色盒直播

‘Prioritisation of gender identity’ exacerbates ‘female data gap’

Recording gender identity but not sex perpetuates historical exclusion of women from research, paper argues

March 11, 2025
A woman works at a mannequin manufacturer with female mannequins missing heads and lower body , illustrating the female data gap as researchers record gender identity rather than sex.
Source: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images

Journals and ethics committees are exacerbating the “female data gap” by requiring researchers to record the gender identity rather than sex of participants in surveys and medical trials, a paper argues.

Research administrators, editors and publishers need to consider the “ethical implications” of practices which alienate female participants and risk corrupting data, according to the article by study participants, academics and a health consumer advocate.

The paper,??in the?Journal of Academic Ethics, says participants and academics are confused by terminology about sex, gender and gender identity, which are often used interchangeably.

Some?women are so frustrated at finding their sex overlooked that they withdraw from studies. Others may not have participated in the first place if they had known they would be referred to as “menstruators” or “birthing people” in the finished articles.

色盒直播

ADVERTISEMENT

“Studies have increasingly not requested information about our sex, even when sex is critically important to the research topic,” the paper says. “[This] diminishes research quality, is unethical, and constitutes a form of sexism.”

Corresponding author Karleen Gribble said her key concern was that vital information was being excluded, making it impossible for researchers to disaggregate their findings by sex. She said recent studies of the health research workforce and parenting-related discrimination in the workplace, for example, had been “impeded” by the failure to collect sex data.

色盒直播

ADVERTISEMENT

She was also concerned about data “corruption” through the inaccurate recording of people’s sex. “It matters in situations where outcomes are rare in one sex and not the other,” said Gribble, an adjunct professor in Western Sydney University’s School of Nursing and Midwifery. “If a few people are mis-recorded in the rare group, that can skew the data quite seriously.”

Gribble said academics were confused and even scared about how to delineate between sex and gender identity, and guidance on how to articulate survey questions sometimes came from universities’ equity and inclusion offices rather than ethics committees. She questioned the assumption that gender identity was ubiquitous.

“Ethics committees need to be providing better guidance. They’re failing in their duty if they do not ensure that social moves towards prioritising gender identity over sex are not detrimental to efforts towards closing the female data gap.”

Lead author Madeleine Munzer said she had participated in studies into birthing and parenting after volunteering as a breastfeeding counsellor and realising that a lot of advice to new mothers lacked scientific groundings. “Often it was misinformation, old wives’ tales, guesswork; mothers were urged to buy products which made things worse.

“We need good research on issues that are specific to female health and female reproduction. Some areas have barely been touched upon. Women’s pain symptoms get dismissed, for instance.”

色盒直播

ADVERTISEMENT

Wisdom from women leaders in higher education


Munzer said many study participants rejected the concept of gender identity. “It suggests that being a woman is somehow connected to sex stereotypes. A lot of women view this as regressive.”

Maggie Kirkman, a women’s health expert who did not contribute to the article, agreed that better data was needed. “Medical research needs to incorporate both sex and gender to ensure that we have moved on from the days of accepting the white male body as standard,” said Kirkman, a senior research fellow at Monash University.

But Kirkman said research would be devalued by a “refusal to accept the concept of gender identity or that anyone can be other than female or male. That is akin to middle-class white men refusing to accept the reality of racism – they haven’t experienced it; therefore it doesn’t exist.”

色盒直播

ADVERTISEMENT

Robyn Norton, co-founder of the George Institute for Global Health, said sex and gender should not be used interchangeably. “They represent two different concepts,” said Norton, who helped establish the?

While there was considerable confusion around the two concepts, organisations including the?, the?, the??and Britain’s??had recently issued clarifying statements.

Norton said sex was key to research into biological influences on health, while gender should be the focus for studies into sociocultural issues. “Oftentimes those two interact and need to be considered at the same time.

“It’s a changing dynamic. When we started working in this space, our colleagues just talked about sex, but the language – and how we think about sex and gender – has changed over time. It will continue to change most likely, so the conversations need to be had.”

色盒直播

ADVERTISEMENT

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (7)

Are these authors' serious? Their view is ahistorical, illogical, and deeply offensive to all parties. Why is 色盒直播 publicizing this?
Can you explain what you see the views presented as ahistorical, illogical and offensive to everyone?
new
Of course they are serious and with good reason. Men, even those claiming to be women are socialised differently to women, so including them in sociological, or psychological studies makes such studies meaningless. Certain drugs affect men and women differently, so including men claiming to be women in women's drug trials would be pointless and dangerous. Apart from anything else, most women are sick to death of having these men lumped in with them, both in general and in particular.
What are you talking about? What's offensive is to refer to women and mothers as menstruators or birthing parents, to refuse to record biological sex in medical studies when that is a highly relevant, etc. The sexism produced by the genderists is gobsmacking.
Biological sex is so important in research and pandering to gender identity promoters in all research is sexist and offensive. It could make a mockery of a good deal of scientific research where biological sex is fundamental and to social sciences research looking at the bigger picture.
It depends on what is actually meaningful data for the study you are undertaking. If, say, you are researching disorders of the reproductive system, you do need to know which one the participant has... If you are researching attitudes - say the perception that women's pain is ignored - it's more important to know which gender the participant APPEARS to be as that is what will be affecting the attitude others have towards them (if your hypothesis is correct and gender affects attitudes, that is!). If you are researching something for which gender is irrelevant, then why are you recording that at all?
A very sensible article tackling a genuine research problem. Conflating these two different things really is undermining good research in many disciplines. Not sure what is illogical here nor what could be ahistorical about it.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

ADVERTISEMENT