Science, historically, has always been viewed as a neutral lens that serves a straightforward purpose: to justify and explain the truths of the universe. This ranges from the chemistry of energy to the composition of human bodies. However, we often fail to realize that human thought has been at the forefront of all these discoveries, and therefore, its findings are inextricably tied to the societal prejudices of their creators.
How has science shown gender bias?
Biological processes within the science curriculum are full of terminology and descriptions that, in reality, reinforce traditional gender roles. One main example is the way that the descriptions of sperm versus the egg have often been depicted. Emily Martin, an anthropologist, in her famous essay, The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles, points out that the sperm is characterized as “active,” “strong” and like a “harpoon.” Conversely, the egg is described in a more “submissive” lens, as something that is “swept” on the fallopian tube, waiting to be “penetrated” by the sperm. Although recent research has updated to confirm that the egg and the sperm both play equally important roles when it comes to fertilization (ie, the egg captures the sperm to ensure a seamless process), the language used to describe this process remains within heavily gendered metaphors. These metaphors either describe women as “submissive,” simply only able to wait for their male counterparts to assert “dominance,” or within the image of a “femme fatale” that dominates the helpless sperm by “trapping” it.
Even within the so-called “evolution” of the way the relationship between the sperm and the egg has been depicted, the way that female anatomy is categorized within stereotypes of either being heavily reactive or submissive is an issue that reinforces gendered expectations that women often face in society today. Promoting viewing female bodies as “idle” and “passive” creates a violent environment where dismissal of women’s experiences, and even pain, is ignored. If the process of an egg being fertilized is simply “submissive,” women’s medical concerns are then commonly treated with less urgency because of the belief that women are “emotional reactors” rather than scientifically objective when analyzing medical potential concerns.
If we allow the language we use when analyzing cellular dynamics to become framed around male dominance versus female submissiveness, we reinforce a cycle of violence. A cycle that trains future generations of healthcare providers to characterize female patients based on inaccurate stereotypes as either “docile” or too “emotionally influenced” when receiving care. As if women’s pain is a natural side effect of being a woman rather than a pressing health issue.
This view of women as overly “emotional” has caused catastrophic negligence in several other ways. When the male model is viewed as the “dominant,” and therefore the pinnacle image for all health issues, it causes severe mistakes. For example, in male heart attack victims, chest pain that feels like “crushing” is the most common symptom. However, in women, it can be expressed differently with fatigue, nausea or back pain. This is viewed as less aggressive than chest pain, and therefore, is seen as an external phenomenon that cannot be as severe. Because it does not fit within the preset male version, it’s treated less seriously, and additionally, is seen as a result of subjective emotional distress. Instead of researching the microvascular differences between the male and female heart, scientific conclusions tend to label life-threatening symptoms as less severe because of that “passive egg stereotype” that asserts the female as irregular medically.
What, then, does “Stem-inism” look like?
For aspiring pre-health, pre-medicine, public health, or even research students, feminism is something that we need to bring to the forefront of our future practices. If you refuse sexism within your daily life and find it crucial to speak up against it, then refusing to accept gendered metaphors used to describe processes that should be viewed as objective physiological processes is the first step towards true equality for women in health. It isn’t merely about changing how we think and talk about cells in the context of classes and academic discussions, but ensuring that medicine is built on equality.
Untangling ourselves from the biases science has been built on means thinking deeper about the language we use to describe biological processes. Instead of falsely assuming that the most “aggressive” cell or symptom must be the dominant model, we must actively look to include precise, gender-neutral vocabulary and more inclusive research methods that do not just rely on the white male body as the standard. We must ensure that female bodies are also viewed as a separate standard that is just as important for precise medical care and analysis, rather than a variant.