The gender-binary cycle: the perpetual relations between a biological-essentialist view of gender, gender ideology, and gender-labelling and sorting

Abstract

Gender inequality is one of the most pressing issues of our time. A core factor that feeds gender inequality is people's gender ideology—a set of beliefs about the proper order of society in terms of the roles women and men should fill. We argue that gender ideology is shaped, in large parts, by the way people make sense of gender differences. Specifically, people often think of gender differences as expressions of a predetermined biology, and of men and women as different ‘kinds’. We describe work suggesting that thinking of gender differences in this biological-essentialist way perpetuates a non-egalitarian gender ideology. We then review research that refutes the hypothesis that men and women are different ‘kinds’ in terms of brain function, hormone levels and personality characteristics. Next, we describe how the organization of the environment in a gender-binary manner, together with cognitive processes of categorization drive a biological-essentialist view of gender differences. We then describe the self-perpetuating relations, which we term the gender-binary cycle , between a biological-essentialist view of gender differences, a non-egalitarian gender ideology and a binary organization of the environment along gender lines. Finally, we consider means of intervention at different points in this cycle. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms’.

Computational and neurocognitive approaches to the political brain: key insights and future avenues for political neuroscience

“…The ways in which biology can be maladaptively coopted for ideological purposes is also investigated by Saguy et al [15] who hone in on gender ideology and its roots in biological essentialism. Taking a more meta-theoretical approach to neurocognitive systems, Saguy et al [15] argue that nonegalitarian gender ideologies prosper when gender differences are conceptualized in a biologically essentialist manner. Assumptions that men and women differ neurally, hormonally and behaviourally have often been used as tools for the oppression of women-both by and against women-and this categorical distinction between the genders feeds into cognitive biases that reinforce such binaries.…”

“…The ways in which biology can be maladaptively co-opted for ideological purposes is also investigated by Saguy et al . [ 15 ] who hone in on gender ideology and its roots in biological essentialism. Taking a more meta-theoretical approach to neurocognitive systems, Saguy et al .…”

“…Linked to this, several lines of research converged on the mechanisms of social influence , positing how it affects individuals differentially based on their cognitive traits [ 5 – 7 ], motivations [ 19 ] and cultural context [ 20 ]. Toxic ideologies become internalized by individuals through cyclical [ 15 ] and addictively self-reinforcing [ 18 ] mechanisms, and it is these socio-cognitive loops that practitioners and equality advocates may need to break in order to achieve ideological open-mindedness and receptivity to evidence. Social influence can thus be a force for good—regardless of baseline ideological inclinations [ 17 ]—when it is used to create balanced information ecosystems that are resilient to misinformation and populism [ 21 ].…”

“…The ways in which biology can be maladaptively co-opted for ideological purposes is also investigated by Saguy et al [15] who hone in on gender ideology and its roots in biological essentialism. Taking a more meta-theoretical approach to neurocognitive systems, Saguy et al [15] argue that nonegalitarian gender ideologies prosper when gender differences are conceptualized in a biologically essentialist manner.…”

“…B 376: 20200130 cognitive biases that reinforce such binaries. Saguy et al [15] therefore posit a gender-binary cycle which can only be cut through a psychological understanding of cognitive biases, motivations and identities as well as an overarching aim to achieve gender equality. The researchers' focus on biological essentialism also serves as an important warning for political psychologists dealing with other kinds of ideological identities: we need to ensure that in studying the biological roots of ideology, we do not reinforce false binaries between political groups that later translate into greater polarization.…”