosomes from each parent. Females produce only X chromosomes in their ova;
males produce about half X-carrying and half Y-carrying sperm. Where an X chromosome from
the male meets the X chromosome from the female, the resulting fetus is female. Where a Y
chromosome is in the sperm that fertilizes the egg, the result is a male fetus. Once an egg is
fertilized it begins to divide to produce more cells. First a hollow ball of cells develops, and
soon this begins to fold and differentiate to construct an embryo. For the first six weeks or so of
development, male and female embryos are the same - except at the genetic level. At this point
both have the capacity to develop into either a boy-form or a girl-form, since both build up two
structures: one with the capacity to generate a male reproductive system (called the Wolffian
system); one with the capacity to generate a female reproductive system (called the Mullerian
system). But at around the third month, things begin to change. Where the embryo has an XY
(male) pairing of sex chromosomes, two kinds of hormone are produced. One stimulates the
Wolffian male-reproductive-system-to-be, to make it begin to grow, and, at the same time, the
other inhibits the Mullerian female-reproductive-system-to-be, to make it degenerate. Where the
embryo has an XX (female) pairing of sex chromosomes, there is hardly any secretion of
hormones to control the production of the girl's reproductive system, and it is the Mullerian
female-reproductive-system-to-be which develops. Biologically speaking, femaleness is the
default state - an embryo develops a female reproductive system unless it is masculinized by
hormonal action.

Sex differences and physiology

The genetic differences between men and women are made manifest by the action of hormones,
which result in differences in physiology. The hormonal system is controlled largely by a gland
in the brain, the pituitary gland. This gland produces a number of hormones, which, in turn,
stimulate the release of other hormones. For example, the action of the pituitary stimulates the
sex organs (called gonads - the testes and the ovaries) to secrete gonadal hormones. The action of
the pituitary is affected by a nearby brain structure - the hypothalamus - which produces
hormones that trigger the pituitary into action. Hormones control a large number of body
processes.
Sex hormones
Sex hormones can be divided into two main classes: androgens and oestrogens. It is often
assumed that androgens are 'male hormones' and oestrogens are 'female hormones', as if only
men have androgens and only women have oestrogens. But this is not so - both sexes produce
both types. What is true is that, in general, men have more androgens and fewer oestrogens
operating in their bodies; and women have more oestrogens and fewer androgens. The most
common of the androgens is testosterone, and the most common oestrogen is oestradiol. The
gonads also secrete a third type of hormone, the progestins, the most common of which is
progesterone. Progesterone's main function is to prepare a woman's body for pregnancy
following fertilization, although men also secrete it in small quantities.

Hormones and puberty

During infancy and childhood, the level of sex hormones circulating in the body is low. But at
puberty a number of hormones come into play. The pituitary releases growth hormones, which
results in the adolescent growth spurt, when bones (especially the long bones in legs and arms)
and muscles fairly suddenly begin to grow faster, so that the child relatively rapidly gains adult
size and proportions. The pituitary also releases two other hormones: follicle-stimulating
hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH). These stimulate the gonads to increase the
production of oestrogens and androgens, which results in the maturation of the gonads and the
development of secondary sexual characteristics - body hair in both sexes, and the distinctive
body shapes of adult females and males. In adolescent boys and in men the production of
androgens is proportionately higher than their production of oestrogens; in adolescent girls and
women the situation is reversed, with relatively more oestrogens and fewer androgens being
produced. Again, it is important not to assume that androgens are simply 'male hormones' and
oestrogens 'female hormones', since one of the androgens, for example, is responsible for the
growth of pubic and underarm hair in both boys and girls. Equally, FSH and LH are involved in
both the development of eggs (ova) in women and the production of sperm in men, and LH
contributes to the maturation of the egg in women and the maturation of sperm and the
production of testosterone in men. From puberty onwards, throughout their fertile years,
women's hormones operate cyclically - they have a cycle of fertility, which passes through a
sequence of stages controlled by hormones. In boys the production of hormones is
not cyclical, but neither is it entirely steady.

The concept of five sexes

The majority of children are born unambiguously male or female, but a small number of
children, probably less than 2% of live births (Fausto Sterling, 2000), are born with intersex
conditions. This refers to a situation in which a child’s sex chromosomes and one or more of
their genital structures are not completely consistent. These conditions include those who have
both ovaries and testes (or one of each) and some portions of the internal and external genitals of
both sexes, and those who have only one type of gonad (either ovaries or testes), but whose
external and/or internal genital structures do not fully match their gonads. Fausto Sterling (1993)
points out that since the Middle Ages, people with intersex conditions in Western cultures have
been socially and legally required to choose to be either male or female. Children born with
intersex conditions are usually assigned to one gender or another, and have often undergone
genital surgery to match their genitals to their gender of rearing. In recent years, advocacy
groups such as the Intersex Society of North American have advocated the elimination of
reconstructive surgery on infants and young children (unless medically necessary) until they
have reached an age when they can decide for themselves, both about their gender category and
genital reconstructive surgery. Not surprisingly, this has been a very controversial topic, with
strong opinions on both sides of the issue. It is discussed that two-sex system embedded in
society is not adequate to encompass the full spectrum of human sexuality. Therefore the
concept of five sexes system included –males, females, "Herms" (named after true
hermaphrodites, people born with both a testis and an ovary (intersex)); "Rnerms" (male
pseudohermaphrodites, who are born with testes and some aspect of female genitalia); and
"ferms" (female pseudohermaphrodites, who have ovaries combined with some aspect of male
genitalia).

Gender, on the other hand is a more fluid concept that is socially constructed. Thus, it refers to
the social categories of male and female which are distinguished by a set of psychological
characteristics and roles that society assign to each biological category or sex. Understanding of
gender differs with culture as each society has its own prescribed set of rules regarding
behaviour that men and women should display and follow. Thus, sex is a biological
categorization based on reproductive repertoire and gender is the social elaboration of the
biological sex.
Interestingly, there is another term that would better capture the societal influence on biological
based categories rather than gender and it is gender role (Helgeson, 2020). Gender role refers to
the expectations that are because of being a male or a female. It’s a social position that has a
prescribed set of expectations attached to it due to a particular biological category. For instance,
we expect men to be strong, independent, hiding their emotions. These attributes are based on the
labels of masculinity and femininity. Masculinity involves traits or behaviors that society has
assigned to the male gender role, such as self-confidence, aggression, or interest in sports.
Femininity includes traits or behaviors attributed to the female gender role, for instance, being
emotional, helping others, interest in knitting or cooking. People who adhere to the gender role
that society assigned them are sex-typed. A male who thinks, feels, and behaves in masculine
ways and a female who thinks, feels, and behaves in feminine ways are each sex-typed. A male
who acts feminine and a female who acts masculine are each said to be cross-sex-typed.
Someone who incorporates both masculine and feminine qualities is not sex-typed and is often
referred to as androgynous. The consequences of not following gender role will depend on the
situation. A female who fails to express feelings at an emotional event, such as a funeral, may be
judged quite harshly, whereas a female who fails to express emotions in the context of the
classroom will not suffer any negative repercussions. Who do you think suffers more for
violating gender role norms, women or men? Many people maintain it is men who suffer more.
Today, women who behave “like men” are often accepted and even applauded. It is acceptable
for women to dress like men by wearing pants, suits, and even ties; it is acceptable for women to
have jobs that were traditionally held by men, such as doctor, lawyer, even construction worker.
And, it is more acceptable for women to participate in sports. But is it acceptable for men to
dress like women by wearing a dress or tights? Are men who possess jobs traditionally held by
women, such as nurse or secretary, encouraged or applauded? It is interesting that a little girl
who behaves like a boy is called a tomboy, but a little boy who behaves like a girl is called a
sissy. Sissy has more negative connotations than tomboy. Today, parents have no problem giving
their little girls trucks to play with and encouraging girls to play sports. But how do parents feel
about giving their little boys dolls and encouraging them to play “dress-up”? Most scientists
believe men suffer more negative consequences for gender-role violations than women. The
reason? Status. Women who take on characteristics of the ale gender role are moving toward a
higher status, whereas men who take on characteristics of the female gender role are moving
toward a lower status. We applaud the move up but not the move down.

Our own personal view about how women and men should behave is called a gender-role
attitude. One might believe women should be caring, be nurturant, and have primary
responsibility for raising children, whereas men should be independent, be assertive, and have
primary responsibility for earning money to take care of the family—regardless of whether one
possess these characteristics. If one holds these beliefs, then they have a traditional gender-role
attitude. That is, their view fits the traditional expectations that society has for how women and
men should behave. Alternatively, one might believe that both women and men should be
assertive and caring and that both should be equally responsible for working inside and outside
the home. In this case, they have an egalitarian gender-role attitude. Many people hold what
Hochschild (1989) refers to as a “transitional attitude,” which fits somewhere between
traditional and egalitarian gender-role attitudes. One may believe that both men and women
should participate in work inside the home and outside the home, but that women should give the
home their primary attention and men should give work their primary attention. This person is
striving for an egalitarian philosophy, but some residual traditional gender-role attitudes remain.

In 1964, Robert Stoller coined another term, gender identity. It refers to an individual’s
perception about their own self as psychologically male or female. For an individual whose
gender identity corresponds their biological sex, they are called as cis-gender individuals but for
those whose gender identity does not match their biological sex are termed as transgender
individuals. For instance, a person born as a female (biologically) may feel like a male
psychologically and thus may also choose to live life like a male (dressing, behavior as expected
from a man from societal viewpoint). Taking a step forward, transsexuals are people who have a
gender identity that does not match their biological sex, but they undergo surgical or hormonal
treatment to change their sex in order to correspond with their gender identity. It is important to
note here that gender identity is different from sexual identity and one should also not confuse it
with sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is about the preference of an individual to have other-sex or same-sex people
as partners for love and sex. Homosexuals prefer same-sex partners, heterosexuals prefer other-
sex partners, and bisexuals are accepting of both same-sex and other-sex partners. Some people
also consider themselves to be gender fluid as they do not agree with the binary concept of
gender (males and females) that we have been discussing. Certain people call themselves as
gender hybrids- a combination of male and female.

Congruence
Gender congruence is the feeling of harmony in our gender:
● experiencing comfort in our body as it relates to our gender;
● naming of our gender that adequately corresponds with our internal sense of who we are
● expressing ourselves through clothing, mannerisms, interests and activities;
● being seen consistently by others as we see ourselves.
Finding congruence is an ongoing process throughout each of our lives as we continue to grow
and gain insight into ourselves. It is most often found through exploration. For some, finding
congruence is fairly simple; for others, it is a much more complex process. But the fundamental
need to find gender congruence is true for us all, and any degree to which we don’t experience it
can be distressing.
“Transitioning” is a term commonly used to refer to the steps a transgender, agender, or non-
binary person takes in order to find congruence in their gender. But this term can be misleading
as it implies that the person’s gender identity is changing and that there is a moment in time
when this takes place. More typically, it is others’ understanding of the person’s gender that
shifts. What people see as a “Transition” is actually an alignment in one or more dimensions of
the individual’s gender as they seek congruence across those dimensions. A transition is taking
place, but it is often other people (parents and other family members, support professionals,
employers, etc.) who are transitioning in how they see the individual’s gender, and not the person
themselves. For the person, these changes are often less of a transition and more of an evolution
A person can seek harmony in many ways:
•Social congruence measures: changes of social identifiers such as clothing, hairstyle, gender
identity, name and/or pronouns;
•Hormonal congruence measures: the use of medical approaches such as hormone “blockers”
or hormone therapy to promote physical, mental, and/or emotional alignment;
•Surgical congruence measures: the addition, removal, or modification of gender-related
physical traits; and
•Legal congruence measures: changing identification documents such as one’s birth certificate,
driver’s license, or passport.

One issue related to gender identity concerns one’s comfort with the gender category that was
assigned at birth. Most people don’t even think about or question their sex or gender, but a small
number do. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V, American Psychiatric Association,
1994) includes a disorder called gender dysphoria, a pattern in which people persistently feel that
they have been born to the wrong sex, identify with the other gender and experience significant
distress or impairment as a consequence of these feelings. Gender dysphoria includes the
following elements: gender related feelings and/or behaviors clearly contradict the individual’s
primary or secondary sex characteristics; powerful wish to eliminate one’s sex characteristics;
yearning for sex characteristics of an other gender; powerful wish to be a member of another
gender; yearning to be treated as member of another gender; firm belief that one’s feelings and
reactions are those that characterize another gender Although there is some debate about whether
this transgender experiences should be considered a disorder.

Attitude towards sex

Three other terms reflect one’s attitude toward the category of sex. Each term maps onto one of
the three components of an attitude: affect, cognition, and behavior.
The affective (feeling) component of our attitude toward the sex category is called
sexism, or prejudice toward people based on their sex. Typically, we think of sexism as
involving a negative attitude or negative affect, but it could entail positive affect. If you dislike
the person your wife hired to take care of your children because the person is male, you are
showing sexism. Likewise, if you like the person your wife hired merely because she is female,
you are again showing sexism. Hostile sexism is just as it sounds: feelings of hostility toward
women. It is a negative attitude toward women, in particular those who challenge the traditional
female role. Benevolent sexism, by contrast, reflects positive feelings toward women, including
a prosocial orientation toward women (e.g., the desire to help women). Both hostile sexism and
benevolent sexism are rooted in patriarchy (i.e., justifying the superiority of the dominant group),
gender differentiation (i.e., exaggerating the differences between men and women), and sexual
reproduction. In a study of 57 countries around the world, hostile sexism predicted an increase
in gender inequality several years later (Brandt, 2011). Hostile sexism also is associated with the
endorsement of rape myths (e.g., women can resist rape if they want to; Chapleau, Oswald, &
Russell, 2007). And observational research has shown that hostile sexism in men has been
associated with interacting in a less friendly manner with women (Goh & Hall, 2015). Men who
score high on hostile sexism view women as challenging their superiority, which is why they
endorse the negative attitudes toward women By contrast, there is evidence that preservation of
the status quo, or gender system justification, underlies benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism is
associated with right-wing authoritarianism—the desire to preserve social cohesion and maintain
social order. Thus, people who score high on benevolent sexism are more concerned with
maintaining the traditional male and female roles, which include men as protectors of women.
However, the negative implications of benevolent sexism are clear. Benevolent sexism is a
harmful attitude because it is rooted in the belief that women are less competent than men and
are in need of men’s help. Perhaps because hostile sexism is easier than benevolent sexism to
detect, hostile sexism is more likely to motivate women to advocate for social change (Becker &
Wright, 2011). In an experimental study, women who were exposed to hostile sexism were more
likely to respond by participating in collective action, in this case signing a petition to hire more
female professors, whereas women who were exposed to benevolent sexism were less likely to
sign the petition. The sex difference in benevolent sexism is less reliable. Why would women
support benevolent sexism? In general, women support benevolent sexism because (1) it does not
seem like prejudice because of the “appearance” of positive attributes and (2) women receive
rewards from benevolent sexism (i.e., male protection).These rewards may be especially
important in sexist countries, where women are most likely to be victims of violence. As stated
by Glick and Fiske (2001), “The irony is that women are forced to seek protection from members
of the very group that threatens them, and the greater the threat, the stronger the incentive to
accept benevolent sexism’s protective ideology” (p. 115). Benevolent sexism is viewed most
favorably under circumstances when it appears that women need protection. Vulnerability to
crime is one such situation. Women are more afraid than men are of becoming a victim of crime,
and these fears are associated with benevolent sexism among women (Phelan, Sanchez, &
Broccoli, 2010). A related construct is benevolent discrimination, or men providing more help to
women than men (Glick & Fiske, 1999a). What is the harm in men holding a door open for a
woman? Paying for dinner at a restaurant? Again, the implicit message is that women need help
and protection. The behavior appears prosocial but really legitimizes women’s inferior position.
It is difficult to reject benevolent discrimination because (1) the behavior provides a direct
benefit to the recipient, (2) the help provider will be insulted, (3) social norms dictate that one
should accept help graciously, and (4) it is difficult to explain why help is being rejected.
The cognitive component of our attitude toward sex is a sex stereotype or gender-role
stereotype. These terms refer to our beliefs about the features of the biological or psychological
categories of male and female. If one believes the male nanny would not be competent because
he lacks the required nurturant qualities, then they are engaging in gender-role stereotyping. It is
also the case that children typically learn gender stereotypes before they learn stereotypes about
other groups (Fiske, 1998; Zemore, Fiske, & Kim, 2000). Gender stereotypes are beliefs about
the characteristics of males and females. There are many components to gender stereotypes,
including personality characteristics, physical attributes, roles, occupations, and possibly
assumptions about sexual orientation (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1999; Deaux & Kite, 1993;
Zemore et al., 2000). For example, men are more likely to be seen as strong, rugged, and broad
shouldered, whereas women are more likely to be seen as dainty and graceful (Deaux & Kite,
1993). With respect to personality characteristics, men are more likely to be seen as competent,
confident, and independent, and women are more likely to be seen as warm, kind, and concerned
about others’ feelings (Deaux & Kite, 1993; Zemore et al., 2000). The traits associated with male
competence have often been called agentic or instrumental characteristics, and the traits
associated with females’ concern for others have been called communal or expressive. Agentic
and communal characteristics are generally positive, but there are also negative attitudes about
men and women. On the minus side, men may be seen as aggressive, arrogant, or selfish, and
women as overly emotional (Zemore et al., 2000). Nonetheless, some recent research has found
that stereotypes about women are generally viewed more positively than those about men (Kite,
2001), at least in terms of being warm, kind, or nice. Men, on the other hand, may not be seen as
being as nice as women, but they are seen as being more competent, powerful, and having higher
status. Some recent research (Prentice & Carranza, 2002) has also examined the extent to which
these stereotypes are seen as prescriptive or obligatory. That is, should men and women each
have certain characteristics, and at the same time, not have others? These researchers reported
that college students believed that women ought to have characteristics such as being friendly,
cheerful, compassionate, patient, and emotionally expressive, while not being intimidating,
arrogant, self-righteous, stubborn, or domineering. According to these same students, men ought
to be ambitious, assertive, aggressive, rational, athletic, and leaders with strong personalities,
while they ought not to be emotional, naive, gullible, approval seeking, or weak. It is clear that
children begin to learn this knowledge at an early age, and that even fairly young children see
girls and women as nicer, and boys and men as more competent (Liben & Bigler, 2002; Ruble,
Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006).

The behavioral component of our attitude toward men and women is sex discrimination, which
involves the differential treatment of people based on their biological sex. If one fire the male
nanny because they dislike men as nannies and you doubt his competence because he is a man,
you are engaging in sex discrimination. Sex discrimination is often a result of both sexism and
gender-role stereotyping.
Learning to be gendered
Dichotomous beginnings: It’s a boy! It’s a girl!
In the famous words of Simone de Beauvoir, “Women are not born, they are made.” The same is
true of men. The making of a man or a woman is a never-ending process that begins before birth
from the moment someone begins to wonder if the pending child will be a boy or a girl. And the
ritual announcement at birth that it is in fact one or the other instantly transforms an “it” into a
“he” or a “she” (Butler 1993), standardly assigning it to a lifetime as a male or as a female.
This attribution is further made public and lasting through the linguistic event of naming. In
some times and places, the state or religious institutions disallow sex-ambiguous given names.
These early linguistic acts set up a baby for life, launching a gradual process of learning to be a
boy or a girl, a man or a woman, and to see all others as boys or girls, men or women as well.
There are currently no other readily available ways to think about ourselves and others – and we
will be expected to pattern all kinds of things about ourselves as a function of that initial
dichotomy. In the beginning, adults will do the child’s gender work, treating it as a boy or as a
girl, and interpreting its every move as that of a boy or of a girl. Then over the years, the child
will learn to take over its part of the process, doing its own gender work and learning to support
the gender work of others

Having Gender and Doing Gender

Consider the following story told by sociologist Michael Messner (2000), who writes about his
5-year-old son’s first season of playing organized soccer. On the first day of soccer season in a
middle class Los Angeles suburb, thousands of parents and their 4- to 17-year-old children
congregated on the grounds of a high school awaiting the opening ceremonies. A group of 4- and
5-year-old boys, the Sea Monsters, waited to play their very first soccer game. They had chosen
their name at a meeting some weeks before, after having been given their uniforms in the team
colors of green and blue. As they waited for events to begin, parents were chatting and getting to
know one another while watching their children. Beside the Sea Monsters was a team of similar-
aged girls, the Barbie Girls. Both teams had banners, but the Barbie Girls had something better: a
red wagon with a 3-foot-tall Barbie doll dressed in a cheerleader outfit in their team colors, green
and white, rotating on a pedestal. Barbie’s hair was streaked with green and she had a green bow
in it, as did many of the girls. A boom box played Barbie music and several girls sang along,
holding hands, walking around the Barbie float. Soon the Sea Monsters noticed the girls: At first,
the boys are watching as individuals, seemingly unaware of each other’s shared interest. … I
notice slight smiles on a couple of their faces, as though they are drawn to the Barbie Girls’
celebratory fun. Then, with side-glances, some of the boys begin to notice each other’s attention
on the Barbie Girls. Their faces begin to show signs of distaste. One of them yells out, “NO
BARBIE!” Suddenly, they all begin to move—jumping up and down, nudging and bumping one
another—and joining a group chant: “NO BARBIE! NO BARBIE! NO BARBIE!” (Messner,
2000, p. 768). In his discussion of these events Messner confronts the contrast between “doing
gender” versus “having gender.” Having gender refers to gender as an inherent characteristic of
individuals—children are boys or girls, and their gender affects their behavior—it makes them
different. The parents he writes about seem to think that their children have gender. The parents
argue that the children are so different; there seems to be something about the nature of being a
boy or a girl that produces that difference. Doing gender, on the other hand, refers to choosing to
match one’s behavior to a set of gender-related ideals. One does a gendered performance to
match one’s own behavior to those cultural ideals. Messner notes that, although the soccer-
playing behavior of the young boys and girls was indeed overwhelmingly similar, he never heard
parents point out the similarities, only the differences. This emphasis on difference by the parents
is an instance of doing gender. But the children in this example also do gender. Messner tells of
several instances of the children choosing gendered activities and being supported in these
choices by their parents and the other adults involved in the league. For example, he classified
the children’s choices of the names for their teams into four categories: sweet names (e.g., Blue
Butterflies, Barbie Girls), neutral names (e.g., Team Flubber), paradoxical names in which there
was a mix of power and vulnerability (e.g., Little Tigers), and power names (e.g., Raptor Attack,
Sea Monsters). As might be expected, there were notable differences in the names that boys and
girls chose for their teams, especially at the youngest ages, with boys being more likely to choose
power names and girls being more likely to choose sweet, paradoxical, or neutral names. Indeed,
the entire structure of the soccer league (e.g., coaches, girls’ and boys’ teams, the colors of the
uniforms provided to the children) was arranged along gender lines. Although we may realize
that many factors influence the behaviors and characteristics of boys and girls, we still tend to
think of those characteristics as residing in the child. However, it is useful to consider that a
person’s sex or gender influences many complex processes of daily interaction involving choices
that people make for their behavior and actions in the context of social relationships, as well as
responses that others have to them. Every day, boys, girls, men, and women choose certain
clothing, hairstyles, toys, and behaviors, and people respond to them in predictable ways when
they do. The reactions of others further influence a person’s behavior and choices. Messner and
others argue that gender is best seen in terms of these interactional processes, rather than in terms
of stable characteristics, traits, or roles. In other words, having gender puts the emphasis on the
characteristics of the individual, whereas doing gender puts the emphasis on ongoing social
interaction.

Feminism
Feminism is a word that carries much emotional meaning beyond the actual definition of the
word itself, so much so that even people who hold generally feminist views are reluctant to call
themselves feminists. A feminist perspective has at its core two issues (Unger, 1998). First,
feminists believe that males and females are and ought to be equally valuable. There is
recognition that in many cultures in the world females and the feminine have been valued less
than males and the masculine. Feminists take the position that the devaluation of girls and
women is wrong and should be opposed. Part of this perspective is a commitment to equal
opportunities for boys and girls, and hence the elimination of restrictions that gender roles and
stereotypes pose for both, but especially for girls. The second key aspect of feminism is a
commitment to social activism towards the goal of full equality of males and females.
Cultural differences in the construal of gender
Cultures with Multiple Genders
One assumption about gender shared by many cultures is that there are only two of them: male
and female. In several Native American cultures, there are four genders. One example of
multiple genders among Native Americans is the Berdache (Tafoya, 2007; Williams, 1993).
Berdache is a term that was institutionalized among the Lakota Indians, who currently reside in
South Dakota (Medicine, 2002). The male Berdache and female Berdache are third and fourth
genders. Of the two, the male Berdache is much more common. The male Berdache is
biologically male but takes on characteristics of both women and men in appearance and manner.
These are men who prefer not to be warriors but to take care of children and make clothing.
Historically, the Berdache was highly respected and viewed as sacred. The Berdache was
believed to be endowed with spiritual powers and had the highest status among the genders.
Today, however, the status and respect ascribed to the Berdache have waned. Although Berdache
is a social identity rather than a sexual orientation, non-Natives infer sexual orientation from the
role. This is the result of Western culture imposing its rigid gender categories on a person who
does not easily fit into them.
The appearance of multiple genders also occurs in the Balkans (Ramet, 1996). In this
case, people primarily take on the other gender role to serve society’s needs. For example, some
biological females are raised as males when the society is in need of those functions best served
by men. In the Balkans, these women assume a male social identity and perform the work of
men. They are not allowed to marry and are sworn to virginity. These people are highly
respected.
In the city of Juchitan, Mexico, the highest status is conferred to a third gender, the muxe
—biological males who dress like females and take on women’s roles in the community (Sevcik,
2007). They are highly regarded for their excellent design and artistic skills. They rarely marry,
often take care of their mothers, and typically make more money than males or females. People
in this region are undecided as to whether this gender is genetically or socially determined. It is
certainly the case that people could be accused of encouraging a biologically male child to
become a muxe, as muxes bring economic prosperity and high status to a family.
In Western cultures, gender is defined by our genitals. They have no culturally defined
category for people who are uncomfortable with their sex or who would like to combine
elements of both female and male gender roles. They are very uncomfortable when they cannot
determine someone’s sex, and are very uncomfortable with people who try to create new gender
categories (e.g., transsexuals).

Morocco
In Morocco, there are only two genders, but the two are very distinct (Hessini, 1994). The
distinction between the female gender role and the male gender role manifests itself in terms of
physical space. Private space, the space reserved for the family inside a home, is female space.
Public space, basically everything outside of the home, is male space. The duties of men and
women are distinct and take place in their separate physical spaces. The women fulfill their roles
in female space, inside the home, and the men fulfill their roles in male space, outside the home.
The man is the leader of the family and works outside the home to provide for the family; the
woman is responsible for the household, which includes the education and religious training of
children. Even in modern Morocco, women are not concerned with equality. The Moroccan
people believe the two sexes complement one another. Although the cultural code is for men to
support the family financially, economic necessity has led to an increase in the number of
women working outside the home. This is creating some tension because both women and men
believe that women’s primary responsibility lies inside the home and that women should not
work outside the home. One way in which women are able to work and enter into public spaces
is by wearing the hijab and djellaba when they go out in public (Hessini, 1994). The hijab is a
large scarf that covers a woman’s head, neck, and shoulders so only her face is seen (see
The hijab provides a sense of Muslim identity and security for women. The djellaba is a long,
loose-fitting gown that hides the shape of the body. Women believe these articles of clothing
protect them from men and help preserve the social order. A woman who does not wear the hijab
and djellaba is viewed as naked. The thought is that other clothing shows the outline of the
female body, which provokes and attracts men, leading to adultery. Women are held more
responsible for adultery than men; thus, in a sense, the hijab and djellaba are viewed as avenues
to freedom for women in that they allow them to go out in public. The hijab is hardly viewed as
liberating by American women. Americans view the hijab as a sign of women’s oppression and
male domination and as perpetuating the stereotype of women as sexual temptresses whom men
are unable to resist. However, a group of educated American Muslim women told a very
different story when asked about why they wore the hijab in the United States (Droogsma, 2007).
These women said that the hijab defined their Muslim identity, connecting them to other
Muslims, and was a constant reminder to follow their religious values. The women also said that
wearing the hijab allowed them to resist sexual objectification and freed them from the emphasis
placed on appearance in America.

The Agta Negrito

Some people maintain that women’s and men’s distinct social roles are rooted in biology. As
evidence, they cite the distinct roles of women and men in hunter-gatherer societies. Women are
biologically predisposed to gather, and men are biologically predisposed to hunt. Women cannot
hunt because hunting would reduce their ability to bear and take care of children. In most hunter-
gatherer societies, the division of labor is as predicted: Men hunt and women gather. The Agta
Negrito is a society in the Philippines that challenges this idea (Goodman et al., 1985). In this
society, women hunt and are as successful as men. Hunting does not impair women’s fertility.
Women who hunt do not differ from women who do not hunt in age at menarche, age at first
pregnancy, or age of the youngest child. Women who hunt are also able to take care of children.
How are women able to hunt in this society? There are two reasons. One is physical, having to
do with the Agta terrain: Women can hunt close to home. The second is social: Other people help
with child care. Women hunters either take nursing infants with them or leave toddlers at home
where they are cared for by other family members. The structure of this culture shows that (1)
there is no biological reason that women cannot hunt and (2) the division of labor between the
two sexes is not carved in stone.

Tahiti
Evidence indicates that men’s and women’s roles can be similar. Tahiti is an example of a truly
androgynous society (Gilmore, 1990). The social roles of women and men are very much the
same. Women have the same status as men and have the same opportunities as men in domestic,
occupational, and recreational spheres. Not only are women’s and men’s roles similar, but
women and men share similar personalities. There is no pressure on men and women to behave
differently or to behave in accordance with traditional gender roles. Men are not worried about
proving their masculinity, for example, and do not feel the need to take risks. This similarity of
women and men is even reflected in their language; there is no word for gender in the language
and there are no female or male pronouns. The society is based on cooperation rather than
competition. Perhaps because resources are available to people, there is no economic reason to
compete. There is little aggression, no war, and no hunting; that is, there is nothing for men to
defend. Thus there is no basis for an ideology of masculinity to have evolved. The people in this
society truly seem to function without thinking about gender.

Indian concepts on sexuality

Sexuality in adolescence and young Adulthood
Indian children are pampered as much as possible, often until age 6 or 7. Before puberty, a
natural approach to sexuality and nudity prevails, especially in rural areas. Daughters and sons
are carefully prepared for their future domestic roles as mothers and fathers. Women are
considered to be much more skilled than males in love and sexual pleasures. At puberty, most
boys and girls are segregated. In some regions of India, pubescent girls are not even allowed to
enter a house where a single young man is present. Masturbation is generally unacceptable
among girls. For boys however, it is considered a preparation for mature sex life. Among
adolescents, Reddy et al., in a 1983 study found that the sample youth had their first sexual
experience between the ages of 15 and 24 years. Homosexual activities were also reported in this
study: 38% of women in the sample reported that their first sexual activity had been with a
partner of the same sex. Traditionally, premarital sex activity was controlled in India. As the
marriages were mostly arranged by elders, premarital sex was not the accepted practice.
Although premarital sex among the tribal societies of India has been widely reported, there is
very little if any reliable data on this topic in either the rural or urban areas. A study by Savara
and Sridhar in 1992 showed that 30% of the respondents had experienced premarital sex, while
41% of unmarried men and 33% of married men had their first intercourse before attaining 20
years.
Homosexual and ambisexual behaviour
Heterosexual acts, the only socially acceptable sexual expression, are based primarily on the
much wider contact and more common relationships between males and females in society. The
family is promoted as the early valid social unit. Although homosexuals existed even in ancient
India, they never attained social approval in any section of the Indian population. Early Buddhist
and Hindu periods covered in ancient texts such as Manusmriti, Arthasastra, and Kamasutra
refer to same-sex attraction and behavior. The Buddhist tradition, as indicated in the pillar caves
of Karle (50-75 CE), shows two bare breasted women embracing each other. In Hindu scriptures,
for example, Bhagiratha is born from the union of two women. Shikhandi in Mahabharata and
Ardhanarishwar have also been described. Ayyappa (dual gendered god) is worshiped by hijras.
Several sculptures and carvings in Khajuraho and Sun temple of Konarak depict same-sex
behavior including, mutual fellatio and orgiastic scenes. Parasuraman et al. found that, 3% of the
homosexuals earned their livings as dancers and/or sex workers. It is further reported in this
study that most of the men were between the ages of 21 and 30, and took both active and passive
roles in unprotected anal and oral intercourse. Homosexuality is slowly gaining acceptance, in
part due to the efforts of one or two organized groups in metro cities that are affiliated with a
couple of activist homosexual groups connected to international bodies of gays. It is highly
interesting to note cross-gender and cross-gender behavior in the epics of Mahabharata and
Ramayana. Arjuna in the gesture of Birhannala fought with Kaurava on behalf of Prince Uttara
-“Arriving in front of the Kauravas, he got down, prayed to God, removed the conch bangles
from his hands, and put on leather gauntlets. He then tied a cloth on his flowing hair, stood
facing the east, meditated on his armor, got into the chariot and gloried in the familiar feel of his
famous Gandiva bow. In the ensuing battle, he defeated Kauravas.” The Hijras -an Urdu word
for eunuchs-are the most notable examples of gender variance in India. Hijra, who live
predominantly in the larger cities, belongs to a Hindu caste of males who dress as females. Their
religious role is to perform as mediums for female goddesses, hence their role at weddings.
Usually, they leave their families in their teen years to join adult Hijras in large city. Some may
finalize their gender status by castration. Their societal role, and means of making a livelihood,
involves providing entertainment at weddings and other festivals, sometimes uninvited but
always expecting to be paid. They may also engage in sexual activity with men for money or to
satisfy their own sexual desires.

Repressed sexuality
Repressed sexuality has also been a factor in what in the West might be considered widespread
incest. In India’s extended family system, sex between brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law for e.g.,
or between cousins; or uncles and nieces; or aunts and nephews are common, although hard
statistics are not available. As per the Manu Dharma Sastram (applicable to the Treta Yuga and
Dwapara Yuga), if a lady is widowed without having any sons; then she could have a son
through her dead husband’s brother. So, when Vichitravirya died without any sons, his mother
Satyavati approached Vichitravirya’s half-brothers to co-habit with Ambalika and Ambika to
bless them with a son each. Bhishma, Santanu’s son, refused on account of his vow of
brahmacharya. Then she asked her own son Veda Vyasa and he obliged. It is very clear that in
this case Ambika and Ambalika were obedient but unhappy to go through this process. It was
also legal for a man to approach a brahman or a deva to give him a son through his wife.
A note on sexist language
In 1972, an article appeared in Ms. Magazine that began with the following story:
On the television screen, a teacher of first-graders who had just won a national award is
describing her way of teaching. “You take each child where you find him,” she says.
“You watch to see what he’s interested in, and then you build on his interests.” A five-year-old
looking at the program asks her mother, “Do only boys go to that school?” “No,” her mother
begins, “she’s talking about girls too, but. …” (Miller, Swift, & Maggio, 1997, p. 50) But what?
Is it acceptable to use the male pronoun to imply male and female? Another indication of men’s
status in our culture is the use of the generic he to imply both women and men. In 1983, the
American Psychological Association proclaimed that scientists must refrain from using sexist
language in their writing. This means that we cannot use the generic he to mean both men and
women in our scientific writing. The statement was issued nearly 30 years ago. Even today, it is
common to find the use of the generic he in books in other disciplines. Many college students use
he to refer to men and women in their writing. When students’ papers are corrected (changing he
to he/she or they), some are quite offended and cast me as an extremist. Many people will say
that everyone knows he refers to “he and she,” so what’s the harm? He is more efficient. When
you write the word he or him, do you think of both women and men? The answer is clear: No.
The concern with sexist language is that people do not really perceive he as representing “he or
she.” There is now clear evidence that the use of masculine generics leads both speakers and
listeners to visualize male names, male persons, and more masculine images (Stahlberg et al.,
2007).One way that sexist language was addressed in the 1970s was with the introduction of the
term Ms. Ms was supposed to reduce the problem of distinguishing women by their marital
status. However, Ms conjures up images of unique groups of women (e.g., divorced or feminist).
When college students were randomly assigned to read a description of a 25-year-old full-time
employee who was addressed as Ms, Miss, Mrs., or Mr., Ms led to the perception of the most
masculine/agentic traits

CHAPTER- 2 Perspectives on sex and gender

Sex-Related Comparisons: Observations
One should realize that there are more similarities than differences between men and women.
However, there are some obvious, incontestable differences. For example, men, on average, are
taller than women; men, on average, are stronger than women; women, by contrast, have a
higher proportion of body fat than men. These are biological facts. However, even within the
realm of biology, a great number of similarities exist between women and men.
Most women and men have two eyes, two arms, and two legs; most women and men have a
heart, lungs, and vocal cords with which they can speak. The same logic applies to the cognitive
and social domains. Although there may be some differences, by far, women and men have more
in common in the way they think and in the way they behave. If there are more similarities than
differences between women and men, why does it seem that women and men are so different?
Why do books like John Gray’s (1992) Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus become
best sellers if men and women are not opposites?

Sex comparisons in cognitive abilities

Many people assume men have greater spatial and math abilities than women. People also
assume women have greater verbal skills than men. This area of research is highly controversial
because a sex difference in an area of cognition could lead people to assume one sex is more
suitable for a career requiring that ability. This could ultimately lead to sex discrimination.
Spatial Ability
Spatial skills involve the ability to think about and reason using mental pictures rather than
words. However, spatial ability is not a single construct. Think of all the activities that involve
spatial skills: reading maps, doing jigsaw puzzles, trying to pack all your belongings from school
into the trunk of a car, and finding where you put your keys. Given the diversity of tasks that
involve spatial skills, it is no surprise that the results of sex comparisons depend on the type of
spatial skill. Voyer, Voyer, and Bryden (1995) conducted a meta-analysis on the three distinct
spatial skills. They found moderate sex differences for spatial perception (d = +.44) and mental
rotation (d = +.56), but only a small difference for spatial visualization (d = +.19). Thus the size
of the sex difference in spatial skills ranged from very small to medium, depending on the
particular skill. Since the publication of this meta-analysis, more recent studies have confirmed
this finding. For example, a study of 16- to18-year-olds in the United Kingdom showed large sex
differences in mental rotation (d =1.01) and moderate sex differences in spatial visualization (d =
+.42; Kaufman, 2007). A study of college students in Norway showed large sexdifferences in
mental rotation (d = +.85) and moderate sex differences in spatial visualization (d = +.48;
Nordvik & Amponsah, 1998).The meta-analysis showed that the size of the sex difference
increased with age(Voyer et al., 1995). Averaging across spatial abilities, sex differences ranged
from zero to small in children under 13 but ranged from small to large in children over 18.
Research seems to suggest that the sex difference in visual-spatial skills emerges around kinder-
garten or first grade (Halpern et al., 2007). However, one study showed that sex differences in
mental rotation may already be apparent among 3- to 4-month-old infants (Quinn & Liben,
2008). Of the three spatial abilities discussed, the sex difference in mental rotation is largest and
stable over time, causing it to receive the most research attention. Investigators have wondered
whether part of this sex difference is due to women and men using different strategies to
manipulate objects. There is some evidence from fMRI studies that men use a more holistic
strategy by rotating the whole object at one time, whereas women use a more analytic strategy
that involves comparing specific features of the object (Jordan et al., 2002). The latter strategy
would take more time. It also appears that men use what has been called a leaping strategy,
whereas women use a conservative strategy. A very consistent and sizable sex difference exists
in one skill that requires spatial ability: aiming at a target (Kimura, 1999). Men are consistently
better than women in their accuracy at hitting a target, whether shooting or throwing darts.
Physical factors such as reaction time, height, and weight do not account for this sex difference.
Differences in experiences with target shooting also do not account for the sex difference
(Kimura, 1999). The sex difference can be observed in children as young as 3 years old.
Performance on this task seems to be unrelated to performance on other spatial ability tasks, such
as mental rotation (Kimura, 1999). Up to this point, the size of the sex difference in spatial skills
has been variable, but the effects always have been in the direction of men. Can we conclude that
the direction of the effect is consistent across spatial tasks? No. The direction of the sex
difference in spatial skills is not consistent across all tasks. A spatial domain in which women
appear to have greater aptitude than men is object location memory. A meta-analysis of 36
studies on object identity memory and object location memory showed that women outperform
men on both (object identity d = +.23; object location d = +.27; Voyer et al., 2007). Sex
differences in object location seemed to depend on participant age and the type of object. That is,
sex differences were larger among participants over 13 years of age compared to younger
participants. Women outperformed men when objects were feminine or neutral, but men
outperformed women when objects were masculine. One conclusion is that men are better at
manipulating objects in space, and women are better at locating objects. If true, these differences
could lead men and women to give directions differently. Two studies have found that women
are more likely to use landmarks, and men are more likely to use distances and
north/south/east/west terminology when giving directions (Dabbs et al., 1998; Lawton, 2001).

Mathematical Ability
Of all the cognitive domains, math is one in which people seem to be confident of sex
differences. Two older meta-analytic reviews from the 1990s concluded there was a small sex
difference in math ability favoring males. In a meta-analysis of 100 studies on math skills, Hyde,
Fennema, and Lamon (1990) found an overall effect size of d = +.15, favoring males over
females but noted that sex differences were decreasing with time. The effect size in studies
published before 1974 was +.31, whereas the effect size in studies published from 1974 onward
was +.14. In a meta-analysis of large samples of high school students, Hedges and Nowell (1995)
found an average effect size of d = +.16. Thus both reviews concluded that there was an overall
sex difference in math in favor of males but that the difference was small. More recent data
suggest that sex differences in math aptitude have approached zero. Research that has examined
women’s and men’s math performance across 49 countries has shown many effect sizes near
zero (Else-quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010). This research also showed that the extent to which
women had fewer educational and economic opportunities in a country was associated with
larger sex differences in math scores in favor of males. By contrast, higher-stakes testing, such as
SAT data, shows that there is a small difference in math scores in favor of males (about 35
points) that has remained the same over the past 35 years (Halpern et al., 2007). This finding is
interesting because it suggests that the sex difference has persisted despite the fact that more
women are taking advanced math courses in high school today than ever before. However, it also
is the case that more women are taking the SAT today than ever before. When sex differences in
math are found, researchers often point to the fact that part of this overall effect is due to men
being more likely than women to have really high math scores. Men are more likely than women
to be in the very upper end of the math distribution. However, Halpern and colleagues (2007)
caution that even this statistic is changing. Among those who scored above 700 on the SAT math
exam, the ratio of male to female was 13:1 20 years ago, but it is 2.8:1 today. There also is
evidence that men’s math scores are more variable than women’s math scores (Halpern et al.,
2007; Hyde et al., 2008), and the reason for this is not clear. Why do women perform better than
men in school? One reason may be that girls and boys approach their schoolwork differently
(Kenney-Benson et al., 2006). Girls have a more mastery-oriented style (I do math to improve
my skills), whereas boys have a more performance-oriented style (I do math to show my teacher
I’m smarter than the other students). Regardless of whether there are sex differences in math
aptitude, there is a clear sex difference in attitudes toward math. Males are more self-confident (d
= +.15) than females and value math more than females (d = +.10). In a U.S. Gallup Poll (2005),
similar numbers of male and female teens (aged 13 to 17) said math is their favorite subject
(29%) but more girls than boys said that math is their most difficult subject (44% versus 31%). It
is possible that math ability is linked to spatial ability, especially among those who are highly
talented in math. Math achievement scores have been linked to mental rotation ability (Nuttall,
Casey, & Pezaris, 2005). Math ability is an interesting cognitive ability because it includes both
spatial and verbal skills. One study showed that males performed better on math problems that
required spatial solutions, whereas females performed better on problems that required verbal
solutions and memory from textbooks (Gallagher, Levin, & Cahalan, 2002).

Verbal Ability
Sex differences in verbal ability are among the first cognitive abilities to be noticed (Halpern,
2000). On average, girls talk earlier than boys and develop larger vocabularies and better
grammar than boys. Fourth-grade girls have been shown to be better at reading than boys
across 33 countries (Mullis et al., 2003). In an older meta-analysis of 165 studies that evaluated
verbal ability, a very small effect emerged (d = -.11), in the direction of women outperforming
men (Hyde & Linn, 1988). The investigators examined several types of verbal ability, including
vocabulary, analogies, reading comprehension, and essay writing. All the effect sizes were small,
except for speech production. Sex differences were consistent across age groups, from 5-year-
olds to adults over age 26, but appeared to be decreasing over time. There is one verbal ability in
which a large sex difference exists: writing (Halpern et al., 2007). Until recently, standardized
tests did not include a writing component because it is difficult to score. The 2006 SAT Writing
Test showed that females outperformed males on both the multiple-choice and essay sections
(SAT Data Tables, 2010). Like math ability, the size of the sex difference in verbal skills
depends on the population studied. Sex differences are larger when people with verbal
difficulties are examined (Hyde & McKinley, 1997). Boys are more likely than girls to have
dyslexia, which generally involves difficulties with reading, writing, and spelling (Chan et al.,
2007), and boys are more likely than girls to stutter (McKinnon, McLeod, &
Reilly, 2007; Proctor et al., 2008).

Sex comparisons in social domains

Cognitive abilities are assessed by standardized tests and measures. Social abilities are a little
trickier. How do we judge which sex is more helpful, more sexual, more empathic, or more
aggressive? Should we rely on self-report measures? Do people know their own abilities, or will
they distort their abilities in the direction of the ability they ought to have? Perhaps observing
behavior is a better method to assess social abilities. But observers could be biased in their
perceptions and interpretations of a behavior. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages;
thus in social domains, we look for consistency in findings across methodologies.

Empathy
Empathy is defined in many ways, but at its core, it seems to involve feeling the same emotion as
another person or feeling sympathy or compassion for another person. Sex differences in
empathy, like sex differences in cognition, depend on how empathy is measured. The one meta-
analysis that has been conducted on empathy was conducted quite some time ago, and showed
across 259 studies a sex difference in empathy, favoring females (d= -18; Eisenberg & Fabes,
1998). Despite the fact that the meta-analysis is dated, there are some lessons we can learn from
it in regard to moderator variables. First, the sex difference was greater when empathy was
measured by self-report than by observation. When measures that were less under the conscious
control of the participant were used, such as facial expressions or parent/teacher observations,
sex differences appeared in the same direction but of a much smaller magnitude. One concern
with self-report measures is demand characteristics. Undoubtedly, men and women realize that
women are supposed to be more empathic than men. Thus women and men may distort their
self-reports of behavior in the direction of gender-role norms. When physiological measures of
empathy are used (e.g., heart rate or skin conductance), there are no clear sex differences.
However, it is not clear whether there is a unique physiological response associated
with empathy. A second moderator variable in the meta-analysis was how empathy was
operationalized. Sex differences were larger when measures of kindness and consideration were
used rather than measures of instrumental help. Third, the sex difference was larger in
correlational and naturalistic than experimental studies. Finally, the sex difference was larger if
the empathy target was an adult rather than child, indicating that women and men respond more
similarly to children. At first glance, it appeared that the sex difference in empathy increased
with age. However, when the aforementioned moderator variables were taken into consideration,
there was no age effect.

Helping Behavior
Males are helping more than females (d = +.34). The 172 studies in this review measured actual
helping behavior or the self-report of a commitment to engage in a helping behavior; in other
words, self-reports of general helpfulness were not included. The direction of this sex difference
may seem surprising because helping is central to the female gender role. The sex difference was
limited to a certain kind of help, however. That is, the situation was a moderator variable: Males
were more likely than females to help in situations of danger. These early studies relied on
experimental research that examined helping in the context of strangers. In the real world, most
helping behavior occurs in the context of relationships. Since this early meta-analysis, more
recent literature concludes that men are more likely than women to help in situations of danger or
emergencies, but that women are more likely than men to help within the context of relationships
(Dovidio & Penner, 2001) and in nonthreatening situations such as volunteering (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2009a). Thus, women and men are more likely to help in situations
congruent with their gender roles. Women’s help is communal (caring for an individual), and
men’s help is agentic (caring to gain status, heroic helping, and helping the group; Eagly, 2009).
It may be that the costs and rewards of helping differ across context for men and women. For
example, women may perceive the cost of not helping to be greater in a situation that threatens
relationships, such as a friend in distress, whereas men may perceive the cost of not helping to be
greater in a situation that challenges masculinity, such as saving someone from drowning.
An important moderator variable in the early meta-analysis was the sex of the person in need of
help. The sex of the recipient influenced whether a male helped but not whether a female helped.
Males were more likely to help females than males, whereas females were equally likely to help
females and males. There also was a sex difference in receipt of help. Women were more likely
than men to receive help in general (d = -.46). In addition, women were more likely to receive
help from men than women, whereas men were equally likely to receive help from men or
women. Thus men helping women seems to be an especially prevalent kind of helping. Again,
these results may be limited to situations involving strangers. Several other moderators emerged
in the meta-analysis. Sex differences were stronger under public conditions, where others could
view the behavior, than under private conditions, where the behavior was anonymous. Females
and males may behave differently in the presence of others because they are concerned with
adhering to gender-role norms. In situations of danger, we expect men to provide help and
women to receive help. The publication year was inversely correlated with the size of the effect,
indicating the sex difference was getting smaller over time. Perhaps our expectations of men’s
and women’s roles in situations of danger have changed over the years.
Social Learning
Most people recognize that the social environment plays a role in women’s and men’s behaviour
but could the social environment contribute to sex differences in cognition? There are several
reasons to believe that social factors play a role here, too (Spelke, 2005). Thus, biology alone
cannot account for observed differences between females and males in cognition. The most basic
social factors theory is social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1963; Mischel, 1966), which
states that we learn behaviour in two ways. First, we learn behaviour that is modeled; second, we
learn behaviour that is reinforced. These are the primary principles of social learning theory, and
they apply to the acquisition of genderrole behaviour as they do to any other domain of
behaviour (Mischel, 1966). Modeling, or observational learning, is “the tendency for a person to
reproduce the actions, attitudes, and emotional responses exhibited by real-life or symbolic
models” (Mischel, 1966, p. 57). Observational learning may occur from exposure to television,
books, or people. Gender roles are constructed and altered by exposure to new and different
models. At first, children may not be very discriminating and may model anyone’s behaviour.
Eventually, they pay attention to the way others respond to their imitative behaviour. If others
reward the behaviour, it is likely to be repeated. Thus modelling and reinforcement interact with
each other to influence behaviour. One sex-related behaviour that has been examined extensively
in terms of social learning theory is aggression.
CONDITIONS THAT INFLUENCE
OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING

Observational learning If there is a positive relationship between the observer and

increases the model.

If the consequences of the model's behaviour are positive

rather than negative.

If the model is in a position of power.

If the model is of the same sex and behaves in a gender-role

congruent way.

Aggression is also modeled in television and video games. A content analysis of popular video
games revealed that 83% of male characters and 62% of female characters are portrayed as
aggressive (Dill & Thill, 2007). Even toy commercials provide models of aggression, and this
modeling is aimed at boys. In one study, 69% of the toy commercials depicting only boys
showed physical aggression, verbal aggression, or both (Sobieraj, 1998). Not one of the toy
commercials featuring only girls involved either physical or verbal aggression. Social learning
theory is believed to be the basis for gender-role socialization theory. According to social
learning theory, behaviour is a function of rewards and observational learning. According to
gender-role socialization, different people and objects in a child’s environment provide rewards
and models that shape behaviour to fit gender-role norms.
This encouragement may take the direct form of reinforcement or the indirect form of modeling.
Gender-role socialization may not only contribute to actual sex differences in behaviour but
could also contribute to the appearance of sex differences. The issue is one of response bias.
Women and men may distort their behaviour in ways to make them appear more consistent with
traditional gender roles. This may explain why sex differences in empathy are larger for self-
report measures than more objective measures.
The Influence of Parents
Parents are prime candidates for contributing to gender-role socialization. Lytton and Romney
(1991) conducted a metanalytic review of 172 studies that evaluated parents’ socialization
practices with children, and concluded that parents’ overall treatment of girls and boys was
similar. In only one way were parents found to treat girls and boys differently: Parents
encouraged sex-typed toys (d = +.34). There were trends that showed parents encouraged
achievement, were more restrictive, and were more strict with boys; and that parents encouraged
dependence and were warmer with girls. But, these effects were small and did not reach
statistical significance. They also found that fathers were more likely than mothers to treat sons
and daughters differently. Today, there is still evidence that parents encourage sex-typed toys,
although parents may deny it.
RELATIONSHIPS
Relationships not only includes romantic or sexual relationship but also frienships and platonic
relationships. Although romantic partners can certainly be friends (in fact, I hope they are!),
studies on friendship typically focus on platonic, non-romantic relationships. Platonic friendship
does exist between men and women; these relationships are referred to as cross-sex friendship.
One arena in which cross-sex friendships are likely to form is in the workplace. Because women
are increasingly working outside the home and because women are more likely to work in jobs
once held exclusively by men, women and men are more likely to come into contact with one
another at work. I examine a variety of friendships—same-sex friendship, cross-sex friendship,
cross-race friendship, gay and lesbian friendship, and friendship at work. There are at least two
levels of analyses to the study of gender and friendship (Wright, 2006). First, there is the
dispositional level of analysis, which emphasizes the characteristics of the person as a
determinant of friendship. What characteristics of a person predict friendship? One attribute of a
person is his or her sex; another is his or her gender role. An example of a dispositional analysis
is the research showing that women’s relationships are more intimate than those of men because
women are more likely than men to self-disclose. There is also a structural level of analysis that
emphasizes the different positions of women and men in society. One position or role in society
that men traditionally have held more than women is the paid employee role. An example of a
structural level of analysis is the research showing that men have more cross-sex friendships than
women because men are more likely than women to work outside the home. The structural
level of analysis also calls attention to the impact of situational variables on gender and
friendship. The analysis focuses on a characteristic of women as a determinant of friendship
detail the quality of friendship. Quantity refers to the number of friends or the size of the
network. Quality refers to the nature of the friendship. Is it close? Is it intimate? What functions
does the friendship serve? After reviewing the different kinds of friendship, we conclude by
using the structural level of analysis to describe how friendship changes across the life span.
However, boys may have larger social networks compared to girls due to the structural
differences in boys’ play versus girls’play.
Girls are more likely to interact in dyads and to spend time talking to one another, whereas boys
are more likely to spend time in large groups that are focused on some activity. In an
observational study of play among 7- and 8-year-olds, boys’ social networks (defined as children
who were seen frequently playing together) were nearly twice the size of that of girls’, largely
because boys were more likely than girls to be playing team games (Baines & Blatchford, 2009).
During childhood, the nature of female and male friendship becomes increasingly distinct. By
adolescence, girls spend time talking with their friends, and boys spend time sharing activities
with their friends (McNelles & Connolly, 1999). Boys view friendship as instrumental: A friend
is someone with whom you do things. Girls view friendship as more emotional: A friend is
someone with whom you connect. The female emphasis on self-disclosure and the male
emphasis on shared activities persist in adulthood. college students from the United States shared
more intimate information with their friends compared to Russian students, and Russian students
shared more activities with friends than U.S. students. The research is clear in indicating that
women’s friendships are more communal than those of men, largely due to the emphasis on self-
disclosure. However, the sex difference in agency or instrumentality has been more heavily
debated (Wright, 2006). The issue may not be whether one sex engages in more shared activities
than the other sex but whether the nature of the shared activities varies for females and males.
Some shared activities may be considered more intimate than others. For example, going to a
movie may be considered to be a less-intimate activity than going out to dinner because there is
more opportunity for self-disclosure in the latter than the former activity. Despite these
differences, there are important similarities between women’s and men’s friendships. One way in
which women’s and men’s friendships are similar is in terms of what women and men want from
a friend. Both men and women want a friend who is trustworthy, a source of support, and a
source of fun and relaxation (Fehr, 2000). Men and women are equally likely to perceive
themselves as similar to their friends, Despite the fact that women engage in more self-disclosure
with friends compared to men both women and men spend a substantial amount of time in casual
conversation with their friends (Wright, 2006). Women and men may differ in how important
they perceive a feature of a friendship to be, but they often agree on which attributes of a
relationship are more or less important. Perceived similarity is equally related to friendship
satisfaction for females and males (Linden-Andersen et al., 2009).

Barriers To Closeness In Male Friendship

Why are male same-sex friendships less intimate, less disclosing, and sometimes less satisfying
than female same-sex friendships? Research with high school boys has shown that there are
several characteristics of upholding masculinity during adolescence that have implications for
male friendship (Oransky & Fisher, 2009; Oransky & Marecek, 2009). First, boys’ interactions
with one another seem to be characterized by teasing, taunting, and mocking. Boys make fun of
each other and have to learn to stand up to ridicule. Second, boys’ identities and relationships are
defined by heterosexism— that is, by not being feminine or not being gay. Third, boys are
expected to be stoic and to hide their emotions and vulnerabilities.
One barrier to male friendship is competition. Men’s friendships are more overtly competitive
than women’s friendships. Competition limits intimacy because it is difficult to be close to
someone with whom you are in competition; we would not reveal weaknesses, inadequacies, or
difficulties to a competitor. And, competition in friendship has been related to less friendship
satisfaction for both women and men (Singleton & Vacca, 2007). Competition among men
makes them feel threatened by one another’s achievements. In general, men are more sensitive
than women to status features in relationships. Another reason men are uncomfortable with
closeness in their same-sex friendships is homophobia, defined as the fear of homosexuality or
the fear of appearing homosexual. Because men do not want to appear to be homosexual, they
limit their physical contact and their emotional closeness with other men, reserving those kinds
of contacts for romantic relationships with women. Homophobia seems to be tied to men’s
identities. Men who have higher gender self-esteem, meaning that they are more likely to
endorse statements such as “I am proud to be a male,” have more negative attitudes toward
homosexuals (Falomir- Pichastor &Mugny, 2009). Interestingly, when the threat of
homosexuality is removed by convincing men that homosexuality has a biological basis,
homophobia is reduced. Apparently, upon hearing that homosexuality is due to biology,
heterosexual men no longer have a need to differentiate themselves from homosexuals. A third
barrier to closeness in men’s same-sex relationships is emotional inexpressiveness. Men tend to
express less emotion in relationships compared to women. Inexpressiveness may help to
maintain power, but at the expense of closeness. Men may avoid expressing their emotions
because doing so would appear feminine. Revealing weaknesses and vulnerabilities is
inconsistent with the male role. However, failing to reveal one’s emotions and problems makes it
difficult for others to provide support when needed. Indeed, restricted emotions have been linked
to reduced social support, which has been linked to increased psychological distress (Wester et
al., 2007). One way in which men are able to be expressive in the context of relationships is by
compensating with increased masculine behaviour in other arenas, such as more instrumental
behaviour (Migliaccio, 2009).
In fact, self-disclosure between men usually takes place in the context of shared activities
(Radmacher & Azmitia, 2006). Having something to do during the interaction may make men
feel more comfortable self-disclosing. Another reason men may not selfdisclose as much as
women has nothing to do with men’s personalities but has to do with society’s expectations of
men. This would be a structural level of analysis. Men are not viewed as favorably as women
when they self-disclose. A meta-analysis of the studies that examined the relation of self-
disclosure to liking showed the relation was stronger for female disclosers (d = +.30) than male
disclosers (d = +.11) (Collins & Miller, 1994). This finding held for both female and male
respondents. In other words, both women and men liked a woman who disclosed more than a
man who disclosed. Men who self-disclose might be viewed as having more problems than
women who self-disclose. The sex of the discloser and the sex of the recipient were varied. Men
were rated as better adjusted under nondisclosure than disclosure conditions, whereas women
were rated as better adjusted under disclosure than nondisclosure conditions. Regardless of sex,
the discloser was rated as more feminine than the non-discloser. Thus self-disclosure was viewed
as part of the female gender role.

Romantic relationships
Even a few hundred years ago, love was largely independent of and antithetical to marriage.
When two people fell in love, it was regarded as a problem. Parents were concerned about
controlling this “dangerous passion.” In the 19th century, spouses were polite to one another and,
ideally, compatible, but they led largely separate lives. Even by the mid-19th century, love was
not a prerequisite to marriage. Love was expected to follow rather than precede marriage. When
individual choice did emerge in the 19th century, people generally chose their partner based on
character, health, religious morals, and financial stability. These were the same factors that
guided parents’ choices. Choosing a partner based on physical passion was not at all acceptable.
During the latter part of the 19th century and in the 20th century, the idea of marriage
based on love developed. This coincided with American women’s increase in freedom
and status. The 20th century became known as the century of the “love marriage.”
Today, the practical functions of marriage have been replaced with more emotional functions.
We have very high expectations of marriage. Marriage is expected to be a “Super Relationship”
that fulfils spiritual, sexual, romantic, and emotional needs rather than social, economic, or
religious requirements (Whitehead & Popenoe, 2001). Researches has been focusing on both
heterosexual and homosexual relationships but There is a growing literature on homosexual
relationships, as the issue of same-sex marriage is a contentious
political issue in the United States. Studying homosexual relationships is important in its own
right, as any theory of relationships ought to be tested on a variety of relationships. However,
studying homosexual relationships is particularly interesting from a gender perspective. As
Kurdek (2003) describes, gay and lesbian couples are “natural experiments” of relationships
without men’s paternalistic power and women’s maternalistic care. Sex and status are
confounded in heterosexual relationships.

Relationship Development
Men and women are definitely interested in romantic relationships. The vast majority of adults
want to get married, although the desire is slightly less in women than men (Mahay & Lewin,
2007). In general, men and women have similar reasons for entering romantic relationships.
Support and companionship are the primary motivating factors. Women and men desire partners
who are honest, warm, affectionate, kind, and share their interests. However, some sex
differences in desires also appear that are consistent with stereotypes. As indicated in the
personal ads, men desire physical attractiveness in a partner, whereas women desire intelligence
or occupational status. It is more socially acceptable for men than women to emphasize the
physical appearance of a potential mate, demand characteristics that may be exaggerating these
differences. Women and men are well aware of the fact that they have some different
preferences. What is the explanation for men’s preference for physically attractive women and
women’s preference for financially secure men? There are three major theories which explains
this.
Sex differences in mate preferences can be explained by evolutionary theory, social role theory,
and social construction theory. The weakness of evolutionary theory is that it cannot explain
men’s preferences for women with domestic skills; the weakness of social role theory is that it
cannot explain men’s preferences for attractive mates. Both theories, however, can explain why
women prefer a mate with greater economic resources. Social construction theory of mate
preferences is supported by cultural differences in mate preferences. Sex differences in mate
preferences may be larger in more traditional cultures where men’s and women’s roles are
distinct and women have less access to economic resources. Also, when it comes to initiation of
any type of relationship, men are supposedly initiate. Traditionally, the male has taken the
initiative in romantic relationships. Female initiation is not normative.

There is evidence that when females initiate first dates, men expect greater sexual involvement—
although, in actuality, there is no evidence that more sexual behaviour occurs when females
initiate. Historically, and still today, society expects men to initiate romantic relationships.
Despite this expectation, men may be relatively uncomfortable having this responsibility.

THE NATURE OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Romantic relationships are expected to provide closeness or intimacy, love, and sexual
exclusivity.

Intimacy
Definition of intimacy or closeness can differ vastly. Each individual has their own definition of
“what is Intimacy?”.
An interview was done with an older couple, speaking to each member separately, some months
after the husband had had a heart attack. Each had a different idea of what "closeness" meant.
The wife described a time when they were watching television together in the living room. She
called a buddy because she felt ignored and disinterested in the program. The husband described
the identical interaction, but he gave it a different interpretation. When she left the room, he felt
as though the intimacy of their shared television-watching experience had been broken. Although
this story implies that men and women have different ideas about intimacy, studies have revealed
that both sexes frequently have similar opinions. Studies involving European and Chinese
Canadian dating couples have shown that self-disclosure is a key component of intimacy, since it
was the most frequently reported trait. Chinese Canadians showed lower relationship satisfaction
and self-disclosure scores.

Love
What is love? Many people have shared poetic thoughts (“Beauty and Love Quotes,” 2000):
● “To love a thing means wanting it to live.” (Confucius, Analects, 6th century b.c., 12.10,
translated by Ch’u Chai and Winberg Chai)
● “The simple lack of her is more to me than others’ presence.” (Edward Thomas, 1878–
1917, English poet)
Even second graders have strong opinions about love. Here are a few comments they made
(Noel, 1997): “When someone comes over, or you’re hanging around someone, you know when
you’re in love. After you love someone, you play with the person you love for a long time.”
(male)
From distinguished poets to second graders, the ideas of love for women and men have been
adequately captured. All the elements are there: wanting to spend time together (a very long
time), feeling nervous, showing affection, and putting the other person first.

Studies have looked into the issue of whether men or women are more romantic. Asking them if
they would marry someone, they didn't love was one strategy. When Kephart (1967) asked this
question of more than 1,000 college students, the majority of males (65%) but only a tiny portion
of women (24%) responded that they wouldn't. Men may be the more romantic sex, as it was
determined that they believed love to be more important to marriage. Historical gender roles
have been connected to this finding, as men were able to "afford" to put love first while women
were urged to be more pragmatic in their mate selection.

Recent research, however, suggests that romantic values are now shared by men and women.
According to a survey conducted in the United States, Japan, and Russia, more than 80% of men
and women in these countries believed that love was a prerequisite for marriage; yet, in Russia,
males were shown to be more romantic than women. Furthermore, studies have revealed that
men tend to believe in more romantic ideas than women, such as the notions of love at first sight,
one true love, and love transcending all obstacles. Women typically have a more pragmatic
viewpoint, placing a higher value on financial stability and seeing relationships as complex.
 Studies on "styles" of love have also shown that
women score higher on pragma (practical love) and men on ludus (gaming love). Eros, or
romantic love, is associated with greater relationship pleasure and is felt similarly by men and
women. Women in the majority of countries have been found to exhibit higher levels of
emotional involvement, which encompasses qualities like being passionate and loving. It's
interesting to note that nations with greater levels of gender equality also showed greater
disparities in emotional engagement between the sexes.

Sexuality
Higher satisfaction with sexual relationships is reported by men compared to women. In a study
across 29 countries, greater sexual well-being was reported by men, with a larger sex difference
found in male-centered countries such as Brazil, Korea, and Morocco, where a greater status
differential exists between men and women (Laumann et al., 2006). Men's higher satisfaction
may be due to a greater likelihood of initiating sex or expressing their sexual desires. In college
dating couples, men were more likely than women to discuss sexual matters, including desires,
while women more often reported difficulties in influencing their partner’s actions during sex
(Greene & Faulkner, 2005). Thus, this may be one area in which communication appears more
effective among men than women.
Sexual attitudes and practices have become more acceptable over time. Two-thirds of college
women and one-third of college males believed that premarital sex was bad in 1940 (Lance,
2007). Premarital sex is currently considered acceptable by most people, with males being
significantly more likely to accept it (63%) than women (56%), according to Saad (2010).
It has been noted that men and women have different perspectives on sex. Women tend to hold
more negative attitudes toward sex than men (Geer & Robertson, 2005), and this begins early. In
a study of adolescents, males identified more benefits to sex, while females saw more associated
costs (Deptula et al., 2006). Men also hold more permissive standards, generally finding sex
more acceptable.
Nonetheless, perceptions change as a relationship becomes more committed.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GENDERS

Communication is the process of exchanging information, ideas, opinions, or feelings between

people. Communication is a two-way process that involves a sender, message, channel, receiver,
feedback, and context. The goal is for the receiver to understand the message. However, the
receiver may interpret the message in ways that are intended or unintended by the sender.
Differences exist in the play styles of girls and boys. Girls are more likely to play in pairs, while
boys tend to play in groups, with both preferring same-sex play from an early age. This
preference for same-sex play serves as a socializing force that fosters different interaction styles
in males and females (Maccoby, 1998). Although girls initially lead the preference for same-sex
play, by age 5, this preference is stronger among boys, whose groups are more exclusive toward
the opposite sex. Boys often view other boys who play with girls as feminine and less masculine,
showing a stronger rejection of femininity, which is important to their sense of masculinity.
Additionally, children believe that playing with the same sex is more socially approved. One
study found that children who thought others approved of opposite-sex play were more likely to
engage in it (Martin et al., 1999).

Children’s Styles of Play

Boys’ play and girls’ play are different (Maccoby, 1998; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Boys play in
large groups, whereas girls are more likely to play with only one or two friends. Boys’ play is
rough, competitive, and emphasizes dominance; girls’ play is quiet, often conversational, and
involves more structured activities. Girls and boys also have different conversational styles,
which map onto their distinct styles of play (Maccoby, 1998; McCloskey, 1996). Girls’
conversation serves to foster connection, whereas boys’ conversation is motivated to establish
dominance. Girls express agreement with one another, take turns when speaking, acknowledge
one another’s feeling, and teach younger children how to play games—behaviour that has been
labeled prosocial dominance (Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Boys interrupt each other, threaten
each other, refuse to comply with one another, try to top one another’s stories, and call each
other names—behaviour that has been labeled egoistic dominance.

The more time spent in same-sex play, the greater the influence of same-sex peers, which leads
to greater sex stereotyped play - Gender Segregation Cycle- to fewer positive attitudes toward
the other sex, and to more negative attitudes toward the other sex. These attitudes then lead
children to feel less capable of interacting with the other sex, which, in turn, perpetuates same-
sex play. Thus, same-sex play in effect socializes boys and girls to interact differently. Parallels
exist between sex differences in interaction styles seen in children and those observed in adults.
Research on adult interaction styles in small groups reveals that men tend to exhibit more
directive, dominant, hierarchical, and task-focused behaviour. In contrast, women’s behaviour is
typically more supportive, cooperative, and egalitarian. Studies indicate that women engage in
more positive social behaviour, such as agreeing with others, fostering group solidarity,
encouraging participation, and making positive comments (Smith-Lovin & Robinson, 1992;
Wood & Rhodes, 1992). Women are also more likely to reciprocate positive social acts, thus
promoting positive social interactions. Conversely, men tend to talk more in groups, focus on
tasks, and engage in more negative social behaviours, such as disagreement and antagonism,
often escalating negative interactions (Wood & Rhodes, 1992).
Nonverbal Behaviour - A great deal of information in an interaction extends beyond language,
referred to as nonverbal behaviour. Key domains of nonverbal behaviour researched,
particularly concerning gender, include smiling, gazing, interpersonal sensitivity (decoding),
accuracy in conveying emotion (encoding), and touching. In a meta-analytic review, Hall, Carter,
and Horgan (2000) found the following:

1. Females smile and gaze more than males.

2. Females tend to stand closer, face others more directly, and are more likely to touch others.
3. Males use more expansive body movements (taking up more space).
4. Females are more accurate in interpreting and conveying emotions than males.
Interestingly, college students’ perceptions of sex differences in nonverbal behaviour align with
findings from these meta-analyses (Briton & Hall, 1995), indicating that beliefs about sex
differences in nonverbal behaviour reflect observed patterns.

Leadership and influenceability

The ease with which individuals are influenced is more strongly predicted by situational factors
than by dispositional characteristics. Although women may appear to be more susceptible to
influence than men, this difference is largely situational. The situations women encounter differ
from those that men typically experience, and people tend to interact with women in ways that
foster influence.
The study found that influence was not related to task behavior or positive social behavior.
Interestingly, disagreement led to less influence, while expressions of agreement increased the
likelihood of attitude change. When participants were assigned the role of persuader, they tended
to use more disagreement, less agreement, and more task-oriented behavior—especially when
paired with men. These strategies proved ineffective in gaining influence.
The study’s findings suggest that women are more easily influenced not due to inherent traits
but because people tend to be more agreeable toward women than men, leading to greater
influence. This difference in interaction style—agreement with women and disagreement with
men—helps explain why women are often more influenced in discussions than men. Social role
theory suggests that men and women should exhibit similar behaviors when in similar leadership
roles. However, gender roles often influence both leaders and those perceiving them, so men’s
and women’s leadership behaviors may differ in practice (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
For women, there is often a conflict between the expectations of the leadership role and the
expectations of the female gender role.

Sex Differences in Health: Evidence and Explanations

Women experience higher rates of morbidity than men—they report more days spent in bed due
to illness, higher pain levels, greater rates of depression, more physical symptoms, and lower
perceived health status. Yet, paradoxically, women tend to live longer than men. Men have
higher mortality rates, being more likely to die from 9 of the 10 leading causes of death in the
United States. This contrast between women’s higher morbidity and men’s higher mortality is a
key paradox in gender and health.

Leading Causes of Death

At the turn of the 20th century, women and men were most likely to die from infectious diseases,
such as tuberculosis, influenza, pneumonia, and diphtheria. Today, with the exception of AIDS
and some recent infection epidemics (e.g., H1N1), people are less likely to die from
communicable diseases. Instead, people die from diseases influenced by lifestyle factors. The
leading cause of death for both men and women—across White, Black, and Hispanic populations
—is coronary heart disease, followed by cancer, cerebrovascular disease (e.g., stroke), chronic
lower respiratory disease (e.g., emphysema), and accidents. The etiology of these diseases is
more complex than that of infectious diseases, involving behavioral factors such as smoking,
diet, alcohol consumption, and driving while intoxicated.

Crime Statistics
Men are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, and men are more likely than women
to be the victims of violent crimes, with the exception of rape. That is, men are more likely than
women to be assaulted, robbed, threatened with violence, and killed. For homicide, both
perpetrator and victim are male in 65% of the cases (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, 2009). In the year 2008, men comprised 72% of murder victims and 90% of
murder perpetrators. It is rare that women commit murder.

SEX DIFFERENCES IN MORBIDITY

Morbidity reflects illness, and while mortality rates have decreased and life spans lengthened,
morbidity rates have increased, meaning people live longer but often with diseases. In the early
20th century, infectious diseases with simpler causes (like germs) were the main killers.
However, with advances like penicillin and vaccines, people now live longer and develop
chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease, which are top causes of death.
Women have higher morbidity rates than men. Morbidity-free life expectancy has declined for
both sexes, but more so for women. Though men have higher incidence and mortality rates for
heart disease and cancer, women experience more acute and nonfatal chronic conditions,
including arthritis, immune disorders, and painful disorders like migraines and musculoskeletal
pain. Women tend to perceive their health as worse than men’s, though this difference lessens
with age.

Mental Health
In 2005, 118 million prescriptions for antidepressants were issued, making them the most
commonly prescribed drugs in the U.S. Antidepressant use doubled between 1996 and 2005,
with 10% of Americans now taking them. Women are twice as likely as men to use
antidepressants. Mental health, especially depression, is a significant issue in the U.S.
Depression affects mortality, is linked to diseases like heart disease, and has its own serious
impacts. Public figures such as Richard Dreyfuss, Mel Gibson, Princess Diana, and Tina Turner
have helped reduce mental health stigma by discussing their struggles. Theories on sex
differences in depression include biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors, often
emphasizing female gender-role socialization, perceived lack of control, different coping
mechanisms, and unique stressors for women.

● Biological factors, including genes and hormones, most certainly contribute to depression
but cannot alone explain the sex difference in depression.
● Females’ low status in society may lead to lower perceptions of control. A lack of control
could contribute to perceptions of helplessness, a precipitant of depression.
● It is not the case that men exhibit more problem-focused coping, and women exhibit
more emotion-focused coping. Instead, there are specific coping styles related to sex.
Women seek support and ruminate in response to stress more than men.
● Women’s tendency to ruminate interferes with instrumental behavior, increases access to
other negative cognitions, and decreases social support, all of which have been linked to
depression.
● Women may be more likely than men to respond to stressful events by becoming
introspective—that is, privately self-conscious, a construct related to rumination.
● Women are more likely than men to experience relationship events and more vulnerable
than men to the negative effects of relationship stressors. It is the latter that is most
strongly linked to sex differences in depression.
● There are multiple aspects of the female gender role. Although communion is not related
to depression, unmitigated communion is.
● People who score high on unmitigated communion become involved in others’ problems
to the neglect of themselves, both of which may increase women’s risk for depression.
● Aside from unmitigated communion, women are more likely than men to find themselves
in the caregiving role. Women report greater caregiver burden than men, increasing their
risk of depression.
Similarly, Suicide and other disorders such as eating disorders are very much studied between
genders. Suicide being the major problem and incidence with men and eating disorders such as
bulimia and anorexia nervosa prevalent with women.

Moral Development
Moral development varies somewhat between genders, with research suggesting differences in
the values, reasoning styles, and contextual factors that influence moral decisions in men and
women. Traditionally, theories of moral development, like those proposed by Lawrence
Kohlberg, emphasize a justice-oriented perspective, where moral reasoning progresses through a
series of stages, primarily centered on fairness and rights. Research, however, indicates that this
approach may align more closely with typical male patterns of reasoning, whereas female
patterns might sometimes differ.
Psychologist Carol Gilligan challenged Kohlberg’s theory, arguing that it overlooked the ways in
which women approach moral reasoning. She proposed that, in addition to justice, many women
incorporate a "care perspective," focusing on empathy, compassion, and responsibility to others
when making moral decisions. According to Gilligan, women often prioritize maintaining
relationships, resolving conflicts harmoniously, and understanding the needs of others, resulting
in a moral framework that emphasizes interconnectedness and context over abstract rules.
Empirical studies have found some support for Gilligan’s view, showing that women may more
frequently consider relational factors and emotional consequences in their moral reasoning, while
men may lean more towards principles of fairness and autonomy. These tendencies aren’t
absolute; people of any gender may adopt either approach depending on the situation,
upbringing, and cultural influences. In terms of stages or levels, both men and women can
achieve high levels of moral reasoning that involve principles of justice, care, and equality.
However, they may emphasize different elements depending on individual personality, life
experiences, and societal expectations about gender roles. This intersection of justice and care
frameworks represents a more comprehensive understanding of moral development across
genders.

UNIT -3
CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES IN GENDER AND SEXUALITY

LGBTQ psychology is a branch of psychology focused on the lives and experiences of LGBTQ
individuals. While it often includes support for LGBTQ people working in the field, its scope
extends far beyond that. It examines various aspects of LGBTQ lives, including issues related to
sexuality, prejudice and discrimination, parenting and family dynamics, as well as coming out
and identity development. This broader focus allows for a comprehensive understanding of the
unique challenges and experiences faced by LGBTQ individuals in society.
Groupings within professional bodies such as the American Psychological Association (APA)
and the British Psychological Society (BPS). provide a forum for research and other activities in
particular areas of psychology. They typically organise specialist events and publish newsletters
and journals that communicate the latest developments to researchers and practitioners. Most
areas of mainstream psychology (such as social, clinical, health, developmental, education,
forensic, and sport and exercise psychology) are represented within professional bodies. In 1984
the APA approved the establishment of Division 44, The Society for the Psychological Study of
Lesbian and Gay Issues. Division 44 was the first professional body for lesbian and gay
psychologists and represented a huge step forward in establishing lesbian and gay psychology as
a legitimate area of psychological research and practice. Despite advancements, such as the
development of guidelines to combat heterosexist bias and the inclusion of bisexual, trans, and
queer perspectives, much of the existing research has historically centered on the experiences of
gay men and lesbians. Recent years have seen calls for broader inclusivity, leading to changes in
professional bodies' names and missions to better represent the diversity within the LGBTQ
community.
Understanding social marginalisation in LGBTQ lives
To understand the diversity within LGBTQ communities, this part outlines eight overlapping
areas of diversity. The interplay between class, race, and experiences of heterosexism. The
concept of intersectionality is central to this discussion, highlighting that different identities are
not experienced in isolation but rather as overlapping categories that shape individual
experiences.
Gender
Victoria and Elizabeth (Clarke and Peel, 2007b) have argued that gender is often overlooked in
research on LGBTQ people. In part this is because most LGBTQ psychological research focuses
on lesbians and gay men, and it is assumed that because lesbians and gay men have sexual and
emotional relationships with people of the same sex/gender, no gender differences exist in same-
sex relationships. Such assumptions are problematic for the ways in which they:
● overlook potential gender differences in bisexual relationships (between women and men,
and between same-sex partners)
● ignore the impact that gender norms have on trans people
● disregard the challenges to gender categories that people who identify as queer often
present to dominant gender norms
● conflate the experiences of people of different genders in ways that neglect significant
gender differences between people (i.e., when we refer to ‘lesbians and gay men’ as a
group we overlook the different experiences of women and men living in male dominated
societies).
Feminist scholars have long identified how gender norms impact on the lives of all people,
whether to the disadvantage of women or to the advantage of men. In LGBTQ communities,
although the notion of ‘community’ is assumed to describe an inclusive and safe space for all
LGBTQ people, it is often the case that such spaces reproduce the gender dynamics of the wider
society, with men’s voices and needs superseding those of women (see, for example, Humphrey,
2000). When the experiences of gay men are generalised to speak for the experiences of all
LGBTQ people, or when LGBTQ research focuses primarily on the lives of gay men, we can see
how gender differences, and the effects of living in male-dominated societies, shape LGBTQ
communities and LGBTQ psychology.
To summarise, gender functions in complex ways in LGBTQ communities. As a result, it is
important to:
● recognise the different experiences of gender of LGBTQ people and not to treat lesbians
and gay men (and BTQ people) as a homogeneous group, and instead consider the
different ways in which gender shapes women’s and men’s experiences of non-
heterosexuality
● understand that men within LGBTQ communities will typically stand to benefit from
living in male-dominated societies, regardless of their experiences of marginalisation
 acknowledge that power differences (in relation to, for example, social class and income,
race and age) do exist within lesbian and gay relationships and that LGBTQ people do
not live outside of gender norms.
Bisexuality
The identity category ‘bisexual’ means many different things to people who identify as bisexual.
For example, there are people who:
1. are attracted to both women and men, and who are willing to enter into relationships on
the basis of attraction to an individual person, rather than to a specific gender or sexuality
(Gurevich et al., 2007)
2. are primarily sexually and emotionally attracted to people of the same sex, but who feel
that the label ‘bisexual’ provides them with some protection against homophobia
3. feel that the category ‘bisexual’ provides a better description of their identity than
categories such as ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay’. Bisexual people have often been marginalised in
LGBTQ research and communities (Fox, 1995).
Some lesbian feminists have seen bisexuality as compromising the political commitment that
many lesbian women make to challenging patriarchy (Ault, 1994). While we recognise the
concerns of lesbians and gay men who have at times felt under threat by the category of
bisexuality (either because of the ways in which it challenges the dichotomy of
homosexuality/heterosexuality or because it throws into question lesbian feminist commitments
to challenging patriarchy), we nonetheless respect and validate the experiences and voices of
bisexual people. Another accusation levelled at bisexual people is that their sexual relationships
or practices are inherently promiscuous and unstable. This type of accusation is increasingly
countered by research on the lives of bisexual people. In bisexual relationships that are non-
monogamous or polyamorous, research suggests that most bisexual people openly negotiate
consent and have clear boundaries with their multiple partners. In sum, understanding the lives of
bisexual people requires that we:
● recognise the multiple ways in which bisexual people define their identities
● comprehend and challenge the stereotypes that are perpetuated against bisexual people
within mainstream society and within lesbian and gay communities
● acknowledge how binary models of gender and sexuality limit our understandings of the
lives and experiences of bisexual people: bisexuality does not represent a ‘failure to
orientate’ (Weiss, 2004: 43) to either one of the two dominant ‘sexual orientations’
(homosexuality or heterosexuality).

Trans and queer

To date, the experiences of trans and queer people have received little attention within LGBTQ
psychology. One reason for this is that descriptions of these two groups of people are constantly
changing in relation both to social norms and to the ways in which trans and queer people define
themselves. Some of the groups of people who may identify as trans or queer include:
o people who do not subscribe to either of the two dominant masculine/feminine gender
identities (e.g., butch lesbians, people who identify as ‘genderqueer’)
o drag kings and drag queens
o people who identify as androgynous
o people who cross-dress (some of these people may identify with the category transvestite)
o people who ‘transition’ from one sex/gender to the other through hormonal and/ or
surgical treatment.
When talking about queer and trans ‘identities’ it is important to understand the different ways in
which gender and sexuality are understood across cultures. These groups of people can often
negotiate multiple relationships with (normatively identified) men and women in their lives, and
potentially have children or enter into marriage relationships that are not seen as contradictory to
their expression of gender and sexuality Using the term ‘queer’ as an identity category is one of
the ways in which some people in western cultures have sought to rework or resist gender and
sexuality categories. When engaging with the lives and experiences of trans and queer people, it
is important to:
● recognise the many different groups of people who identify as trans or queer
● understand the cultural specificity of gender and sexuality categories and the challenges
that trans and queer people make to western gender and sexuality norms
● acknowledge the varied ways in which trans people understand their bodies and
identities.
Social class
Social class has a wide range of meanings. In some countries such as Australia and the USA it is
typically understood as another word for ‘socioeconomic status’ (i.e., the relative social position
of individuals on the basis of differences in income). In other countries, such as the UK, social
class has a much broader meaning, and relates to people’s background, and their values,
consumption practices and other behaviours (and as such, in some instances, social class has very
little to do with income). Some of the key findings that highlight the impact of inequities in
socioeconomic status in LGBTQ communities are from research on experiences of
homelessness, specifically in relation to young LGBTQ people (e.g., Cochran et al., 2002) and
trans people (e.g., Sakamoto et al., 2009). Homeless LGBTQ people are also vulnerable to abuse
and are more likely to engage in activities such as prostitution or risky sexual behaviours, which
can jeopardise their well-being.
An individual’s socio-economic status is largely determined by employment options. Research
on the employment options of LGBTQ people indicates that because of workplace heterosexism
some LGBTQ people choose not to ‘come out’ to their employers or co-workers, and remaining
closeted at work can be experienced as stressful (Hewitt, 1995
Differences among LGBTQ people in relation to social class and socioeconomic status indicate
the importance of:
● recognising the impact of class differences between LGBTQ people (and particularly
between partners in same-sex relationships), and the different ways in which LGBTQ
people are positioned in relation to class
● understanding the effects of economic disparities on the health and well-being of LGBTQ
people
● acknowledging how social class mediates experiences of coming out and discrimination
in the workplace and in other arenas.
Race
As social theorists and biologists have long recognised, racial categories do not represent actual
biological differences between groups. The mapping of the human genome has found, among
other things, that differences within supposed ‘racial groups’ surpass differences between racial
groups. This suggests that what have historically been understood as bodily markers of racial
groupings are simply collections of body types that have occurred within particular locations:
they do not represent specific or discrete racial groupings (McCann et al., 2004). In addition to
debunking racial categories, researchers have acknowledged that the values accorded to different
‘racial groups’ (such as in relation to supposed differences in intelligence or IQ) are the product
of histories of colonisation and other forms of domination across the world aimed at subjugating
one group of people to another (Richards, 1997). Futhermore, the claim that racial differences
account for actual differences in the abilities of distinct groups of people has been found to be
the result of the inappropriate use of tests on non-white populations. Tests normed on white
populations are unable to measure adequately the abilities of non-white people Challenging the
ways in which racial categories serve to justify discrimination is important, as past
understandings of these categories have been based on incorrect interpretations of differences
between people.
Organised religion and spirituality
There is considerable diversity among LGBTQ people who identify as religious, and within any
given religion or spiritual practice there will be a range of positions held, such as:
● those who experience their religion as a generalised sense of ‘faith’ in the world
● those who are committed to a particular religious moral code
● those who live by the literal interpretation of a particular religious text (such as the
Christian bible, the Qur’an in Islam, the Jewish Torah or the HinduBhagavad Gita)
● those who view religion as providing a sense of cultural connection but don’t adhere to
specific religious practices
● those who adhere to a combination of these (and other) understandings of religion.

For all of these positions, religion represents a place of safety from the discrimination that
LGBTQ people face in their everyday lives. In his research on non-heterosexual Muslims living
in Britain, sociologist Andrew Yip (2004) found that many of his participants experienced their
commitment to Islam and their readings of the Qur’an as providing solace in the context of
widespread hostility against Muslim people. Similarly, Abraham (2009) found that most of the
queer Muslim Australians he interviewed experienced Islam as a source of strength in the face of
multiple forms of discrimination. Some researchers have suggested that a sense of spiritual
connection to others or to god may be important in times of crisis for LGBTQ Christians, such as
at the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic (Sherkat, 2002).
Rural life
Some LGBTQ people living in rural or remote areas may move to urban areas to connect with
LGBTQ communities. This can be important for some young people, but can leave others
vulnerable to abuse from people who take advantage of their relative lack of knowledge about
urban LGBTQ practices (D’Augelli and Hart, 1987).
In summary, understanding issues of location in LGBTQ communities requires us to:
● appreciate the specific experiences and support needs of LGBTQ people living in rural
and remote areas
● understand the complexities associated with using online spaces as a way to support
LGBTQ people living in rural settings
● acknowledge the challenges faced by LGBTQ people who decide to move from rural to
urban areas.
Ability
Recognising the differences between people in terms of their ability to move in social spaces
(designed for able-bodied people) has led researchers in the field of disability research, such as
the British social scientist Tom Shakespeare (1999), to make a distinction between impairment
(i.e., a condition of the body or mind) and disability (the relationship between people with an
impairment and the broader society in which they live that fails to acknowledge their needs).
Recent ‘queercrip’ research (e.g., Hall, 2003) has focused on how particular bodies are accorded
more value than others, and how people often experience their level of ability as ‘normal’, rather
than some people being ‘abled’ and some people being ‘disabled’.Issues of ability cover a broad
range of areas, including:
● physical abilities (including the use of limbs and the number of limbs)
● intellectual or learning abilities
● health abilities (including chronic illness)
● emotional abilities (including mental health issues).

Because of the priority accorded to able-bodied norms, many LGBTQ people experience forms
of vulnerability that result from:
● not being able to access non-discriminatory services (in a context where many
community health services do not cater for the needs of LGBTQ people, and particularly
the needs of LGBTQ people with a range of different abilities)
● a lack of supportive LGBTQ friendly or positive spaces (because of physical or
 emotional barriers such as a lack of ramps for wheelchair access that can result in actual
physical exclusion, as well as feelings of exclusion from particular social spaces)
● a lack of information about sexual health or sexual practices (which leaves some people
open to interpersonal abuse)
● limited access to employment options (which may curtail access to social spaces because
of limited finances). LGBTQ people living with impairments may experience difficulties
in gaining support from other
LGBTQ people. This may arise from:
1. communication differences (for example hearing-impaired people may not readily have
access to LGBTQ vernacular)
2. bodily differences (some LGBTQ people can experience alienation if they are not
perceived as embodying particular idealised ‘types’)
3. health differences (many social support groups in LGBTQ communities require people to
travel to services, which may not be feasible for people experiencing chronic health
issues)
4. some LGBTQ people treating the bodies of LGBTQ people with impairments as fetish
objects (e.g., people who are attracted to people who have had a limb amputated)
Understanding the differing abilities and impairments within LGBTQ communities
requires us to:
5. recognise how bodily norms shape social spaces and limit the movement of some people
6. understand the specific experiences of LGBTQ people living with impairments and their
particular sexual and emotional needs
7. acknowledge ableism within LGBTQ communities.
The relationship between LGBTQ psychology and feminism
Feminism
The first thing to note is that feminism is not a homogeneous body of thought, and that there is as
much (or probably more) debate among feminists as between feminists and others. Broadly
speaking, feminism comprises a number of different movements and theories concerned with
social relations between women and men, and women’s rights and interests. Feminists are often
negatively stereotyped as man-hating, angry lesbians who want to rule the world. While some
feminists identify as lesbian and there are branches of feminist theory and practice specific to
lesbian communities (such as lesbian feminism), lesbianism and feminism are not synonymous.
Furthermore, although some (separatist and radical) feminists identify men as a social group as
their ‘political opponents’, most feminists do not hate men as individuals (rather they are critical
of the power and privilege invested in men) and have very little inclination to rule the world!
Over the years, many different subtypes of feminist theory and practice have developed, far too
many to summarise here (for an overview see Beasley, 1999; Douglas, 1990). Feminism has
been a hugely influential social force. Feminists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
known as first-wave feminists, campaigned successfully for women’s right to vote. Second-wave
feminists (from the late 1960s onwards) have campaigned (often successfully) for, among many
other things, women’s abortion and reproductive rights, women’s right to protection from rape,
sexual assault, domestic violence and sexual harassment, and women’s rights in the workplace
(including maternity leave and equal pay). Although it is often claimed that we now live in a
‘post-feminist’ era (McRobbie, 2004) and, more colloquially, that ‘everything is equal now’,
feminists remain concerned about the infringement of women’s rights. Contemporary feminism
is also concerned with understanding how women’s experience intersects with racism, classism,
heterosexism and colonialism.
Feminist psychology
There has always been tension between the (heterosexual) women’s movement and lesbian
feminism to a greater or lesser extent: lesbian feminists have been highly critical of the neglect of
lesbian issues within feminism, and lesbians have been singled out as the ‘lavender menace’, as
dividing and discrediting the women’s movement, by heterosexual feminists. These tensions are
also evident in the relationship between feminist psychology (sometimes called the psychology
of women) and LGBTQ psychology. Like LGBTQ psychology, feminist psychology is a
recognised sub-field of psychology, with groupings in all of the major professional bodies (see
Unger and Crawford, 2003, for an excellent introduction to feminist psychology). Feminist
psychology has been defined as a ‘psychological theory and practice which is explicitly informed
by the political goals of the feminist movement’ (Wilkinson, 1997a: 247) and is concerned with
topics of relevance to women’s lives and the operation of gender within society. Furthermore,
feminist ideas and feminist activism have shaped the perspectives of many LGBTQ people.
There is some debate about whether men can call themselves feminist. Some men do, whereas
others identify as ‘pro-feminist’ in response to the argument that feminism as a theory and a
practice is grounded in the experience of being, and living as, a woman, so only women can
authentically identify as feminist.
Intersectionality and privilege
One response to the limitations in LGBTQ psychology is to emphasize the concept of
intersectionality, originally coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw. This framework acknowledges that
individuals do not experience life through a single identity lens (e.g., simply as "lesbian" or
"transman"), but rather through a complex interplay of identities, such as being a "black, middle-
class lesbian." This approach counters the "additive model" of identity, which oversimplifies
the nuances of lived experiences by merely summing identity categories.
Intersectionality examines how identity categories simultaneously shape experiences,
recognizing that racial identities are often sexualized and social classes are gendered. This
analysis allows for a more nuanced understanding of privilege and disadvantage, where privilege
is viewed as the benefits certain groups gain from social hierarchies (e.g., men generally
experience privilege in a male-dominated society). Understanding privilege is not about blaming
individuals but rather analyzing behaviors and societal structures that reflect and perpetuate
privilege. For example, in a heterosexual couple aiming for equality in parenting, economic
factors may still lead to traditional gender roles, illustrating how privilege can shape family
dynamics regardless of intentions.
Examining the experiences of those who identify as both white and gay reveals a unique
intersection of privilege and disadvantage, providing a fuller picture of their identity in a
heteronormative society. Recognizing these complexities allows for richer accounts of
individuals' lived experiences, rather than reducing them to simple categorizations. Finally, to
truly grasp the diversity within LGBTQ communities, it's essential to consider how dominant
group members experience their identities.

Applications of LGBTQ psychology

This comprehensive overview of LGBTQ psychology illustrates its broad applications across
various psychological disciplines and social contexts: Social Psychology, Developmental
Psychology, Clinical and Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, Health Psychology,
Psychology of Family and Relationships, Psychology of Work and Leisure and Psychology of
the Media. LGBTQ psychology not only critiques traditional psychological paradigms but also
actively works to create inclusive frameworks that acknowledge and support diverse identities
and experiences. It enhances a greater understanding of the intersections of sexuality, identity,
and societal norms, ultimately contributing to more equitable social policies and practices.
Future directions
● Representing diversity. There is a need to continue to develop sampling and analytic
approaches that ensure the representation of diverse groups of LGBTQ people. It is also
important that the research tools we use and the theoretical frameworks we employ
reflect the actual worldviews of our participants, rather than reflecting a white, middle-
class understanding of the world.
● Moving away from a white, middle-class norm.We need to ensure that ‘diverse samples’
include marginalised social groups and the ‘usual suspects’. Too often ‘diversity’ is
treated as referring only to people who are not white or middle-class, which means that,
for example, a focus on ‘race’ in LGBTQ psychological research tends to translate into a
focus on the experiences of non-white people. This of course overlooks the fact that
white people are also members of a racial group. As a result of ‘race equalling non-
white’, we know very little about how white, middle-class LGBTQ people live out their
lives and do identity development and coming out, relationships, family and parenting,
and ageing as white, middle-class people. This does not mean that we should continue to
focus research on the most privileged groups of LGBTQ people, but that we should
recognise that everyone occupies a position in relation to race and class (and gender,
age…) and we are all part of ‘diversity’.
● LGBTQ-positive mainstream psychology. There is a need to consider what an LGBTQ-
positive mainstream psychology would actually look like. How could we re-envisage
psychology so that it would genuinely encompass a diverse range of experiences, rather
than simply ‘adding-in’ LGBTQ people and leaving the heteronormative framework of
mainstream psychology intact?
● LGBTQ-specific research and comparative research. We should continue to promote
LGBTQ-specific research that celebrates the lives of LGBTQ people. At the same time,
we should acknowledge the benefits of comparative research that avoids treating
heterosexual people as the benchmark and seeks to identify actual and important
differences between groups and the implications of these differences (e.g., the disparities
between LGBTQ and heterosexual and nontrans people on key health indicators).
● An international approach. There is a need to develop a truly international approach to
LGBTQ psychology that both recognises the cultural and national specificity of LGBTQ
lives and allows for comparisons and collaborations between countries.