ArticlePDF Available

Biological Sex, Gender, and Public Policy



Policy debates have focused on who can participate in or access single-sex activities or services. This article describes how science of the biology of sex is relevant to three major policy areas: parenting (including leaves), sports, and public spaces. We focus on what scientists know about sex and gender (and gender/sex, where gender and sex are intertwined), and the role of various biological factors, including hormones such as testosterone and estradiol as well as genetics, gonads, genitals, and more. The policies under debate often use “biological sex,” but this fails to account for scientific understandings of sex and gender, misrepresents sex as single-faceted and binary, and overlooks scientific consensus about the importance of gender and identity.
Policy Insights from the
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
2017, Vol. 4(2) 194 –201
© The Author(s) 2017
DOI: 10.1177/2372732217720700
Importance of Biobehavioral Research to Policy
For gender/sex policy, science shows no one aspect of sex
(hormones, genes, genitals, gonads) trumps others—gender
identity matters most.
Key Points
Sex is a category made up of several variables, none
taking precedence over the others.
Science recognizes that gender matters more for most
policy than sex does.
Biological similarities between mothering and father-
ing support gender-neutral policy, but reproductive
biology (pregnancy, birth, lactation) supports policy
that attends to sex as well.
Attempts to define who can compete as women (or
men) in sports are not based in scientific evidence, but
do lead to stigma and shame, and these include recent
policies about testosterone.
Policies that use birth or current genitals to delimit
who can access single-sex spaces or services are not
based on scientific evidence about the biology of sex
and gender.
Over time, fewer spaces have been reserved for men
or for women, questioning the scientific basis for con-
tinuing sex-segregated spaces.
Biological sex is increasingly cited as a basis for making pol-
icy. This policy is used to define sex and gender, differentiate
men and women from each other, and clarify who is allowed
to access single-sex spaces, services, or benefits. As policy
makers define what they mean by sex or gender, and who
counts as a woman or a man (or boy or girl), it is increasingly
clear that these categories are not as obvious as often per-
ceived. But, what is the biological science that these policies
have, or might have, as a basis? This review describes how
science of the biology of sex is relevant to three major policy
areas: parenting (including leaves), sports, and public spaces.
Sex and Gender: What Are They and What Is
the Difference?
Sex and gender can be used in overlapping ways. Because
gender is less likely to evoke sexuality than sex is, gender is
sometimes used in place of sex. Sex and gender are also used
separately. Sex refers to femaleness, maleness, and sex diver-
sity: Evolved bodily features including genitals, secondary sex
characteristics, genes, hormones, gonads (testes, ovaries),
reproductive capacity, and more (Canadian Institutes of Health
Research [CIHR], 2015; Johnson & Repta, 2012; van Anders,
2015). Sometimes nonexperts use biological sex, which has
thus entered some policy language, but scientists generally do
not because it is redundant and carries no scientific meaning
720700BBSXXX10.1177/2372732217720700Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciencesvan Anders et al.
1University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sari M. van Anders, Department of Psychology, Department of Women’s
Studies, and Program in Neuroscience, University of Michigan,
530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Biological Sex, Gender, and Public Policy
Sari M. van Anders1, Zach C. Schudson1, Emma C. Abed1,
William J. Beischel1, Emily R. Dibble1, Olivia D. Gunther1,
Val J. Kutchko1, and Elisabeth R. Silver1
Policy debates have focused on who can participate in or access single-sex activities or services. This article describes how
science of the biology of sex is relevant to three major policy areas: parenting (including leaves), sports, and public spaces.
We focus on what scientists know about sex and gender (and gender/sex, where gender and sex are intertwined), and the
role of various biological factors, including hormones such as testosterone and estradiol as well as genetics, gonads, genitals,
and more. The policies under debate often use “biological sex,” but this fails to account for scientific understandings of sex
and gender, misrepresents sex as single-faceted and binary, and overlooks scientific consensus about the importance of
gender and identity.
testosterone, genitals, sports, parental leaves, transgender, bathrooms
van Anders et al. 195
beyond just sex. Gender refers to masculinity, femininity, and
gender diversity: sociocultural characteristics including roles,
norms, social structures, laws, and more. Sex and gender are
multifaceted, which means each of them is made up of a set of
variables (Deaux, 1985; Johnson & Repta, 2012; van Anders,
Overlapping sex and gender can refer to people who are
transgender (whose gender or sex is different from what they
were assigned at birth), cisgender (whose gender or sex is the
same as birth-assignment), gender nonbinary (whose identi-
ties and experiences are not women or men, males or
females), or intersex (whose bodies are perceived, usually at
birth, as not matching expectations for a sex; related phe-
nomena are sometimes called DSDs: divergences/disorders
of sex development).
The scientific consensus is that humans reflect both gen-
der and sex and sociocultural and biological factors (R. J.
Nelson & Kriegsfeld, 2016; van Anders, 2015) and are phys-
ical beings who exist in a complicated social web. This web
reflects that people have gender and many other identities
and experiences. For example, women of different race/eth-
nicities do not necessarily experience being women in the
same way; this is called intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991).
Accordingly, assumptions that humans come in a gender
binary of two flavors—male and female—ignore the reality
that a multitude of identities influence people’s experiences.
Social identities, experiences, and norms can impact
physical bodies. For example, engaging in masculine-normed
behaviors actually increases testosterone levels in women
and men, and living in low-income, high-pollution areas can
negatively impact sperm development (Najafi et al., 2015;
van Anders, Steiger, & Goldey, 2015; van Anders & Watson,
2006). Sometimes, knowing what is sex (physical) and what
is gender (social) is difficult, because they intertwine and
influence each other. In this case, another term—gender/
sex—can be useful in referring to men, women, boys, girls,
and gender-diverse people, not just males, females, mascu-
linity, or femininity (van Anders, 2015).
How Do Hormones and Other Biological Factors
Relate to Sex and Gender?
When it comes to sex and gender, there are a host of biologi-
cal processes (R. J. Nelson & Kriegsfeld, 2016). Early in ges-
tation, genes code for a gonadal region on the fetal protokidney
to develop into testes or ovaries. All fetuses start with two sets
of reproductive accessories (e.g., uterus, vas deferens) that
are either retained or made to disappear depending on the
presence of testicular hormones. Genitals develop in response
to or absence of exposure to testosterone, into a vulva/vagina
or penis/scrotum, from the same materials. After this, fetuses
develop in the same way regardless of chromosomal, repro-
ductive, or genital sex, and, beyond these differences, babies
and children show no physical differences by sex until
At puberty, the gonads, which have been inactive since
early in gestation (except for perhaps two brief periods early
in life, the purpose of which are unknown; Collaer & Hines,
1995) start excreting hormones such as testosterone, estra-
diol, and progesterone. These hormones facilitate developing
and maintaining secondary sex characteristics, some that are
the same by sex (e.g., acne, armpit hair growth, pubic hair)
and some that differ (e.g., patterns of fat distribution, facial
hair growth, menstruation, sperm development). Throughout
adulthood, some continuing sex-related processes are hor-
monally mediated, such as menopause, baldness, sperm-
deterioration, and lactation.
Steroid hormones such as testosterone (an androgen) and
estradiol (an estrogen) are often seen as “opposite” but are
chemically similar. Testosterone is convertible to estradiol,
and can act via estrogen receptors (R. J. Nelson & Kriegsfeld,
2016). Otherwise, each hormone binds to its specific hor-
mone receptor(s). Steroids are released from the gonads
(ovaries; testes), but androgens are also released from the
adrenal glands, which are better known for releasing stress-
related hormones. Steroid hormones can also be converted
from precursor chemicals in fatty (adipose) tissue. These
hormones are not at set, static levels in the body, but reflect a
dynamic interplay between genetic and social factors as well
as environmental and psychological ones (van Anders,
Goldey, & Bell, 2014).
Hormones also affect the brain and influence the likeli-
hood of certain behaviors. In humans, however, the effect of
hormones on behavior is surprisingly weak (Carré & Archer,
2017; van Anders & Watson, 2006). So, while people often
assume that testosterone is what makes men masculine, and
estradiol is what makes women feminine, scientific evidence
about behavior is wanting. This is not for lack of effort; many
studies have attempted to uncover links between testosterone
and aggression, for example, or estradiol and emotionality,
but research demonstrates null associations or only very
weak ones (Hines, 2004; Jordan-Young, 2010). In fact, sci-
entific evidence in humans is much stronger for effects of
behavior on hormones, than for hormones on behavior (van
Anders et al., 2015; van Anders & Watson, 2006). That is not
to say biology does not influence gender/sex behavior, but
instead that influences are difficult to ascertain, and could
not be direct or universal.
Hormones, genitals, gonads, and genes are often used to
define “the gender binary” (usually a sex binary, given the
biological foci). However, a number of factors make up sex,
including genes, reproductive accessories, gonads, hor-
mones, genitals, reproductive potential, secondary sex char-
acteristics, and more, and these do not always co-occur.
Scientists acknowledge no single or objective way to define
sex (Fausto-Sterling, 2000; R. J. Nelson & Kriegsfeld, 2016;
196 Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4(2)
Rosario, 2009; van Anders, 2015) and hold that, while sex
can matter, it should not take precedence over gender.
Gender-, Sex-, and Parenting-Related
Parental leaves, pregnancy leaves, and adoption policies are
often directed toward women or differ by gender/sex. Policy
often builds on women (mothers) as primary caregivers,
which could reflect a host of factors including that preg-
nancy, gestation, and birth are female reproductive events
(excepting transgender men and not universal to all women).
Some policies in the United States recognize this reproduc-
tive sex difference (e.g., most paid parental leaves in the pri-
vate sector, Paid Leave for the United States, 2016) but not
others (e.g., U.S. federal law).
For example, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
(FMLA) offers 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave for
reasons including birth/adoption. Any parent—mother or
father—can use the leave to take care of their new child. This
leads to a surprising inequity: Female reproductive biology
(gestation and birth) is not recognized over and above the
need for time to parent. In contrast, policies in some other
countries provide time for parenting as well as pregnancy
(e.g., the Employment Standards Act in Canada [ESA],
2000). Female reproductive biology has been used in other
specific policy areas: excluding women from workplaces or
activities based on pregnancy status or potential (e.g., fetal
protection laws; see Goodwin, 2014). Thus, policies can
apply equally by gender but inequitably by sex.
Policy around parenting often builds on the widespread
perception that women are naturally more caring and loving
than men (Prentice & Carranza, 2002), largely based in ideas
about the biological hardwiring of maternal versus paternal
care (e.g., Taylor, 2003). But, in contrast to the pervasive
idea that women’s bodies are flooded with nurturant hor-
mones like estradiol, which men’s bodies are lacking, we
now know that men and women have indistinguishable lev-
els of estradiol, except during pregnancy or ovulation (R. E.
Nelson, Grebe, O’Kane, & Singh, 2004). And, hormones like
progesterone, which are intimately tied to gestation, are
linked to protective aggression in many species (Mann,
Konen, & Svare, 1984).
A pervasive idea holds that testosterone inhibits parenting
and is higher in all men than in women; in reality, testosterone
levels overlap considerably between women and men
(Sapienza, Zingales, & Maestripieri, 2009). And, what scien-
tists define as parenting has come under scrutiny, since it his-
torically focused only on what mothers did and, even then,
only a selected set of behaviors (van Anders, Goldey, & Kuo,
2011). For example, nurturant parenting behaviors decrease
testosterone levels in men, but hearing baby cries increases
testosterone (van Anders, Tolman, & Volling, 2012). Lower
testosterone correlates with more intimate and caring parent-
ing (Storey, Walsh, Quinton, & Wynne-Edwards, 2000) but
higher testosterone is associated with sensitivity to threat
(Josephs, Newman, Brown, & Beer, 2003). And, greater
involvement in nurturant forms of child care has been linked
to lower testosterone in fathers (Gettler, McDade, Feranil, &
Kuzawa, 2011), while greater involvement in resource-provi-
sioning forms of child care has been linked to higher testos-
terone (Muller, Marlowe, Bugumba, & Ellison, 2009).
Scientific evidence including hormones and brain stud-
ies (e.g., Swain, 2011) challenge policy built on the notion
that men are biologically unprepared to be fathers (unlike
women, who are allegedly natural mothers), or that women
and men are biologically different and complementary par-
ents. This science challenges policy that advocates for chil-
dren to be raised by a mother and father as opposed to
single parents, same-sex parents, or caring others (Patterson,
Lactation and breastfeeding are elements of parenting that
are sex-specific. Breastfeeding is recommended for babies
until 2 years of age or beyond by the World Health
Organization (WHO, n.d.), and it benefits mothers as well
(Victora et al., 2016). However, health providers and work-
place policies both routinely discourage breastfeeding
directly or indirectly (Marinelli, Moren, Taylor, & The
Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, 2013; Schmied, Beake,
Sheehan, McCourt, & Dykes, 2011) by not acknowledging
or facilitating a woman’s right to choose to breastfeed/lac-
tate, or the medical recommendations for doing so. An Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) discrimina-
tion complaint against Frontier Airlines by its pilots (Freyer,
2016) charges inadequate lactation-break time (which can
lead to illness or infection in the mother). Not until 2010 did
U.S. federal law require employers to provide lactation
breaks in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(ACA; Murtagh & Moulton, 2011), and attempts to repeal
the ACA call this into question.
Summary: Implications From Biology for Policy
About Parenting, Gender, and Sex
The science of sex and gender are important for parenting-
related policies, like lactation breaks, access to adoption,
and parental leaves. However, parental leaves are distrib-
uted in a way that fails to take reproductive biology into
account: Although both women and men benefit from
leaves for the time-intensive parenting of babies, sex-spe-
cific events exclusive to women (or transgender men) often
go unrecognized. Science has demonstrated that caregiving
is biologically similar across women and men, challenging
policy that assumes men are biologically unprepared to par-
ent or that women and men are naturally complementary
van Anders et al. 197
Sport Policy, Gender, and Sex
Sports organizations have long had reason to make gender/
sex-based policy: They excluded women from sport entirely
until relatively recently. Including women in sport has been
accompanied by policy based on concerns described as fair-
ness for or protection of women. These include ensuring that
men do not cheat by competing in women’s sports, because
men generally outperform women. What are these policies
based on?
Policies about who can compete as women are often
called “sex testing” or “gender verification,” though they
apply only to women. They use biology-based criteria
(Westbrook & Schilt, 2014) that have included physical
examination of women athletes’ genitals (often called “geni-
tal parades”) and genetic testing. None of these policies have
caught cheaters; instead, they have identified women who
were intersex or had DSDs. These DSDs, which can include
phenomena such as long clitorises, do not enhance athletic
performance but their often-publicized discovery exposes
identified athletes to shame and stigma (Karkazis, Jordan-
Young, Davis, & Camporesi, 2012).
Other aspects of DSDs, like androgen physiology, concern
policy makers. Although testosterone levels overlap by gen-
der/sex, men show higher average levels than women. In part
for this reason, after other attempts at sex testing failed, con-
temporary policies about who can compete in women’s sports
have been based on maximum acceptable levels of testoster-
one in women. This is based on the assumption that higher
testosterone enhances athletic ability, and accounts for a sex
gap in athletic performance (Allen, 2016; Karkazis & Jordan-
Young, 2015; Wood & Stanton, 2012). What is the science?
The science about testosterone and athletic performance
shows—despite decades of concerted effort—no association
between endogenous (naturally present) testosterone and
athletic success, in either men or in women. No evidence
shows that endogenous testosterone accounts for the differ-
ences in men’s and women’s athletic success (e.g., Court of
Arbitration for Sport [CAS], 2015; Filaire, Bernain, Sagnol,
& Lac, 2001; Frx et al., 2000; Hloogeveen & Zonderland,
1996; Karkazis et al., 2012). Papers that claim otherwise
have used opinion pieces or even Senate hearings rather than
scientific evidence to buttress their claims (e.g., Wood &
Stanton, 2012). One hyperandrogenism policy had argued
that women with “excessive production” of endogenous tes-
tosterone were ineligible to compete as women (International
Association of Athletics Federations [IAAF], 2006). But the
Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS) recently struck it down,
disagreeing with the IAAF when they could produce no evi-
dence that endogenous testosterone directly contributed to
athletic success, much less that it was the main influence
(CAS, 2015).
How could scientists prove that testosterone has no effect
on athletic success? In actuality, science cannot prove null
effects. Instead, reviews of literature in which articles
repeatedly fail to show an association between testosterone
and athletic success lead objective scientists to conclude that
there is no link; this represents the current science.
Why does belief in testosterone as the determining factor
in (men’s) athletic success persist in the absence of evidence?
One reason is the conflation of endogenous androgens with
doping or exogenously altered androgens, which reflect
pharmacological manipulations that affect testosterone pro-
duction. This matters because exogenously altered andro-
gens affect muscle mass (Bhasin, Woodhouse, & Storer,
2001) and are banned to prevent cheating. But, no evidence
shows that endogenous androgens act on the body in the
same way as exogenous androgens do, and some evidence
shows that they act differently. For example, endogenous and
exogenous testosterone have opposite effects on androgen
receptors (Sader et al., 2005), for reasons that are yet unclear.
Other reasons explain why endogenous testosterone can-
not account for athletic performance. At elite levels of ath-
letic competition, some men and women have low levels of
testosterone, much lower than population averages (CAS,
2015; Karkazis & Jordan-Young, 2015). And, some women
competing in elite athletics have no functioning testosterone.
These are women with androgen insensitivity syndrome
(AIS), who have a Y chromosome that does not code for
functioning androgen receptors. Policy recognizes that they
are women competing with no functional testosterone (e.g.,
IAAF, 2006; International Sports Federation, 2014), yet they
build muscle, compete, and win. Similarly, men with low tes-
tosterone levels compete against other men, and win, and
endogenous testosterone levels do not correlate with ability
to succeed at sports. If testosterone accounted for athletic
performance, none of this could be the case.
The scientific literature opposes common belief. But little
is actually known about endogenous testosterone levels in
women, leaving much room for speculation and ideology to
fill the place of biology (Fausto-Sterling, 2000; van Anders
et al., 2014). Regardless, androgen-based policies have
assigned a maximum testosterone level for women to com-
pete as women in sport, often describing it as the “normal”
lower limit of men’s endogenous testosterone (Allen, 2016).
However, men do not have a normal lower limit of testoster-
one: Levels reach as low as those in women and overlap
between women and men more than presumed (Sánchez,
Martinez-Patiño, & Vilain, 2013). Only more recently have
scientists begun to explore the dynamic variability in testos-
terone (van Anders et al., 2014).
Little scientific basis supports policies about hormone lev-
els and transgender inclusion in sport (Jones, Arcelus, Bouman,
& Haycraft, 2017). For example, exogenous reductions in tes-
tosterone (as with transgender women in sport) are not always
accompanied by reductions in performance; sometimes, there
are actually increases (Harper, 2015), but few studies even
exist. Similarly, no scientific evidence supports assumptions
that estradiol or female reproductive biology account for
198 Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4(2)
women’s lower levels of athletic performance, as Serena
Williams’s recent triumph while pregnant exemplifies (Clarey,
Summary: Implications From Biology for Policy
About Athletics, Sex, and Gender
Policy makers have tried a number of sex-related factors to
determine who can compete as women. Like past attempts,
the most recent attempt—testosterone levels—has failed to
increase fairness or catch cheaters, but has subjected women
to stigma as well as additional layers of policy described as
discriminatory (CAS, 2015; Karkazis et al., 2012; Westbrook
& Schilt, 2014).
Policy for Sex and Gender in Public
Spaces and Documents
Policies regulate who is allowed to enter single-sex spaces in
the United States, highlighting that who counts as a man or a
woman is no longer self-evident. Some policies use gender,
like California’s proposed Gender Recognition Act (GRA;
California State Legislature, 2017). Others use sex, like
Mississippi’s struck-down Protecting Freedom of Conscience
from Government Discrimination Act (Mississippi Legislature,
2016) or North Carolina’s House Bill 2 (HB2; General
Assembly of North Carolina, 2016). But what counts as sex
varies, with genitals often used (e.g., Mississippi Legislature,
2016). However, scientists do not see genitals as defining sex,
nor do they see sex as the definitive aspect of womanhood and
manhood (Fausto-Sterling, 2000; van Anders, 2015).
Some policies (e.g., HB2) use birth certificates to define
whether a person is a man or a woman, as a seeming proxy
for birth sex. However, most U.S. jurisdictions allow indi-
viduals to change their sex on their birth certificates (only
Idaho, Kansas, Ohio, Tennessee, and Puerto Rico do not).
These changes might require genital surgery, a court order, or
a health professional statement (Transgender Law Center,
2017), and differences by location and over time highlight
definitions of sex as dynamic, subjective, and variable (van
Anders, Caverly, & Johns, 2014). Gender-matching birth
certificates facilitate individuals using public spaces that
match their identity, which fits with recommendations by
groups that range from major medical associations to human
rights organizations to the U.S. Federal Government.
Although some policies still focus on genitals, many
transgender people cannot access, cannot afford, or do not
want genital surgery, and many do not see it as important to
their gender. Indeed, a growing cultural and policy consen-
sus understands that genitals are private and do not define
gender (California State Legislature, 2017; Transgender Law
Center, 2017). For example, California’s GRA removes bio-
medical treatment as a requirement for birth certificate
Some policies seem designed to restrict transgender peo-
ple from using spaces that match their gender/sex (e.g.,
Krieg, 2016), yet increasingly struggle to do so. For exam-
ple, Mississippi proposed legislation (HB1523; Mississippi
Legislature, 2016) that referenced “an individual’s immuta-
ble biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and
genetics at time of birth.” However, few people know their
genetic sex or have had it identified at birth. And, many peo-
ple have chromosome formations other than “XX” or “XY,”
with estimates such that more than 600,000 Americans would
be unidentifiable according to this policy (Blackless et al.,
2000). An estimated four million more Americans have ana-
tomical sex that does not coincide with their genetic sex
(Blackless et al., 2000). Moreover, anatomy is clearly muta-
ble, changing with age, hormonal state, reproductive status,
and surgical interventions related to gender transition or oth-
erwise (e.g., testicular or penile cancer).
The focus on genitals leads some policy makers to claim
that transgender women are men, and men in women’s bath-
rooms are dangerous to women (e.g., Ura, 2015; see also
Westbrook & Schilt, 2014). Consequently, “trans bathroom
policies” misleadingly enter public debate as issues of men’s
violence against women. For example, student Gavin Grimm
used a boys’ bathroom for weeks with no incident, but his
school banned him from doing so because he is transgender;
parents complained that allowing Grimm to use the boys’
bathroom would allow cisgender boys to dress as girls and
use the girls’ bathroom for sexually predatory behavior
against girls (G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, 2015).
The focus on men’s violence against women in public bath-
rooms is built on assumptions that men’s biology makes them
naturally dangerous to women. However, men’s violence
toward women is not based in male biology: Testosterone,
which many assume explains men as more aggressive than
women, is only weakly linked to aggression, if at all (Archer,
Graham-Kevan, & Davies, 2005), and scientists have docu-
mented how cultural norms causally link to men’s violence
(Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002). And transgender women
are women; attributing men’s biology or behavior to transgen-
der women is wrong as science and as a basis for policy.
Bathroom policies hurt transgender individuals. It is trans-
gender women who are attacked in women’s bathrooms, by
cisgender women and men (James et al., 2016), and avoiding
gender-policed bathrooms can lead to a host of problems like
urinary tract infections or mental health issues (e.g., G.G. v.
Gloucester County School Board, 2015; James et al., 2016).
Bathroom policies also hurt all women: Because genitals are
rarely seen, any woman or girl who seems insufficiently
womanly, female, feminine, or girlish can have her access to
women-only spaces like bathrooms challenged (Browne,
2004). Because of cultural norms that link whiteness and fem-
ininity (Chin Evans & McConnell, 2003), ethnic minority
women and others seen as not appropriately representative of
women might be deemed especially suspect. These policies
van Anders et al. 199
burden women to publicly present in ways that others decide
reflect their private genital configurations.
Summary: Biological Implications for Policy About
Public Spaces, Gender, and Sex
Efforts to delineate who is allowed in single-sex spaces
reveal definitions of women and men. Much of this policy
seems to be aimed at restricting transgender people, espe-
cially women, from access to public spaces. Doing so has
focused on sex over gender, especially on birth genitals.
Genitals, however, are not the de facto defining feature of
sex; scientists recognize that sex has multiple features and
that sex is not primary over gender, including for defining
who can access public spaces.
Policy uses a variety of definitions of gender and sex, and
there is no one scientific way to define sex, which means that
there is no “getting sex right” for defining women and men
(Cruz, 2010). Indeed, scientists and legal scholars recognize
that gender identity and legal recognition are more relevant
than sex for policy is most cases (Stirnitzke, 2011).
Many arenas once segregated by gender/sex are no longer
so, including schools, workplaces, gyms, clubs, bars, and
(some) religious institutions. One may therefore question the
use of biology to justify ongoing segregation by gender/sex,
because biology does not support a gender binary and, instead,
highlights that sex is multifaceted. Policy based on bioscience
should reflect science that is accurate, up-to-date, and reflec-
tive of biology’s role relative to other social factors.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Allen, D. B. (2016). Hormonal eligibility criteria for “includes
females” competition: A practical but problematic solu-
tion. Hormone Research in Paediatrics, 85, 278-282.
Archer, J., Graham-Kevan, N., & Davies, M. (2005). Testosterone
and aggression: A reanalysis of Book, Starzyk, and Quinsey’s
(2001) study. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 241-261.
Bhasin, S., Woodhouse, L., & Storer, T. W. (2001). Proof of
the effect of testosterone on skeletal muscle. Journal of
Endocrinology, 170, 27-38. doi:10.1677/joe.0.1700027
Blackless, M., Charuvastra, A., Derryck, A., Fausto-Sterling, A.,
Lauzanne, K., & Lee, E. (2000). How sexually dimorphic are we?
Review and synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology, 12,
151-166. Retrieved from
Browne, K. (2004). Genderism and the bathroom problem: (Re)mate-
rialising sexed sites, (re)creating sexed bodies. Gender, Place
and Culture, 11, 331-346. doi:10.1080/0966369042000258668
California State Legislature. (2017). SB 179, gender iden-
tity: Female, male, or nonbinary. Retrieved from https://
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2015). Sex, gender and
health research guide: A tool for CIHR applicants. Retrieved
Carré, J. M., & Archer, J. (2017). Testosterone and human
behavior: The role of individual and contextual variables.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 149-153. doi:10.1016/j.
Chin Evans, P., & McConnell, A. R. (2003). Do racial minorities
respond in the same way to mainstream beauty standards? Social
comparison processes in Asian, Black, and White women. Self
and Identity, 2, 153-167. doi:10.1080/15298860309030
Clarey, C. (2017, April 19). Serena Williams confirms she’s preg-
nant after day of speculation. The New York Times. Retrieved
Collaer, M. L., & Hines, M. (1995). Human behavioral sex differ-
ences: A role for gonadal hormones during early development?
Psychological Bulletin, 118, 55-107. doi:10.1037/0033-
Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2015). Interim arbitral award
(Dutee Chand v. Athletics Federation of India (AFI) &
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF),
CAS 2014/A/3759). Retrieved from
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, iden-
tity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford
Law Review, 43, 1241-1299. doi:10.2307/1229039
Cruz, D. B. (2010). Getting sex right: Heteronormativity and biolo-
gism in trans and intersex marriage litigation and scholarship
essay. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 18, 203-222.
Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology,
36, 49-81. doi:10.1146/
Employment Standards Act of 2000, S.O. 2000, Chapter 41. §§1-
142. (2000).
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and
the construction of sexuality (1st ed.). New York, NY: Basic
Filaire, E., Bernain, X., Sagnol, M., & Lac, G. (2001). Preliminary
results on mood state, salivary testosterone: Cortisol ratio and
team performance in a professional soccer team. European
Journal of Applied Physiology, 86, 179-184. doi:10.1007/
Freyer, R. (2016). Charge of discrimination against Frontier
Airlines. Retrieved from
Frx, A. C., Kraemer, W. J., Stone, M. H., Koziris, L. P., Thrush,
J. T., & Fleck, S. J. (2000). Relationships between serum
testosterone, cortisol, and weightlifting performance. The
200 Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4(2)
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14, 338-343.
General Assembly of North Carolina. (2016). House bill 2.
Retrieved from
Gettler, L. T., McDade, T. W., Feranil, A. B., & Kuzawa, C. W.
(2011). Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testos-
terone in human males. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 108, 16194-16199. doi:10.1073/pnas.1105403108
G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, No. 4:15cv54 (E.D. Va.
Goodwin, M. (2014). Fetal protection laws: Moral panic and the
new constitutional battlefront. California Law Review, 102,
781-876. doi:10.15779/Z38BJ8V
Harper, J. (2015). Race time for transgender athletes. Journal of
Sporting and Cultural Identities, 6, 1-9.
Hines, M. (2004). Brain gender. New York, NY: Oxford University
Hloogeveen, A. R., & Zonderland, M. L. (1996). Relationships
between testosterone, cortisol and performance in professional
cyclists. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 17, 423-
428. doi:10.1055/s-2007-972872
International Association of Athletics Federations. (2006). IAAF
policy on gender verification. Retrieved from
International Sports Federation. (2014). 2014 rule update female
hyperandrogenism. Retrieved from
Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The role of mas-
culine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s
perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 3, 97-106. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.97
James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L.,
& Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender
survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender
Johnson, J. L., & Repta, R. (2012). Sex and gender. In J. L. Oliffe &
L. Greaves (Eds.), Designing and conducting gender, sex, and
health research (pp. 17-37). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Jones, B. A., Arcelus, J., Bouman, W. P., & Haycraft, E. (2017).
Sport and transgender people: A systematic review of the lit-
erature relating to sport participation and competitive sport
policies. Sports Medicine, 47, 701-716.
Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brainstorm: The flaws in the science
of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Josephs, R. A., Newman, M. L., Brown, R. P., & Beer, J. M. (2003).
Status, testosterone, and human intellectual performance:
Stereotype threat as status concern. Psychological Science, 14,
158-163. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01435
Karkazis, K., & Jordan-Young, R. (2015). Debating a testoster-
one “sex gap.” Science, 348, 858-860. doi:10.1126/science.
Karkazis, K., Jordan-Young, R., Davis, G., & Camporesi, S.
(2012). Out of bounds? A critique of the new policies on
hyperandrogenism in elite female athletes. The American
Journal of Bioethics, 12(7), 3-16. doi:10.1080/15265161.20
Krieg, G. (2016, May 11). North Carolina gov. Pat McCrory blames
Democrats for “bathroom bill.” CNN Politics. Retrieved from
Mann, M. A., Konen, C., & Svare, B. (1984). The role of progester-
one in pregnancy-induced aggression in mice. Hormones and
Behavior, 18, 140-160. doi:10.1016/0018-506X(84)90039-4
Marinelli, K. A., Moren, K., Taylor, J. S., & The Academy of
Breastfeeding Medicine. (2013). Breastfeeding support for
mothers in workplace employment or educational settings:
Summary statement. Breastfeeding Medicine, 8, 137-142.
Mississippi Legislature. (2016). House bill 1523. Retrieved from
Muller, M. N., Marlowe, F. W., Bugumba, R., & Ellison, P. T.
(2009). Testosterone and paternal care in East African for-
agers and pastoralists. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B: Biological Sciences, 276, 347-354. doi:10.1098/
Murtagh, L., & Moulton, A. D. (2011). Working mothers, breast-
feeding, and the law. American Journal of Public Health, 101,
217-223. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.185280
Najafi, T. F., Roudsari, R. L., Namvar, F., Ghanbarabadi, V. G.,
Talasaz, Z. H., & Esmaeli, M. (2015). Air pollution and qual-
ity of sperm: A meta-analysis. Iranian Red Crescent Medical
Journal, 17(4), e26930. doi:10.5812/ircmj.17(4)2015.26930
Nelson, R. E., Grebe, S. K., O’Kane, D. J., & Singh, R. J. (2004).
Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry assay
for simultaneous measurement of estradiol and estrone in
human plasma. Clinical Chemistry, 50, 373-384. doi:10.1373/
Nelson, R. J., & Kriegsfeld, L. J. (2016). An introduction to behav-
ioral endocrinology (5th ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
Paid Leave for the United States. (2016). Forging ahead or fall-
ing behind? Paid family leave at America’s top companies.
Available from
Patterson, C. J. (2006). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 241-244. doi:10.1111/
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should
be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The con-
tents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 26, 269-281. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
Rosario, V. A. (2009). Quantum sex: Intersex and the molecular
deconstruction of sex. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay
Studies, 15, 267-284. doi:10.1215/10642684-2008-138
Sader, M. A., McGrath, K. C. Y., Hill, M. D., Bradstock, K. F.,
Jimenez, M., Handelsman, D. J., . . . Death, A. K. (2005).
Androgen receptor gene expression in leucocytes is hormon-
ally regulated: Implications for gender differences in disease
pathogenesis. Clinical Endocrinology, 62, 56-63. doi:10.1111/
Sánchez, F. J., Martínez-Patiño, M. J., & Vilain, E. (2013). The
new policy on hyperandrogenism in elite female athletes is not
about “sex testing.” The Journal of Sex Research, 50, 112-115.
Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., & Maestripieri, D. (2009). Gender dif-
ferences in financial risk aversion and career choices are
affected by testosterone. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 106, 15268-15273. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907352106
van Anders et al. 201
Schmied, V., Beake, S., Sheehan, A., McCourt, C., & Dykes, F.
(2011). Women’s perceptions and experiences of breastfeed-
ing support: A metasynthesis. Birth, 38, 49-60. doi:10.1111/
Stirnitzke, A. C. (2011). Transsexuality, marriage, and the myth of
true sex. Arizona Law Review, 53, 285-320.
Storey, A. E., Walsh, C. J., Quinton, R. L., & Wynne-Edwards, K.
E. (2000). Hormonal correlates of paternal responsiveness in
new and expectant fathers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21,
79-95. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00042-2
Swain, J. E. (2011). The human parental brain: In vivo neuroim-
aging. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological
Psychiatry, 35, 1242-1254. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.10.017
Taylor, S. E. (2003). The tending instinct: Women, men, and the
biology of relationships. New York, NY: Times Books.
Transgender Law Center. (2017). State-by-state overview: Rules for
changing gender markers on birth certificates. Retrieved from
Ura, A. (2015, November 3). Bathroom fears flush Houston non-
discrimination ordinance. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved from
van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating
gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configura-
tions theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1177-1213.
van Anders, S. M., Caverly, N. L., & Johns, M. M. (2014).
Newborn bio/logics and legal definitions of gender/sex for
US state documents. Feminism & Psychology, 24, 172-192.
van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Bell, S. N. (2014). Measurement
of testosterone in human sexuality research: Methodological
considerations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 231-250.
van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Kuo, P. X. (2011). The steroid/
peptide theory of social bonds: Integrating testosterone and
peptide responses for classifying social behavioral contexts.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36(9), 1265-1275.
van Anders, S. M., Steiger, J., & Goldey, K. L. (2015). Effects
of gendered behavior on testosterone in women and men.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 13805-
13810. doi:10.1073/pnas.1509591112
van Anders, S. M., Tolman, R. M., & Volling, B. L. (2012). Baby
cries and nurturance affect testosterone in men. Hormones and
Behavior, 61, 31-36. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.09.012
van Anders, S. M., & Watson, N. V. (2006). Social neuroendocri-
nology. Human Nature, 17, 212-237. doi:10.1007/s12110-006-
Victora, C. G., Bahl, R., Barros, A. J., França, G. V., Horton, S.,
Krasevec, J., . . . Rollins, N. C. (2016). Breastfeeding in the 21st
century: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. The
Lancet, 387, 475-490. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7
Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining
gender: Transgender people, gender panics, and the mainte-
nance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender & Society,
28, 32-57. doi:10.1177/0891243213503203
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Health topics: Breastfeeding.
Retrieved from
Wood, R. I., & Stanton, S. J. (2012). Testosterone and sport:
Current perspectives. Hormones and Behavior, 61, 147-155.
... potentially exacerbating discrimination, and contributing to mental and physical health problems (van Anders et al., 2017). ...
... Policy and practice statements. Based on the literature on biological sex, gender and public policy (Payne & Smith, 2014;van Anders et al., 2017), and together with a content expert, the study's authors generated a set of policy and practice statements that schools might adopt in relation transgender and gender diverse children. These statements were then pilot tested for clarity and conceptual meaning with a focus group, resulting in five policy statements and nine practice statements. ...
Full-text available
In this chapter we juxtapose a queer theory formulation of gender with theories and research in the psychology and sociology of gender. Our discussion focuses on ideas from Judith Butler’s foundational book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. We discuss three key ideas found in Butler’s early work. The first key idea is Butler’s rejection of a distinction between sex as “natural” and gender as “cultural” which connects to their development of a performativity theory of gender. The second key idea is Butler’s formulation of the heterosexual matrix and its inherent instability, in which heterosexuality is dependent for its identity on the rejection of homosexuality. The third idea we discuss is Butler’s insight that a reconfiguration and proliferation of gender identities can be effectively used to dismantle gender and sexual binaries. We draw connections between each of these postulations and empirical research: on the relationship between biology and genders, on the internalization of gender schemas, and on the development of masculine heterosexual identity. We conclude with a review of psychological research on gender nonbinary and agender identities, and gender fluidity.
Full-text available
In this concluding chapter we discuss some of the insights gained from juxtaposing three eclectic fields of knowledge: queer studies, transgender theory, and psychological research. Because the queer and transgender projects are political projects, in this conclusion we focus on understanding the processes that may lead to fragmentation within the queer and transgender movement as well as processes that are associated with continued solidarity activism among an increasing number of queer and transgender identities. To examine processes of intragroup conflict and solidarity activism we juxtapose research in social psychology, Black psychology, and contributions by queer thinkers in promoting community norms that support activism, dialogue, and solidarity.
Full-text available
In this chapter on sexuality, we examine three foundational postulations from queer theory. The first postulation is that the historical construction of sexuality, and same-sex desire in particular, tends to be based on binary thinking that positions same-sex desire as either universal (a “universalizing” view of same-sex sexuality) or as a disposition common to a minority of the population (a “minoritizing” view of same-sex sexuality). In contrast, queer theory moves away from a binary view of sexuality to conceptualize it as fluid. The second postulation is that people’s sexuality is shaped by interlocking forms of oppression such as colonialism, racism, sexism, and class oppression. The intersections of interlocking forms of oppression configure sexual identities and desires in unique ways. The third postulation is the rejection of a hierarchy of sexual practices and a focus on the proliferation of sexual categories to disrupt that hierarchy. We juxtapose these three key ideas with a review of critical psychology research, showing how psychological studies moved from a universalizing to a minoritizing view of same-sex desire, with a recent turn back towards the universalizing approach. We describe psychological contributions on the manner in which LGBTQ identities are different among people of color compared to white people as well as research that examines the influence of neoliberal ideology on sexual agency. We explore recent psychological studies related to BDSM and kink, polyamory, and asexuality. Assessing the convergence and divergence between psychology and queer thought leads us to critique the notion that a proliferation of sexual identities is necessarily libratory; instead, we argue for a more intersectional approach to sexual identities.
Full-text available
In this chapter, we delineate some of the key themes in foundational transgender studies texts including: the rejection of the traditional male/female binary as prescribed by the medical model of transgender identity, the endorsement of a self-deterministic approach to gender identity, and the emphasis on the polyvocality of the transgender experience. Juxtaposing these themes with psychological research we describe the shift from a medical model of transgender identity to an affirmative paradigm in transgender care. We describe emerging research that documents the polyvocality of the transgender experience. Juxtaposing transgender studies with psychological research on transgender identity suggests interesting psychological differences between different identities under a transgender umbrella as well the importance of sustaining an understanding of transgender identity that is not constricted but that frame trans as a broad and inclusive space.
Social constructionist beliefs posit that sociocultural forces shape power-stratified social categories, whereas essentialist beliefs posit that social categories are defined by an immutable, natural essence shared by category members. Across three studies, we developed and validated the Social Constructionist and Essentialist Beliefs Scale (SCEBS) to assess the latent structure of ontological beliefs about two social categories: gender and race. In Study 1 ( N = 598), we found a three-factor structure for SCEBS-Gender and SCEBS-Race, consisting of Social Constructionism, Essentialism, and Realism. In Study 2a ( N = 300), we examined factor structure stability and criterion-related validity. We found incremental validity of SCEBS, and social constructionist beliefs particularly, for predicting modern sexism and symbolic racism beyond extant, essentialism-focused measures. In Study 2b ( N = 218), we established 4-week test–retest reliability of SCEBS. Our research demonstrates the value of assessing both social constructionist and essentialist beliefs in the study of prejudice.
Full-text available
This article responds to claims advanced by “gender critical” feminists, most recently expressed in a criminological context by Burt (2020) in Feminist Criminology, that the Equality Act—a bill pending in the United States Congress—would place cisgender women at risk of male violence in sex-segregated spaces. We provide legal history, empiri- cal research, and conceptual and theoretical arguments to highlight three broad errors made by Burt and other trans-exclusionary feminists. These include: (1) a misinterpretation of the Equality Act; (2) a narrow version of feminism that embraces a socially and biologi- cally deterministic view of sex and gender; and (3) ignorance and dismissal of established criminological knowledge regarding victimization, offending patterns, and effective meas- ures to enhance safety. The implications of “gender critical” arguments for criminology, and the publication of such, are also discussed.
Many studies exist about people's views of gender in a wide variety of fields. However, participants are not typically asked what they think gender means; rather, gender is presumed to have a taken‐as‐shared meaning. As part of a larger study conducted in Australia and Canada about the general public's views of gender and mathematics, we investigated participants’ definitions of the term gender. We considered overall trends and trends by demographic group (country, gender, age, and education level). Most commonly, gender was defined as a person's feelings or self‐identification. Participants also frequently solely used the terms male and female or discussed biological features. However, response patterns varied widely by demographic group. Due to these diverse and sometimes contradictory definitions, we argue that researchers cannot assume that participants have common understanding of the term gender. We conclude by providing suggestions for how gender‐focused research can be done in more transparent ways.
Full-text available
Background Whether transgender people should be able to compete in sport in accordance with their gender identity is a widely contested question within the literature and among sport organisations, fellow competitors and spectators. Owing to concerns surrounding transgender people (especially transgender female individuals) having an athletic advantage, several sport organisations place restrictions on transgender competitors (e.g. must have undergone gender-confirming surgery). In addition, some transgender people who engage in sport, both competitively and for leisure, report discrimination and victimisation. Objective To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no systematic review of the literature pertaining to sport participation or competitive sport policies in transgender people. Therefore, this review aimed to address this gap in the literature. Method Eight research articles and 31 sport policies were reviewed. ResultsIn relation to sport-related physical activity, this review found the lack of inclusive and comfortable environments to be the primary barrier to participation for transgender people. This review also found transgender people had a mostly negative experience in competitive sports because of the restrictions the sport’s policy placed on them. The majority of transgender competitive sport policies that were reviewed were not evidence based. Conclusion Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.
Full-text available
The importance of breastfeeding in low-income and middle-income countries is well recognised, but less consensus exists about its importance in high-income countries. In low-income and middle-income countries, only 37% of children younger than 6 months of age are exclusively breastfed. With few exceptions, breastfeeding duration is shorter in high-income countries than in those that are resource-poor. Our meta-analyses indicate protection against child infections and malocclusion, increases in intelligence, and probable reductions in overweight and diabetes. We did not find associations with allergic disorders such as asthma or with blood pressure or cholesterol, and we noted an increase in tooth decay with longer periods of breastfeeding. For nursing women, breastfeeding gave protection against breast cancer and it improved birth spacing, and it might also protect against ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes. The scaling up of breastfeeding to a near universal level could prevent 823 000 annual deaths in children younger than 5 years and 20 000 annual deaths from breast cancer. Recent epidemiological and biological findings from during the past decade expand on the known benefits of breastfeeding for women and children, whether they are rich or poor.
Full-text available
Increasingly, state statutes are the primary means through which legal norms affecting low-income pregnant women's autonomy, privacy, and liberty are introduced and shaped. Arrests, forced bed rests, compelled cesarean sections, and civil incarcerations of pregnant women in Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin merely scratch the surface of a broad attack on pregnant women. This recent era of maternal policing reshapes physician and police interactions with pregnant women accused of violating fetal protection laws (FPLs); inspires (and sometimes requires) medical officials to breach confidentiality when treating pregnant women; motivates selective prosecution against poor women, particularly those of color; and evinces improper judicial deference to medical authority rather than law.
The study of testosterone and aggression originated in experimental studies of animals, showing a direct causal link in some species. Human studies showed an overall weak correlation between testosterone and aggression. A theoretical framework (“the challenge hypothesis”) enabled testosterone-behavior interactions in humans to be framed within a theory that emphasized hormonal responses to competition influencing subsequent aggressive behavior. The short-term administrations of testosterone to young women and to young men showed influences on behavioral and neural processes associated with aggression. Other findings are that testosterone influences aggression in high dominance men, and in those with low cortisol levels; and that testosterone can affect both aggressive and prosocial behavior, within the context of an experimental game.
The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) adopted testosterone level criteria for eligibility (i.e. 10 nmol/l or 290 ng/dl in blood for IAAF, levels 'within the male range' for IOC) to compete in the 'includes females' category. The policies address the assertion that women with very high endogenous testosterone (unless they are androgen-resistant) have an unfair advantage over women with lower natural levels. Recently, the Court of Arbitration for Sport suspended the 'hyperandrogenism regulation' by the IAAF, but added: 'since there are separate categories of male and female competition, it is necessary for the IAAF to formulate a basis for the division of athletes into male and female categories for the benefit of the broad class of female athletes. The basis chosen should be necessary, reasonable and proportionate to the legitimate objective being pursued' [Branch J: Dutee Chand, Female Sprinter with High Testosterone Level, Wins Right to Compete. The New York Times, July 27, 2015]. An analysis of available evidence below - scientific as well as experiential - suggests that androgen-based criteria can, in fact, be rationally defended as the best currently available and practical approach to determine eligibility for competition in the 'includes females' category. However, to justify such policies, the IOC and IAAF must also show them to be not only rational, but also fair, necessary, and consistent with the treatment of athletes with other endogenous non-physiologic advantages.
The importance of breastfeeding in low-income and middle-income countries is well recognised, but less consensus exists about its importance in high-income countries. In low-income and middle-income countries, only 37% of children younger than 6 months of age are exclusively breastfed. With few exceptions, breastfeeding duration is shorter in high-income countries than in those that are resource-poor. Our meta-analyses indicate protection against child infections and malocclusion, increases in intelligence, and probable reductions in overweight and diabetes. We did not find associations with allergic disorders such as asthma or with blood pressure or cholesterol, and we noted an increase in tooth decay with longer periods of breastfeeding. For nursing women, breastfeeding gave protection against breast cancer and it improved birth spacing, and it might also protect against ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes. The scaling up of breastfeeding to a near universal level could prevent 823 000 annual deaths in children younger than 5 years and 20 000 annual deaths from breast cancer. Recent epidemiological and biological findings from during the past decade expand on the known benefits of breastfeeding for women and children, whether they are rich or poor.
Testosterone is typically understood to contribute to maleness and masculinity, although it also responds to behaviors such as competition. Competition is crucial to evolution and may increase testosterone but also is selectively discouraged for women and encouraged for men via gender norms. We conducted an experiment to test how gender norms might modulate testosterone as mediated by two possible gender→testosterone pathways. Using a novel experimental design, participants (trained actors) performed a specific type of competition (wielding power) in stereotypically masculine vs. feminine ways. We hypothesized in H1 (stereotyped behavior) that wielding power increases testosterone regardless of how it is performed, vs. H2 (stereotyped performance), that wielding power performed in masculine but not feminine ways increases testosterone. We found that wielding power increased testosterone in women compared with a control, regardless of whether it was performed in gender-stereotyped masculine or feminine ways. Results supported H1 over H2: stereotyped behavior but not performance modulated testosterone. These results also supported theory that competition modulates testosterone over masculinity. Our findings thus support a gender→testosterone pathway mediated by competitive behavior. Accordingly, cultural pushes for men to wield power and women to avoid doing so may partially explain, in addition to heritable factors, why testosterone levels tend to be higher in men than in women: A lifetime of gender socialization could contribute to "sex differences" in testosterone. Our experiment opens up new questions of gender→testosterone pathways, highlighting the potential of examining nature/nurture interactions and effects of socialization on human biology.