Hubbry Logo
Gender neutralityGender neutralityMain
Open search
Gender neutrality
Community hub
Gender neutrality
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Gender neutrality
Gender neutrality
Gender neutrality
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Gender neutrality (adjective form: gender-neutral), also known as gender-neutralism or the gender neutrality movement, is the idea that policies, language, and other social institutions (social structures or gender roles)[1] should avoid distinguishing roles according to people's sex or gender. This is in order to avoid discrimination arising from the impression that there are social roles for which one gender is more suited than another. The disparity in gender equality throughout history has had a significant impact on many aspects of society, including marketing, toys, education and parenting techniques. In order to increase gender neutrality in recent years, there has been a societal emphasis on utilizing inclusive language and advocating for equality.[citation needed]

In policy

[edit]

Proponents of gender neutrality may support public policies designed to eliminate gender distinctions. Gender neutrality in the law has changed the nature of custody disputes, making it more likely that men will be awarded custody of their children in the event of a divorce.[2]

The legal definition of gender has been a controversial topic to transgender people; in some countries, in order to be legally defined as a new gender, people must first undergo sex reassignment surgery resulting in sterilization.[3]

California joined Oregon in its effort to recognize gender neutrality. On 15 October 2017, California governor Jerry Brown signed new legislation into law that allows persons the option to select gender-neutral on state identification cards.[4] On 9 October 2021, governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 1084 requiring many department stores in California to maintain a gender neutral children's section.[5]

Legal frameworks for determining parentage have traditionally relied on gendered concepts, but these approaches face challenges as family structures diversify. Following the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States, courts and legislatures have had to reconsider how parentage rules apply when they cannot rely on traditional gender-based assumptions. This has prompted exploration of alternative bases for legal parentage, including intention, function, and agreement rather than solely biology or marriage.[6]

Studies show that workplace leave policies using terms like "maternity leave" and "paternity leave" create problems for parents who don't fit traditional gender categories. Research by Holroyd and Cull found that many people feel forced to accept incorrect gender labels just to access their rightful benefits. According to their research, it makes more sense to just use phrases like "parental leave" or "family leave" for everyone. While businesses may continue to collect volunteer gender data to address any prejudice, this simple move helps all parents feel valued. The strategy broadens the scope of policies while continuing to work for equitable treatment for all parents.[7]

Gender blindness

[edit]
Main article: Gender-blind

Gender blindness is the practice of not distinguishing people by gender.[8]

Someone who is gender blind does not necessarily side with ideas of movements found within gender-related biases, though these accounts are debatable.[9]

For example, gender blindness can take place while hiring new candidates for a job position. The employer more so focuses on the resume and cover letter rather than focusing on their gender. This reduces gender-bias, meaning there is a preference of one gender to be favored over the other in certain topics and roles.[10]

Gender-neutral language

[edit]
Main article: Gender-neutral language

Gender-neutral language, gender-inclusive language, inclusive language or gender neutrality is a form of linguistic prescriptivism that aims to eliminate (or neutralize) reference to gender in terms that describe people. This can involve discouragement of the use of gender-specific job titles, such as policeman/policewoman, fireman, stewardess, chairman, and, arguably, in favor of corresponding gender-neutral terms such as police officer, firefighter, flight attendant and chairperson (or chair). Other gender-specific terms, such as actor and actress, may be replaced by the originally male term (actor used for either gender).

The language used in standardized tests can influence gender-based performance gaps. A study of Israel's college entrance examinations showed that using more inclusive language forms reduced the gender performance gap in quantitative sections by approximately one-fifth. It is possible that conventional gendered language may cause disadvantages through stereotypes, as the researchers found that this linguistic adjustment particularly boosted women's performance without having a negative impact on men's findings.[11]

The practice of gender-neutral language is highly encouraged among law students and the Supreme Court of the United States. However, research has shown that, as of 2010, only one judge on the Supreme Court consistently uses gender-neutral language.[12]

Research suggests that using the singular "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun may be processed efficiently by readers. Studies examining reading times found that when referring to nonspecific individuals, sentences with singular "they" were processed similarly to those using gender-matched pronouns (he/she) and more efficiently than sentences with gender-mismatched pronouns. When referring to particular people whose gender is known, however, the cognitive processing is different; gender-matching pronouns are processed more quickly.[13]

The pronouns he or she may be replaced with they when the gender of the person referred to is unknown. In addition, those who do not identify as either female or male may use a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to themselves or have others refer to them.

A traditional view encouraged the pronoun he to be considered neutral up until the 60s-70s, when feminist objections occurred, so people began to use "he or she" pronouns. Today, using "he or she" can be considered making assumptions about someone's gender. The pronoun they wouldn't necessarily refer to a male or female.[14]

In 2012 a gender-neutral pronoun hen was proposed in Sweden, and in 2014 it was announced that this word would be included in the following edition of the Swedish Academy Glossary. Swedish thus became the first language to have a gender-neutral pronoun added by an authoritative institution. Hen can be used to describe anyone regardless of their sex or gender identification.[15] Gender-neutral pronouns that have been proposed in the United States have not had widespread use outside of LGBTQ communities.[15]

LGBTQ activists have suggested that the pronouns "he/she and his/her linguistically enforce a normative two sex system" where one must fall into the gender binary of either male or female. There is a growing variety of several different gender-neutral pronouns. These may include sie, hir, hirs, and hirself, and also include z or p. LGBTQ activists argue that only changing pronouns to be gender-neutral for people who are "sex/gender" ambiguous creates someone "other" than the norm. A proposed solution to this issue is to move towards the use of inclusive language and gender-neutral pronouns for everyone, even when the sex of a person is known, in an effort to remove the alleged subconscious effects of language in reinforcing gender and gender stereotypes.[16][17]

"Gender-neutral language" should not be confused with "genderless language", which refers to a language that does not have grammatical gender.[18]

Relationship to feminism and masculism

[edit]

Gender neutrality emphasizes the equal treatment of men and women and people of any other gender legally with no discrimination whatsoever. This goal is, in principle, shared with both feminists and masculists. However, in gender neutralism, the emphasis is on transcending the perspective of gender altogether rather than focusing on the rights of specific genders.

Relationship to transhumanism

[edit]
Main article: Postgenderism

Gender neutrality or "gender transcendence" is part of the transhumanist concept of postgenderism, which is defined as the movement to erode the cultural, biological, psychological, and social role of gender within society.

Advocates of postgenderism argue that the presence of gender roles, social stratification, and cogno-physical disparities and differences are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Given the radical potential for advanced assistive reproductive options, postgenderists believe that sex for reproductive purposes will either become obsolete, or that all post-gendered humans will have the ability, if they so choose, to both carry a pregnancy to term and impregnate someone, which, postgenderists believe, would have the effect of eliminating the need for definite genders in such a society.[19]

From a transhumanist perspective, a shift in gender neutrality is seen as a direct result of the movement of postgenderism.[20] Along with gender fluidity and postgenderism, gender neutrality would be a contributor if a movement of transhumanism were to occur. Given that an individual's phenotype serves as the primary basis for gender classification, transhumanism would erode the binary division of gender, allowing for gender neutrality within future societies.

Impact

[edit]

In marketing

[edit]
See also: pink tax and Gender-based price discrimination in the United States

Marketing is often focused on targeting specific demographics and creating products focused on specific genders. Public views on gender-specific marketing have gained media attention in recent years. For example, a protest against a Bic pen "Bic for her" that was targeted towards women by the posting of thousands of fake reviews of the pen mocking its female-specific advertising.[21]

Children's toys

[edit]
Further information: Gendered associations of pink and blue, Girls' toys and games, and Boys' toys and games
Freedom to play. Campaign of the Madrid City Council
Freedom to play. Campaign of the Madrid City Council
¡Libertad para jugar! (Freedom to play!). Gender neutrality in children's toys campaign, by the Madrid City Council

In the marketing of children's toys, gender-specific marketing has been very prevalent. According to a study conducted in 2012,[22] "children learn about the toys seen as appropriate for their gender not only from adults and children but also through the media, which serves as an important source of socialization and gender socialization." Color palettes and types of toys are gendered characteristics of the toys marketed to either boys or girls. The results of the study mentioned above, showed that "toys that were pastel colored were much more likely to be marketed as toys for 'only girls', while bold colored toys were much more likely to be marketed as toys for 'boys only'" and also found that blue was a more gender-neutral color. Action toys, like cars, weapons, and building toys are marketed toward boys, while toys that have to do with beauty and domestic work are marketed towards girls. According to Lauren Spinner, "Portrayals of boys tend to emphasize masculine gender roles and stereotypically masculine play and toys, whereas portrayals of girls tend to emphasize feminine gender roles and stereotypically feminine play and toys".[23]

An additional study done in 2014 focuses on labeling of toys, "for girls" and "for boys", paired with explicit colors, pink and blue, and gender stereotypes in children. In one study, novel items were presented to children, painted different colors and labeled differently. A nutcracker was presented to the children as blue and labeled "for boys" in once instance, but to other children it was pink and labeled "for girls". The results of the studies found labeling profoundly affected the children's liking towards toys, and the other study showed that girls are more affected than boys in terms of labeling.[24]

The "color pink did seem to give girls permission to explore masculine toys. This indicates that pink may signify that it is allowable for girls to show interest in counter-stereotypic toys and activities". This gender specific marketing/labeling exposes children to gender roles and that color can be an indicator of gender. Children "show less involvement with toys stereotypically associated with the opposite sex, and they reject such toys more than ones stereotypically associated with their own sex or neutral ones".[25] Toys are a medium for children to form gender stereotypes. Some toys, like stuffed animals, have proven to be gender-neutral and are usually marketed to both boys and girls.[26]

Parents also play a large role in building their children's gender socialization, as they are the ones buying the toys for their children.[27] The popularity of making toy advertising gender neutral has been increasing through media such as ads showing boys playing with baby dolls (a toy that has commonly been marketed only towards girls in the past).[28] At a young age for both boys and girls start to identify themselves by their gender role and are limited to what they can or can't do.[29] Not just that, but the environment around young boys and girls also influences their behavior.

In 2019, Mattel, a company with a long brand history within gender typing (e.g. Barbie), introduced its Creatable World doll line, a new toy that is the "world's first gender neutral doll".[30]

Fashion

[edit]
See also: Androgyny in fashion

In the marketing of fashion lines, some designers are beginning to design gender-neutral clothing, that is not labeled as either "men's" or "women's". In today's society gender neutrality is becoming more widely accepted. "Both males and females are now 'allowed' to wear certain clothing items once thought inappropriate for their sex". Women have more freedom because them wearing more masculine clothing, like suits, is generally accepted, but men wearing feminine clothing, like dresses, is less approved.[31] This aspect of gender neutral clothing says "that the world according to (ruling-class) men [is] the only viable one" because most gender neutral clothing looks like typical male clothing.[32]

In education

[edit]

At Nicolaigarden and Egalia, two preschools in Sweden, have replaced the terms "girl" and "boy" with the gender neutral pronoun "hen", granting students the ability to challenge or cross gender boundaries.[33] In a study done in 2016 that measured teachers' facilitation of gender-typed and gender-neutral activities during free play, it was concluded that teachers facilitated masculine activities at higher rates than feminine. It is suggested by the study that, "Informing teachers about this trend may prompt teachers to reflect on their own teaching practices and serve as a catalyst for the promotion of teaching practices that create classroom environments in which boys and girls receive support for engagement with a variety of classroom activities."[34] Other suggestions and pursuits to broaden the mentality behind gender neutrality in schools include

  • allowing for gender-neutral prom and homecoming attendance and courts to accommodate same-sex-coupled and transgender participants
  • designating gender-neutral bathrooms and on-campus housing[35]
  • establishing gender-neutral and co-ed fraternal student organizations
  • not separating toys in gender-specific areas
  • not having gender-specific sports in physical education lessons[36]

Dress code

[edit]
See also: Gender-based dress codes

The abolishment of certain dress codes has been conserved among institutions depending on the limitations imposed on students and their comfort in such attire. For transgender students, strict dress codes may complicate their path towards confirming their gender identity, a cost which can affect these individuals well throughout their life. Ways in which compliance with attire in institutions can cause reverberations in other areas of life are factors such as lowered academic performance, higher dropout rates, and increased disciplinary action.[37] As of 2017, 150 primary schools in the United Kingdom have introduced gender neutral uniforms and students feel more in control of their identity as a result of this policy change.[citation needed]

College

[edit]

In 2005, University of California, Riverside became the first public university campus in the US to offer a gender-neutral housing option.[38] A February 2014 Washington Post article noted that nearly 150 US schools now have gender-neutral housing programs.[35] Other institutions such as University of Southern California and Princeton,[39] acknowledge some of the dangers that come as a result to housing options as a member of the LGBTQ community and have also developed separate housing to accommodate such students.[40]

In 2016, La Salle University students voted to have a gender-neutral housing option in their dormitories, which would make La Salle the first Catholic university in the United States to offer gender-neutral living.[41] This student-led vote caused controversy in Catholic circles across the United States, since it is traditional for Catholic school residence halls to be completely separated by gender.[42] La Salle University has since incorporated accommodating housing options for students and has urged other Catholic universities to make changes in housing policies as well.[43]

A growing number of American colleges are adopting chosen name and identity policies.[44][45] As of June 2022, at least 788 American colleges allow students to use a chosen first name, and at least 242 colleges allow students to designate their personal pronouns.[46]

In parenting

[edit]

Jennifer Hockenbery Dragseth describes gender as "the classification of male or female that includes social, psychological, and intellectual characteristics. The theory of gender neutrality claims that biological sex does not inevitably determine social, psychological, and intellectual characteristics."[47] Parental control strategies can be defined as any strategy that a parent uses to alter, change, or influence their child's behavior, thoughts, or feelings. Meta-analysis reveals from Endendijk, "the basis of gender-neutral parenting also known as GNP, does not project a gender onto a child. It allows parents and children to break away from gender binary."[48]

Gender-neutral parenting is allowing children to be exposed to a variety of gender types so children can explore their gender without restriction from society or the gender they were born with. Autonomy-supportive strategies provide the child with an appropriate amount of control, a desired amount of choice, acknowledge the child's perspectives and provide the child with meaningful rationales when the choice is constrained. Even if a child does not display gender-bending behaviors, gender neutral parenting allows them to explore and not be constrained in the gender they were born with. This can be through letting them play with non-stereotypical toys for their gender, allowing them to pick their own clothing, allowing them to act more "feminine" or "masculine", and allowing children to question their gender. In the sociology book Sex Differences In Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation, Alice Eagly theorizes that sex differences have been proposed, based on biological factors, early childhood socialization, and other perspectives. This allows children to express themselves without feeling pressure from being extremely masculine or feminine.[49]

Attitudes and judgement towards gender-roles and toys

[edit]

Parent attitudes towards the child can influence child behaviors such as in toy selection. For example, parent, offer children toys and other objects that are gender-specific, such as trucks for boys and dolls for girls.[50] A study done in Austria, where 324 parents participated showed that by parents' judgments about the desirability of different types of toys for their children and how the parents' judgment based on gender-typing of toys, gender role attitudes shows that parents rated same-gender-typed and gender-neutral toys as more desirable for their children than cross-gender-typed toys.[51] This indicates that most traditional parents limit their child interests and behaviors than egalitarian parents.

In terms of education, parents' attitudes towards their child gender reflects on their expectation for the child. Because parents are still unwilling to send their daughters to the schools, there is a low participation rate of female education compared to male.[52] Parents tend to treat their sons and daughters differently, preferring their sons over their daughters due to the gender roles society has placed, considering children as helping hands for their parents. For example, sons should provide economic support while daughters are expected to conform to the house. Although sons are still preferred, the attitudes towards neutrality have steadily increased in the past two decades. Feminist economics such as Julie A. Nelson argues that for a nonsexist society, the differences are revalued positively while others such as Patricia Elliot believes gender‐specific categories need to be eliminated to enable a positive society.[53]

Although gender-neutral parenting allows their children to be able to decide how they experience their gender, non-gender neutral parents believe the children are programmed in from birth to play with gender directed toys, and parents had no influence towards their children selecting a gender-stereotyped toy.[54]

Children at a young age start to develop a sense of how everyone starts to dress depending the gender of each individual. For instance, when a girl dresses in a way that contradicts societal norms, she might suffer bullying. According to Kent, Canterbury, states that among children between 3 and 7 years old, "younger girls were more motivated to dress in gender-typed ways than older girls were, and understanding of gender stability (i.e. knowledge that gender remains stable over time) predicted appearance rigidity in both boys and girls".[23]

In children's literature

[edit]

Gender neutrality in children's literature refers to the idea that publishers, writers and illustrators should avoid marketing towards children through the basis of their sex or gender, and should instead focus on expanding content rather than reinforcing social and gender roles.[55] Gender roles and stereotypes permeate our culture and are established through a variety of means such as visual culture or daily interactions with family and peers.[56] Gender neutrality in children's marketing is a growing movement among parents, children and publishers.[57] Although there are many homes to gender stereotypes, the books that children are encountering have both psychological and social uses during a time when children are constantly constructing ideas from information around them and assimilating new knowledge with previous knowledge.[58] Organizations such as Let Toys Be Toys, Let Books Be Books and Pinkstinks have been gaining publicity for their work in favour of gender neutrality within children's literature and toys.

Representations of gender within picture books

[edit]

Studies at Provider-Parent Partnerships have shown that children begin forming their sense of gender identity at 2–3 years old[undue weight? – discuss] and begin 'Gender typing' at ages 3–4.[59] In a study surrounding Gender Perception in Adults, Dr. Kyle Pruett reported: "A defining moment came in gender difference research when a group of male babies were dressed in pink, and then handed to adults who were told they were girls. The adults responded with language and handling styles shown to be classically female-stereotypic: 'adorable, cuddly, sweet, cute,' etc. Female babies in blue were called 'slugger, tough, strong, stubborn,' etc. This is how we simply wind up reinforcing gender-stereotypic behaviors, rather than fostering individual growth and development."[60]

The concept of a child developing their sense of self in formative years has been a topic of discussion among cultural theorists as well as in children's literature criticism. In The Pleasures of Children's Literature, Shulamith Shahar states, "Child raising practices and educational methods as well as parent-child relation are determined not solely by biological laws but are also culturally constructed".[61]

Theorists such as Jacques Lacan and Judith Butler have contributed to this notion of the formation of an individual's subjectivity and sense of self. Lacan's concept of the mirror stage has contributed to modern understanding of subjectivity and has since been applied to Children's Literature Criticism and child development. The Mirror Stage refers to the process in which an infant recognizes itself in the mirror for the first time and, "the transformation that takes place in the subject when he assumes an image".[62] As Hamida Bosmajian has stated in Understanding Children's Literature, "The literary text, then, is an image of the unconscious structured like a language." Bosmajian proceeds to write, "When the [Mirror Stage] is given utterance in the reader-interpreter's language, [the meaning] is deferred."[63]

Judith Butler's notion of gender performativity also forms correlations to gender-specific children's literature through analyzing the ways characters perform their gender and has been taken up in Children's literature criticism.[64] Butler has defined gender performativity stating: "the production actually happens through a certain kind of repetition and recitation".[65] Butler also relays that, "Performativity is the discursive mode by which ontological effects are installed."[65] Although Butler's subject is the adult subject the concept of repetition transcends to themes of childhood as well.[66] Both Butler and Lacan consider repetition as being an underlying factor in forming one's identity which can then be applied to children's literature through the act of children rereading books multiple times.[67]

Studies in representation in children's literature

[edit]

Gender imbalances have continued to appear in children's literature through the lack of diverse representations. In the 2011 issue of Gender & Society, the study "Gender in Twentieth-Century Children's Books" discovered large disparities. Through looking at almost 6,000 children's books published between 1900 and 2000, the study, led by Janice McCabe, a professor of sociology at Florida State University, found that males are central characters in 57% of children's books published each year, with just 31% having female central characters. Male animals are central characters in 23% of books per year, the study found, while female animals star in only 7.5%.[68][69] In putting forth these narrow representations of characters, it becomes difficult for a child to identify themselves within gender binaries and roles.[70] In an earlier study in 1971, out of fifty-eight books, twenty-five had a picture of a woman somewhere in them, yet only four did not having a woman (or animal representing a woman) wearing an apron.[71] Many parents read their own childhood favourites to their children, through an endearing plot, or through beautiful illustrations.[72] Although the adult may recognize that the stereotypes may be outdated, the children may lack that criticality in reading these stories.[73] Furthering this portrayal of gender in children's books the ways in which each gender is portrayed is very different. Female characters are much more likely to take on passive and supportive roles whereas male characters fulfill a self-sufficient, strong and active role.[74] This discriminatory portrayal takes place in many children's books and runs the risk of leading children toward a misrepresented and misguided realization of their true potential in their expanding world.[75]

Not only are these inequalities present within the books, but gender disparities also exist among those creating children's books. In the 2013 Vida: Women in Literary Arts count, male authors and illustrators drastically outnumbered those who were female (64:21).[76]

In children's literature in the media

[edit]

In March 2014, the British organization, Let Toys Be Toys, expanded to include a children's book specific category, Let Books Be Books. This expansion specifically addressed gender specific titles on books such as The Beautiful Girl's Colouring Book and The Brilliant Boys Colouring Book and the limitations in which these titles impose upon children. As Katy Guest stated in an article for the Independent in March 2014, after Let Books Be Books launched, "What we are doing by pigeon-holing children is badly letting them down. And books, above all things, should be available to any child who is interested in them."[77] As the organization Let Toys Be Toys states, "Just like labeling toys 'for girls' or 'for boys' these books send out very limiting messages to children about what kinds of things are appropriate for girls or for boys."[78]

The organization quickly gained momentum and almost immediately acquired over 3000 signatures for their petition causing publishers Parragon and Usborne to lend their support and stop publishing gender specific children's books.[57] In November 2014, publishers of Peter and Jane Books, Ladybird Books agreed to make titles gender neutral stating: "At Ladybird, we certainly don't want to be seen to be limiting children in any way."[citation needed]

Controversy

[edit]

Publishers such as Igloo Books and Buster Books continue to publish gender-specific children's books. In an interview in March 2014 Buster Editor Michael O'Mara stated: "The proof is in the pudding. Our two best children books ever are The Boys' Book and The Girls' Book. The boys' one included things like how to make a bow and arrow and how to play certain sports and you'd get things about style and how to look cool in the girls' book. 2,000 people signed this petition [in the first day], but we sold 500,000 copies of The Girls' Book. These statistics tell me I'm going in the right direction."[79]

In a letter in response to this interview Let Books Be Books expressed the following concerns to Michael O'Mara: "We have been contacted by many parents, teachers and supporters who have serious concerns about several of the titles currently on your website and being marketed in shops across the UK. They believe, as we do, that labeling books by gender narrows children's choices and imaginations by telling them what they 'should' be reading, instead of letting them choose books that interest them."[80]

List of gender-neutral children's literature

[edit]

Although there are many examples of gender-neutral children's literature, the following list contains a few notable examples.

Activism

[edit]

In 2006 the National Student Genderblind Campaign[81] was created as a collaborative grassroots organization intended to educate college students, administrators, and others throughout the United States. The NSGC advocates for the implementation of gender-inclusive dorm room and bathroom options.

Twin siblings Emma Moore and Abi Moore[82] founded a campaign, Pinkstinks, in London in May 2008[83] to raise awareness of the damage caused by gender stereotyping of children.[84][85] Pinkstinks claims that the marketing of gender-specific products to young children encourages girls to limit their ambitions later in life.[83][86]

In a 2014 campaign, the United States–based grassroots group Play Unlimited announced the month-long observance of No Gender December.[87][88]

In 2016, Canada came out with the "No Big Deal" campaign which is a "positive affirming response to the recent conflict around transgender peoples' pronouns."[89] This campaign encourages people to ask what pronouns people identify as, instead of just assuming based on people's looks. It also tries to make different pronouns easier for people to understand and grasp.[90]

Gender-neutral lawsuits

[edit]

Jones v. Bon Appetit Management Company et al

[edit]

In February 2014, former catering worker Valeria Jones sued employer Bon Appetit Management Co. in Oregon for US$518,000 after co-workers repeatedly referred to Jones as female. Jones did not identify as either male or female and when applying to work at Bon Appetit, purposely never filled out the male or female identification question. They repeatedly informed co-workers that they did not want to be identified using male or female gender pronouns and asked managers to address the employees as a group and educate the others about gender identity.[91] Jones's suit states that the complaint to human resources was never resolved and the managers did not follow through per their requests, prompting their resignation.[91]

Zzyym v. Tillerson

[edit]

In September 2014, Dana Zzyym, an American U.S. Naval veteran, tried to apply for a passport. Instead of labeling their gender as male or female on the application form, they "wrote 'intersex' below the 'sex' category" and "requested 'X' as an acceptable marker."[92] They presented a birth certificate which labels Zzyym as neither male nor female. Zzyym was born with ambiguous genitalia and identifies as intersex. The State Department declined Zzyym's application. Zzyym sued the State Department, "saying the federal government violated the Constitution's guarantees of due process rights and discriminated against Zzyym based on gender."[93] In November 2016, the court issued the ruling in favor of Zzyym. But as of October 2017, the case has been reopened due to the State Department's continued refusal of a gender marker that is neither male nor female on its passport applications.[94]

Elisa Rae Shupe

[edit]

On 27 April 2016, Elisa Rae Shupe filed a petition in Multnomah County, Oregon, to no longer be designated male or female. Shupe, a retired United States Army sergeant, was born with male anatomy and lived for a time as a transgender woman. She later began to self-identify as non-binary. The Oregon state statutes had been changed in 2013 to no longer require proof of medical transition before a change in legal gender status. The statutes did not specify whether the new status had to be a binary one. Two of Shupe's doctors wrote letters for her stating that she was neither male nor female. On 10 June, Judge Amy Holmes Hehn granted Shupe's petition.[95] The ruling was a significant advance toward government recognition of non-binary individuals. In 2019, Shupe issued a statement explaining that she now disagreed with the concept of gender identity and was returning to living as a man.[96] However, in 2022 she published a declaration that she was a trans woman, cutting ties with gender-critical feminists and conversion therapists. Shupe also changed her name to Elisa Rae Shupe.

Criticism

[edit]

Much as with similar approaches to dealing with racism and ethnicity, not recognising and taking account of participants' sex can be harmful. It posits that it functions in a post-sexism society where women are no longer treated differently than men on the basis of their sex. Meanwhile, gendered treatment prevails all over the world.[failed verification] Of a study of organisations which offered women-only services, 23% said that their reason was based on women's inequality and the desire to address that imbalance; 20% that women-only spaces promote female development and empowerment; 18% that they were providing a service not being met by unisex services and which focused on the specific needs of women.[97]

Solely using "he" and "his" as gender-neutral language can lead to a lack of representation or acknowledgment of certain identities. When pronouns such as "he" or "his" are used to refer to gender-neutral persons, there is a subconscious "sex bias" towards males over females, despite the subject being gender neutral.[98] In sports, a 1993 study concluded that more gender references are made to women's versus men's sports, distinguishing female sports as "other". However, the same study pointed out that having a gender-neutral sports environment could lead to a near complete lack of acknowledgement of women's sports/teams.[99]

The legal test of the "reasonable person" has been criticized for being genderblind in some areas of the law, particularly sexual harassment. In the American case of Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (1991), the court held that "a sex-blind reasonable person standard tends to be male-based and tends to systematically ignore the experiences of women".[100] In The Hidden Gender of Law, Regina Graycar and Jenny Morgan argued that gender-neutral rape statutes can imply that men and women are perpetrators and victims of sexual violence at similar rates, which is not accurate.[101][102]

Gender neutral bathroom signage, United States, 2017

Studies indicate a broad support for single-sex service options to remain available. Of 1000 women polled by the Women's Resource Centre, 97% stated that women should have the option of accessing female-only services if they were victims of sexual assault. 57% indicated that they would choose a women-only gym over a mixed gym.[103] Single-sex services can have a benefit in providing greater comfort and engaging participants who would otherwise not get involved.[104] The ridding of all sex-separated restrooms could forfeit the feelings of having a safe bathroom space for some people by replacing them with restrooms for all genders/identities.[105]

Gender-neutral laws have had unintended consequences. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 entitles certain employees a 12-week unpaid leave from work without a risk of job loss and applies to all genders. The employees must qualify for this leave by having been employed for over 12 months and be applying for leave due to a "serious health condition", pregnancy, or adoption.[106] Despite FMLA's gender-neutral language, there are concerns about the law reinforcing gender disparity involving childcare between males and females; since FMLA remains gender neutral, it does not recognize the burden of females during pregnancy that males do not experience. Women with children in the workplace are not given as much attention or resources as is needed for their female-specific, personal/at-home issues, reinforcing the gender disparity despite the law's need to be gender neutral.[107]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Gender neutrality

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Gender neutrality refers to the practice of designing , policies, institutions, and products to avoid distinctions based on biological sex, treating males and females equivalently without reference to sex-specific traits or roles. This approach manifests in areas such as gender-neutral pronouns like singular "they," marketing of toys and clothing without sex-segregated categories, public facilities, and parenting strategies that discourage sex-stereotyped activities. Despite these efforts, empirical studies reveal robust, innate sex differences in human behavior and preferences that persist across cultures, ages, and interventions aimed at neutrality. For instance, meta-analyses of children's toy choices show large effect sizes (Cohen's d ≈ 0.48 overall, larger for male-typed toys like vehicles), with boys consistently favoring and action items while girls prefer dolls and nurturing playthings, patterns evident from infancy and resistant to pressures. These differences align with biological underpinnings, including prenatal influences on brain development and interests, as observed in non-human primates and human . In societies with greater , such disparities in occupational interests and traits often amplify—a phenomenon termed the —indicating that neutrality policies may suppress rather than eliminate underlying causal realities rooted in evolutionary adaptations for sex-specific roles. Notable controversies include the case, where a biologically , subjected to surgical and hormonal reassignment as female following a botched , rejected the imposed identity and transitioned back to in adolescence, ultimately suiciding; this outcome discredited claims that gender is primarily socially constructed, highlighting biology's dominance over environmental neutrality attempts. Policy implementations, such as California's 2024 law mandating gender-neutral toy sections in large retailers, have sparked debate over efficacy and overreach, given evidence that children's preferences remain sex-typed regardless of merchandising. Similarly, gender-neutral bathrooms raise privacy and safety concerns, particularly for females, amid sex-based physical disparities in strength and aggression. Proponents view neutrality as advancing equity by dismantling stereotypes, yet critics argue it overlooks causal evidence of adaptive sex differences, potentially leading to mismatched expectations in education, sports, and mental health.

Definition and Core Principles

Conceptual Foundations

Gender neutrality conceptually posits that social, linguistic, and institutional practices should minimize or eliminate references to biological sex categories, on the premise that associated behavioral and role differences are primarily products of cultural conditioning rather than inherent traits. This approach assumes a sharp distinction between biological sex—defined by production and reproductive —and , viewed as a malleable shaped by environment and . Proponents argue that sex-neutral frameworks promote individual by dismantling imposed norms, allowing to express traits without sex-based expectations. The philosophical groundwork traces to existentialist thought, particularly Simone de Beauvoir's 1949 work , which contended that "one is not born, but rather becomes, a ," attributing to societal imposition rather than . De Beauvoir's analysis framed gender as an oppressive construct transcending physical differences, influencing later calls for neutrality to liberate individuals from essentialist roles. This constructivist view gained traction in mid-20th-century psychology through , who in the 1950s differentiated "sex" from "" and asserted that identity forms via postnatal rearing, independent of chromosomes, advocating neutral upbringing to foster . Money's framework, applied in cases like surgeries, positioned gender neutrality as achievable through environmental intervention. However, foundational claims of gender malleability have faced empirical scrutiny, revealing biological constraints. The case (1965–2004), where a biologically twin raised as after a botched rejected the assignment, exhibited male-typical behaviors, and suffered profound distress before , contradicted Money's theory despite intensive neutral socialization efforts. Reviews of sex differences indicate innate influences, including prenatal hormones shaping brain organization and behaviors like spatial abilities (larger male advantage) and verbal fluency ( advantage), with genetic and evolutionary factors contributing alongside culture. Such evidence suggests gender neutrality overlooks causal realities of , potentially leading to policies misaligned with observed dimorphic patterns in interests and from infancy. Gender neutrality differs from in that the former entails designing systems, policies, and practices without reference to sex-based distinctions, often presuming interchangeability between males and females, while the latter seeks equitable outcomes by recognizing and redressing empirical differences in needs, capabilities, and outcomes between the sexes. For instance, gender-neutral tools apply uniform criteria to both sexes despite data showing sex-linked variances in factors like rates, potentially exacerbating disparities, whereas gender equality might incorporate sex-specific adjustments to achieve parity. This distinction highlights how neutrality can overlook causal biological and social realities, such as average differences in or cognitive profiles documented in meta-analyses, leading critics to argue it undermines . In contrast to gender blindness, which describes an inadvertent or ideological failure to acknowledge sex differences in roles, responsibilities, or vulnerabilities—often resulting in policies that inadvertently disadvantage one —gender neutrality is typically an intentional framework for eliminating sex markers in , facilities, or norms to foster . European Institute for Gender Equality analyses note that gender-neutral policies, equated with blindness in some contexts, fail to advance by not addressing entrenched inequalities, as seen in uniform without incentives for paternal uptake that ignores disparities in caregiving burdens. However, proponents differentiate neutrality as bias-eliminating while still perceiving differences, unlike blindness's perceptual deficit, though empirical reviews suggest both can perpetuate inequities when ignoring data like sex variances in rates. Gender neutrality is distinct from androgyny, which promotes the integration or blending of traditionally male and female traits into a hybrid ideal, as opposed to neutrality's aim to excise gender references altogether, treating sex as irrelevant to categorization or expectation. Scholarly framing identifies androgyny as one pathway to equality via assimilation of traits, evident in mid-20th-century feminist debates, but neutrality via degendering avoids such blending by defaulting to unisex standards, such as in toy marketing or pronouns, without endorsing mixed attributes. This separation is apparent in policy: androgynous approaches might encourage boys in nurturing roles alongside girls, acknowledging complementarity, while neutrality mandates identical options, potentially disregarding evolutionary psychology findings on innate sex differences in play preferences, like boys' higher object aggression in longitudinal studies. Relative to feminism, gender neutrality aligns with "sameness" variants that pursue equality through assimilation, ignoring or minimizing differences, but contrasts with ", which leverages biological and social disparities to advocate for sex-specific protections or roles against perceived patriarchal structures. Early second-wave debates, as in U.S. civil , critiqued neutrality for erasing women's unique experiences, such as reproductive burdens, favoring recognition over uniformity; Swedish analyses from 2016 similarly show neutrality as a tool for integration but not amid persistent gaps in roles. Empirical data, including frameworks, underscore that neutrality risks masking inequalities without analyzing differences, whereas often demands targeted interventions based on evidenced disparities in economic participation or victimization rates.

Historical Development

Precursors and Early Ideas

Plato's (c. 375 BCE) contains early philosophical arguments for gender-neutral assignment of roles, proposing that women in the guardian class receive the same physical training, education, and military duties as men, with selection based on individual capacity rather than biological sex. In Book V, contends that natural differences between sexes do not preclude shared virtues or functions, challenging Athenian norms where women's roles were confined to domestic spheres; this "sex unity" approach emphasized rational equality over bodily distinctions, though Plato acknowledged women's generally lesser . Such ideas remained theoretical and limited to an ideal elite stratum, contrasting with more hierarchical views in contemporaries like , who linked to essential form-matter disparities. Linguistic precursors include gender-neutral pronouns in English, with the singular "they" documented from 1375 in texts such as those by William de Bibbesworth, used for persons of unspecified gender or in generic singular reference to avoid binary pronouns. This usage persisted in through the , as in Chaucer's (late 14th century), providing a practical tool for neutrality absent in gendered languages. In the , German writer (1825–1895) articulated concepts of a "neutral sex" in his pamphlets on "Urnings," describing an innate psychological category transcending binary physical sexes, informed by self-observation and classical precedents like Plato's androgynous myths. These ideas, while tied to emerging understandings of , prefigured modern neutrality by questioning rigid sex-gender alignment, though Ulrichs' work drew limited contemporary support amid prevailing binary norms.

Emergence in the 20th Century

The push for gained momentum during the second-wave of the and , as activists sought to eliminate presumed male defaults in English, such as the generic "he" and terms like "mankind," which were viewed as reinforcing patriarchal structures. Feminists argued that such conventions obscured women's presence in general references, prompting calls for alternatives like "humankind" or rephrasing to plurals. This linguistic reform was part of broader efforts to dismantle sex-based assumptions in communication, with early guidelines emerging from academic and publishing circles; for instance, a 1971 study at recommended avoiding sex-linked job titles in . A key development was the popularization of the title "Ms." as a marital-status-neutral alternative to "Miss" or "Mrs.," which gained traction in the early 1970s despite earlier sporadic uses dating to 1901. Activist Sheila Michaels inadvertently promoted it in 1961 via a newsletter address, but its widespread adoption followed the launch of Ms. magazine in 1972 by Gloria Steinem and others, which framed it as essential for women's professional autonomy. By the mid-1970s, "Ms." appeared in dictionaries and business correspondence, reflecting institutional shifts, though resistance persisted among traditionalists who saw it as an erosion of social norms. Professional organizations formalized these changes through non-sexist language guidelines; the (APA) issued its "Guidelines for Nonsexist Use of Language" in 1975, advising against male generics and sex-specific roles in scholarly writing to promote equity. Similar directives followed from publishers like McGraw-Hill in 1974, influencing textbooks and media. These efforts extended beyond language to cultural domains, including trends in the 1960s counterculture, which challenged rigid sex-based fashion as symbols of liberation. Toward the century's end, singular "they" received tentative endorsement from style guides, marking a pragmatic shift from invented neopronouns, though full acceptance lagged until later decades. Empirical analyses, such as those in Gender & Society (2011), later quantified persistent disparities in , underscoring uneven progress.

Modern Developments Post-2000

In the early 2000s, advocacy for gender neutrality intensified alongside the mainstreaming of non-binary identities within LGBTQ+ movements, prompting shifts in language use. The singular "they" , historically employed as a gender-neutral singular since the , saw renewed emphasis as a preferred option for non-binary individuals, with adoption rates rising notably among younger generations; a 2019 survey indicated higher acceptance of gender-neutral pronouns among those aged 7-22 compared to older cohorts. By 2020, approximately one in four LGBTQ+ youth reported using pronouns other than he/him or she/her, reflecting broader cultural integration of neopronouns like ze/zir, though empirical data on their psychological or social benefits remains limited and contested. Public facilities underwent modifications to accommodate gender neutrality, particularly restrooms. In 2013, mandated gender-neutral signage for single-occupancy bathrooms, setting a for municipal policies aimed at inclusivity. The U.S. followed in 2015-2016 by recommending gender-neutral designations for single-occupancy units and partitions in multi-occupant facilities to enhance and access. However, these efforts sparked legislative backlash, exemplified by North Carolina's 2016 House Bill 2, which restricted bathroom access based on biological sex, highlighting tensions between neutrality initiatives and concerns over and . Educational practices advanced gender-neutral approaches, notably in , where preschools emphasized countering traditional roles through curriculum reforms promoting shared activities. A 2017 study of children at a gender-neutral found moderate effects: participants exhibited lower stereotyping, greater willingness to play with opposite-sex peers, and reduced susceptibility to gender-based preferences compared to traditional settings. Similar initiatives spread to other regions, including campaigns against sex-typed toys, such as Madrid's "Freedom to Play" effort encouraging play to dismantle . Legal recognition of non-binary genders emerged in select jurisdictions post-2010. Australia permitted an "X" gender marker on passports in 2014, followed by U.S. states like in 2016 and via provincial laws allowing self-identification without surgery. These developments prioritized self-declared identity over binary classifications, though critics, including some feminists, argued they undermined sex-based protections without robust evidence of improved outcomes for or equality. Marketing and fashion sectors adopted gender-neutral strategies amid consumer demand. By the mid-2010s, brands like Zara and H&M introduced unisex clothing lines, driven by Gen Z preferences for fluid expression, with industry analyses linking this to rising literacy, technology, and social media influence on norms. Empirical correlations suggested potential reductions in gendered disparities, as a 2023 analysis found languages with neutral forms associated with narrower gender gaps in labor participation, though causation remains debated due to confounding cultural factors.

Theoretical Foundations

Social and Cultural Perspectives

Sociological perspectives on neutrality often draw from conflict theory and feminist frameworks, positing that gender roles are socially constructed mechanisms of stratification that reinforce dominance. Proponents argue that adopting neutral practices in , , and institutions disrupts these constructs, fostering equality by decoupling social expectations from biological sex. For instance, highlights how everyday interactions perpetuate gendered norms, suggesting that neutrality in communication can reshape identities over time. Culturally, gender neutrality manifests in policies and campaigns aimed at minimizing sex-based distinctions, such as promoting toys and attire to counteract early stereotyping. Spain's City Council launched a "Freedom to Play" initiative in the early 2020s to encourage non-sexist toys, reflecting broader European efforts to normalize neutral play environments. Similar movements in and media seek to eliminate gendered marketing, with the intent of allowing children to explore interests free from cultural imposition. However, implementation varies; in collectivist societies, traditional roles tied to family structures resist neutrality more than in individualistic Western contexts. Critiques of gender neutrality from social and cultural standpoints emphasize its tension with observed biological influences on behavior, challenging pure constructivist assumptions prevalent in much of . The , documented in , reveals larger sex differences in occupational choices and interests—such as women gravitating toward people-oriented fields—precisely where equality policies are strongest, suggesting innate predispositions emerge when social pressures ease. A meta-analysis of 16 studies involving 1,600 children found robust preferences for sex-typical toys across egalitarian and less equal societies, with effect sizes indicating biological contributions alongside . These findings imply that enforced neutrality may overlook causal realities of sex differences, potentially leading to cultural friction rather than harmony, as evidenced by persistent even in high-equality settings like STEM fields.

Biological and Evolutionary Perspectives

Biological sex in humans is defined by the production of small gametes () in s and large gametes (ova) in s, establishing a binary essential for . This dimorphism is immutable at the chromosomal level, with XY chromosomes typically leading to development and XX to , while disorders of sexual development (DSDs) represent developmental anomalies rather than additional sexes or a spectrum. Empirical data from and confirm that over 99.98% of humans fit this , with DSD prevalence at approximately 0.018%, underscoring the rarity of exceptions. From an evolutionary standpoint, sexual dimorphism—evident in traits like greater male stature (about 8-10% taller on average), upper-body strength (up to 60% greater in men), and craniofacial structure—emerged from ancestral selection pressures favoring differential and mate competition. In early hominids, higher male-male competition contributed to initial dimorphism, which reduced with pair-bonding and provisioning in , yet persisted due to ongoing via intrasexual rivalry and intersexual choice. evidence shows this pattern across populations, with modern humans exhibiting moderate dimorphism compared to but more than chimpanzees, reflecting adaptations to environments where males competed for mates and females invested heavily in and . Evolutionary psychology posits that sex differences in behavior, such as male propensities for risk-taking and status-seeking versus female preferences for resource security in mates, stem from these reproductive asymmetries, observable even in infancy before cultural influences dominate. Studies of young children reveal innate divergences, including boys' earlier preference for wheeled toys and rough play (emerging by 12 months) and girls' for dolls, independent of parental encouragement, linked to prenatal androgen exposure. Meta-analyses confirm genetic and hormonal underpinnings for these patterns, with brain imaging showing sex-specific neural responses to stimuli like spatial tasks, where males outperform from age 3 onward. Such findings challenge purely social constructionist views, indicating that gender neutrality initiatives, which aim to minimize sex-based distinctions, overlook evolved adaptations that enhance fitness in ancestral contexts and persist in contemporary variance.

Societal Applications

In Language and Communication

encompasses the use of terms, pronouns, and grammatical structures that avoid specifying or implying biological sex, such as substituting occupational titles like "" for "fireman" or employing the singular "they" in place of "he" or "she" when gender is unknown or irrelevant. This approach in communication seeks to minimize perceived biases associated with sex differences, though its implementation varies by family; for instance, English relies on lexical choices, while languages with , like , often reformulate nouns or use paired forms (e.g., "estudiantes" in Spanish as a neutral ). Empirical investigations indicate that such can influence perceptions, with a 2019 PNAS study finding that gender-neutral pronouns decrease the mental salience of males in opinion formation on and LGBT equality, correlating with slightly more favorable views toward women and non-binary categories. In professional and institutional communication, adoption has accelerated; for example, the American Psychological Association's 7th edition guidelines (2020) mandate gender-neutral phrasing to promote inclusivity, influencing across disciplines. Similarly, in materials, a 2020 Swedish experiment using the gender-neutral pronoun "hen" alongside "han" (he) and "hon" (she) reduced gender bias in applicant evaluations, with participants rating female candidates higher in competence for stereotypically male roles. High-stakes contexts reveal performance effects: a 2023 NBER analysis of Italian university entrance exams, where gendered language was phased out between 2011 and 2016, showed women's quantitative scores rising by 7.5% relative to men's, attributed to alleviated rather than innate ability shifts, as verbal scores remained unchanged. These findings, drawn from large-scale administrative data, suggest contextual psychological benefits but do not imply elimination of underlying sex-based performance variances observed in meta-analyses of cognitive testing. The singular "they" in English, historically attested but revived for neutrality since the 1970s, demonstrates high comprehension in controlled studies; a 2016 survey of 1,500 U.S. adults found 79% accepted it for generic reference, with processing speeds comparable to gendered pronouns in simple sentences. However, complexity introduces challenges: research on bound-variable uses (e.g., "Every student submitted their essay") reveals underspecification, where readers infer plurality over singularity in 20-30% of cases under , potentially reducing clarity in technical or legal communication. Non-native speakers exhibit lower uptake, with a 2021 study of ESL learners showing preference for "he" generics due to L1 interference, leading to inconsistent application. In Sweden, "hen"—officially endorsed by the in 2015 after decades of advocacy—functions both generically and for non-binary identities, but longitudinal classroom data from 2022 indicate uneven adoption, with speakers correcting to sex-specific pronouns when context clarifies biological sex, limiting its causal impact on entrenched stereotypes. Broader evidence on reduction remains context-dependent; while job advertisements with neutral wording attract 10-15% more diverse applicants in some audits, meta-analyses caution that effects diminish in high-incentive scenarios where differences in interests (e.g., people-oriented vs. things-oriented tasks) persist independently of . Academic sources, often from institutions promoting equity frameworks, predominantly report positive perceptual shifts, yet causal claims overlook confounds like self-selection in participant pools, and no large-scale RCTs demonstrate sustained behavioral changes in inter- communication dynamics. Critics, including linguists analyzing , argue that mandatory neutrality increases —evidenced by slower parsing in neutral vs. -specified texts—potentially eroding communicative efficiency without addressing biological realities of -dimorphic cognition.

In Policy and Legislation

Policies promoting gender neutrality in legislation often target language, public facilities, and commercial practices to minimize distinctions based on biological sex. In , a 1998 amendment to the act mandated that public schools and preschools counteract traditional roles and implement gender-neutral teaching practices, influencing curricula to avoid sex-based in activities and materials. In , the Department of Justice provides guidelines for gender-inclusive legislative drafting, recommending neutral terms like "they" over gendered pronouns to encompass all identities, though banned neologistic gender-neutral pronouns in official communications in September 2025 to preserve French linguistic norms. In the United States, a 2023 bill introduced by House Democrats sought to replace masculine generics in with , such as changing "he" to "the person," to promote equity. Regarding public facilities, some jurisdictions require gender-neutral options; for instance, , mandates that all single-occupancy restrooms use gender-neutral signage and be accessible regardless of sex. California's AB 1287, enacted in 2021, prohibits gender-based on goods like , enforcing neutrality in pricing based on manufacturing factors rather than sex-targeted marketing. In commercial regulation, updated its toy advertising code in 2022 to prohibit gender stereotypes, requiring ads to depict diverse play without reinforcing sex-based roles, as part of a voluntary agreement between government and industry. Similarly, a 2019 law requires large toy retailers to maintain a gender-neutral section with toys not marketed exclusively to one sex. These measures aim to expand options but have faced for potentially overriding market-driven preferences rooted in observed sex differences.

In Education and Child-Rearing

Efforts to promote gender neutrality in education involve curricula and classroom practices designed to minimize sex-based stereotypes, such as encouraging boys and girls to participate equally in activities traditionally associated with the opposite sex and using materials that avoid gendered imagery. In child-rearing, parents may adopt practices like selecting gender-neutral , toys, and pronouns to allow children to explore identities without preconceived roles, as seen in approaches labeled "gender-neutral parenting." These methods aim to foster flexibility but often encounter resistance from innate preferences. Empirical research consistently demonstrates robust sex differences in children's play preferences, with meta-analyses revealing large effect sizes: boys prefer male-typed (Cohen's d = 1.03) and girls female-typed (d = 0.91), patterns holding across ages 3–8, various countries, and settings including homes and labs. These differences persist even in environments promoting neutrality, suggesting biological underpinnings over pure , as preferences emerge early and align with prenatal influences rather than being fully malleable by external interventions. Studies on gender-neutral interventions in preschools indicate only moderate impacts on children's attitudes toward roles, with limited alteration of underlying preferences or behaviors. For instance, exposure to gender-neutral activities or books reduces some stereotypic toy choices temporarily but does not eliminate sex-typed selections, as children revert to preferences matching their biological sex. Parents tend to view gender-neutral toys as more desirable than cross-sex-typed ones for their children, yet observational data shows children self-select sex-consistent toys when given free choice, potentially frustrating neutrality efforts. Critics from biological and psychological perspectives argue that enforcing gender neutrality overlooks evolved and interests, such as boys' greater spatial and mechanical inclinations, which could hinder optimal development by mismatched activities. Longitudinal links rigid avoidance of sex-typical play to potential identity confusion or social challenges, though causal data remains limited; conversely, allowing preferences supports engagement and skill-building aligned with innate traits. Public campaigns, like Madrid's initiative for "non-sexist toys," exemplify policy pushes but have not demonstrably shifted preference statistics in population studies.

In Marketing and Media

In , particularly for toys and apparel, companies have pursued gender-neutral strategies to expand market reach and align with inclusivity trends. For example, in 2019, introduced the Creatable World line of dolls, featuring modular clothing and hairstyles intended for customization beyond traditional gender norms, marketed as allowing children to "create the world they want." Similarly, retailers like Toys "R" Us eliminated separate "boys" and "girls" in stores starting around 2019, opting for category-based displays such as "arts and crafts" to reduce stereotyping. These efforts coincide with campaigns like the City Council's 2023 "Libertad para jugar" initiative, which promoted non-sexist toys to encourage play without gender constraints. However, a 2023 analysis of popular toys revealed persistent gender stereotyping in marketing, with dolls predominantly targeted at girls and vehicles at boys, suggesting limited adoption of neutrality. Advertising campaigns have incorporated gender-neutral messaging to challenge role stereotypes and appeal to diverse consumers. Ariel's "Share the Load" campaign, launched in in 2016, depicted men participating in laundry tasks, aiming to redistribute household labor perceptions and achieving over 100 million views in its first week. Brands like and have used inclusive visuals, such as personalized name cups without gender assumptions, to foster broad engagement. A 2023 study indicated that gender-neutral marketing reduces consumers' emphasis on aesthetic attributes in evaluations, potentially shifting focus to functional benefits, though it may not alter underlying preferences in purchasing. Empirical data from ad analyses show male characters appearing 56% of the time versus 44% for females, with ongoing efforts to balance representations but persistent biases in portrayals. In broader media, gender-neutral approaches manifest in emphasizing fluid roles over binary distinctions. Family films reached in lead characters by 2023, up from 11% female leads in 2004, driven by advocacy for non-stereotypical depictions. Corporate posts have trended toward diverse representations, with increased inclusion of non-traditional roles compared to historical norms. Nonetheless, a 2025 review of literature highlighted that while neutrality initiatives exist, they often encounter resistance from parental preferences for gender-typed products, as surveys show 78% of children endorsing traditional roles. These applications reflect commercial adaptations to cultural shifts, yet sales impacts remain mixed, with some brands reporting broadened appeal while others face consumer pushback against perceived overreach.

Empirical Evidence

Studies on Language and Performance

A series of psycholinguistic experiments has examined the cognitive processing demands of gender-neutral pronouns, such as singular "they," compared to gendered alternatives like "he" or "she." A 2007 eye-tracking study involving adult readers found that singular "they" as a gender-unspecified referent incurred a processing cost, manifested in longer first-pass reading times and rereading fixations at the pronoun and subsequent regions, relative to gendered pronouns. This suggests increased interpretive difficulty when resolving reference without explicit gender cues. Contrasting evidence emerged from a 2015 self-paced reading experiment, which reported no reliable slowdown for singular "they" versus generic "he" or "she" in neutral contexts, indicating potential cognitive efficiency for established neutral forms among proficient readers. Developmental research highlights age-related vulnerabilities in handling gender-neutral forms. In two preregistered studies with 168 children aged 4 to 10 years, participants heard stories featuring characters described with either gendered or gender-neutral pronouns and were tasked with retelling them. Children demonstrated significantly higher accuracy in recalling gendered pronouns than gender-neutral "they," producing the latter primarily when explicitly prompted by neutral-appearing characters; recall of neutral pronouns improved modestly with age but remained inferior overall. These findings imply that young learners rely on gender cues for efficient pronoun resolution, with neutral alternatives imposing greater mnemonic load during . Broader performance outcomes have been assessed in educational settings through quasi-experimental designs. A 2023 analysis of Swedish matriculation exams exploited a policy-driven shift from masculine-generic to gender-neutral formulations in exam prompts and materials, observing that this transition narrowed gender disparities in quantitative subjects, with women's relative performance improving by closing up to one-third of the prior gap in affected domains. The effect was most pronounced in high-stakes and assessments, attributed to reduced exclusionary signaling from masculine defaults, though the study controlled for cohort and subject fixed effects rather than . Similar patterns appeared in French contexts, where feminine-formulated instructions versus masculine generics diminished the math by about 33% among adolescent test-takers, suggesting context-specific benefits for targeted addressing over strict neutrality. Empirical tensions persist, as processing-cost studies often involve controlled lab tasks emphasizing comprehension speed, while performance gains in exams may reflect motivational or identity factors rather than pure linguistic efficiency. Peer-reviewed evidence leans toward neutral forms entailing minor comprehension hurdles in singular reference but potential equity advantages in stereotype-sensitive domains, warranting replication across languages and demographics to disentangle causal mechanisms from observational confounds.

Impacts on Child Development

Sex differences in children's play preferences manifest early, typically by 12-18 months of age, with boys gravitating toward object-oriented toys like vehicles and tools that promote spatial and mechanical skills, while girls favor people-oriented toys such as dolls that facilitate social and development. These patterns hold across diverse samples and persist despite efforts to provide neutral options, indicating a strong biological underpinning, including prenatal exposure, rather than purely environmental conditioning. Gender-typical play thus supports differentiated cognitive trajectories: for instance, boys' engagement with toys correlates with enhanced and visuospatial abilities, whereas girls' relational play bolsters verbal and emotional processing skills essential for later . Gender neutrality interventions, such as offering non-sex-typed or employing gender-open that avoids labeling interests by sex, seek to expand children's exploratory range and mitigate constraints. Proponents argue this fosters greater flexibility, potentially benefiting children with atypical preferences by reducing social pressures, though such cases represent a minority. Empirical assessments reveal mixed outcomes: while parents perceive neutral toys as superior for broad skill-building in physical, cognitive, and artistic domains compared to strongly typed ones, children's actual preferences remain robustly sex-differentiated even in neutral environments, limiting the interventions' efficacy in altering play patterns. Moreover, cross-gender toy exposure via counterstereotyping prompts can temporarily shift attitudes toward inclusivity, but long-term developmental gains—such as improved overall cognitive performance—are not conclusively demonstrated, with preferences rebounding post-intervention. Potential drawbacks emerge when neutrality overrides innate inclinations, as gender-atypical play has been linked to suboptimal skill acquisition in sex-specific domains; for example, reduced doll play in girls correlates with lower metrics, and diminished mechanical engagement in boys with weaker spatial reasoning over time. Longitudinal tracking shows gender-typed play predicts alignment with evolutionary adaptations for sex-typical competencies, suggesting that enforced neutrality may inadvertently hinder adaptive development by underemphasizing these pathways, particularly given the limited evidence for superior outcomes from neutral approaches. Critics grounded in contend that such practices, often advocated in academic contexts prone to ideological priors over causal data, risk confusing for most children whose preferences align with binary norms, though rigorous, large-scale studies on neutrality's net effects remain scarce.

Broader Societal Outcomes

Empirical observations from cross-national studies indicate that efforts to promote gender neutrality, by minimizing social influences on sex-based differences, often result in amplified gender disparities in traits, vocational interests, and occupational choices, a termed the . In nations with advanced policies—such as , , and —differences between s and s in traits like thing-oriented versus people-oriented interests are larger than in less egalitarian societies, suggesting that reducing external pressures allows innate biological variances to manifest more prominently. This pattern holds across multiple datasets, including inventories and career preferences, where high-equality environments correlate with greater dominance in technical fields and prevalence in social professions, contrary to expectations that neutrality would erode such divides. These persistent differences contribute to ongoing despite decades of gender-neutral interventions in education, media, and policy, leading to inefficient societal . For instance, initiatives to boost female representation in STEM fields yield in highly egalitarian contexts, as evidenced by larger gender gaps in math-related achievements and enrollments in such countries compared to more traditional ones. Proponents of neutrality anticipate convergence toward equal outcomes, but data reveal that biological predispositions, unmitigated by social engineering, sustain imbalances, potentially diverting public funds toward programs with limited causal impact on . Regarding family dynamics and demographics, gender-neutral policies in —emphasizing interchangeable roles via shared and anti-stereotype campaigns—have coincided with rates below replacement levels, challenging claims that such measures enhance work-family compatibility. Sweden's stood at 1.66 in 2022, reflecting a broader trend of declining births in the world's most gender-progressive societies, where women's freer pursuit of preferences may prioritize career trajectories over early childbearing. Longitudinal analyses link this to opportunity costs amplified in neutral frameworks, where traditional sex-complementary roles are de-emphasized, contributing to delayed formation without offsetting stability. Empirical reviews find no robust evidence that neutrality bolsters stability; instead, it may exacerbate mismatches between policy ideals and evolved , correlating with higher and lower marital cohesion in affected cohorts.

Criticisms and Debates

Ideological and Philosophical Critiques

Critics of gender neutrality from essentialist philosophical traditions contend that it erroneously treats as a malleable social artifact rather than an immutable biological reality rooted in mammalian , where males and females exhibit distinct production and secondary sex characteristics that underpin . This view holds that neutrality's drive toward disrupts causal chains of and societal organization, which evolved to leverage complementary sex differences for survival and flourishing, as evidenced by cross-cultural patterns in mate selection and . Philosophers in this camp, drawing on Aristotelian notions of form and , argue that denying 's normative essence—its purpose-oriented structure—leads to conceptual confusion, where policies ostensibly promoting equality instead impose a flattened that erases meaningful distinctions without empirical warrant. Jordan Peterson, a clinical , has articulated a critique framing compelled , such as neopronouns, as ideological coercion that violates principles of free speech and truth-seeking inquiry. In opposing Canada's Bill C-16 in , Peterson warned that legally mandating preferred pronouns elevates subjective self-conception over verifiable biological markers, fostering a dystopian regime of enforced orthodoxy akin to Maoist thought reform, where dissent risks professional or legal repercussions. He maintains this stems from a postmodern ideological framework that prioritizes power dynamics over descriptive accuracy, as seen in his analysis of pronoun usage as a microcosm of broader cultural . Camille Paglia, a self-described feminist and , philosophically assails gender neutrality for its willful blindness to sex's primal, Dionysian energies, which she views as civilizational cornerstones channeled through differentiated roles. In her 2017 interviews and writings, Paglia argues that neutrality's erasure of sex binaries, amplified by ideology, pathologizes innate differences—evident in her observation that biological males retain physical advantages regardless of identity, rendering neutral spaces like sports or prisons unsafe for females—and reflects a decadent Western retreat from reality, historically preceding in empires like . She attributes this to academic overreach, where departments propagate anti-biological dogma, detached from empirical data on sex-linked behaviors in and anthropology. From a conservative ideological standpoint, gender neutrality is critiqued as a subversive leveling mechanism that undermines the family unit by devaluing sex-specific virtues—masculine protectiveness and feminine nurturance—which empirical studies link to child outcomes and demographic stability, as declining birth rates in neutral-policy nations like (1.66 fertility rate in 2023) illustrate. Thinkers at institutions like the argue this reflects a utopian that conflates equality of opportunity with sameness of outcome, ignoring how sex differences manifest in preferences for tools and play, as boys gravitate toward mechanical objects and girls toward relational ones even in neutral environments. Radical feminists, conversely, ideologically oppose neutrality in and policy for obfuscating sex-based , as articulated in 1980s scholarship critiquing neutral statutes for failing to safeguard women's reproductive burdens, thereby perpetuating rather than alleviating disparities.

Evidence-Based Objections from Biology and Psychology

Biological evidence underscores the dimorphism inherent in human sex, rooted in genetic and hormonal mechanisms that resist neutralization efforts. Males and females differ fundamentally at the chromosomal level (XX versus XY), which drives gonadal differentiation and subsequent cascades of sex-specific hormone exposure, including elevated prenatal testosterone in males that shapes physical traits like greater upper-body strength and average height differences of approximately 10-15 cm. These traits, observed consistently across populations, reflect adaptations to distinct reproductive roles and cannot be erased through neutral policies, as they influence everything from athletic performance to disease susceptibility, such as higher male rates of color blindness (8% vs. 0.5% in females). Neuroimaging meta-analyses reveal structural sex differences in the , with males exhibiting larger total volume (about 10% greater) adjusted for body size, alongside regional variations such as proportionally larger amygdalae and hippocampi in males, and thicker cortices in females in language-related areas. These differences, present from infancy and corroborated by postmortem and MRI studies involving thousands of participants, correlate with cognitive profiles: males show advantages in spatial tasks ( d ≈ 0.6), while females excel in verbal fluency and for object locations. Such dimorphisms, influenced by both genetic factors and sex hormones, challenge gender-neutral approaches that presuppose interchangeability, as they underpin average behavioral divergences rather than mere social constructs. Psychological research, including twin studies, indicates substantial for sex-typed behaviors, with genetic influences accounting for 50-70% of variance in preschoolers' preferences for gender-typical play and activities, beyond shared environmental effects. For instance, monozygotic twins reared apart still display concordance in (more common in boys) and nurturing behaviors (more in girls), suggesting innate predispositions not fully malleable by neutral rearing. Systematic reviews of preferences across 16 studies (N=1,600 children) confirm robust differences from age 1, with boys spending over twice as much time on male-typed toys like trucks (Cohen's d=1.03) and girls on female-typed ones like dolls, persisting across cultures, eras, and even in non-human primates, implying evolutionary roots in divergent survival strategies—systemizing for males, empathizing for females. Efforts to enforce gender neutrality, such as discouraging sex-specific toys or roles, overlook these biological baselines, potentially leading to developmental mismatches; for example, boys restricted from action-oriented play show elevated frustration and lower engagement in neutral settings designed without regard for average male interests in mechanics and competition. Evolutionary psychological syntheses attribute these patterns to ancestral selection pressures, where male risk-taking and object-focus aided provisioning, while female social orientation supported child-rearing, yielding persistent cognitive styles that neutral interventions cannot homogenize without disregarding causal evidence from heritability and cross-species comparisons. Critics argue this denial of dimorphism, often amplified by ideologically biased academic narratives favoring nurture over nature, risks inefficient resource allocation, such as unisex curricula that fail to address boys' higher variance in outcomes and greater incidence of behavioral disorders (e.g., ADHD rates 3-4 times higher in males).

Potential Harms to Individuals and Society

Gender-neutral approaches to child-rearing, such as avoiding sex-specific toys, , or expectations, have been associated with increased risks of identity confusion and associated issues among children. Research indicates that children raised without clear gender markers may struggle with stable , potentially leading to anxiety, depression, and , particularly when encountering gendered norms in broader society. For instance, studies on and nonbinary youth, often influenced by gender-neutral environments, report elevated rates of anxiety and depression compared to peers, though longitudinal data remains limited. This confusion arises from a denial of innate biological sex differences, which first-principles reasoning from suggests are adaptive for development; suppressing them may hinder natural behavioral differentiation observed in play preferences and social interactions as early as infancy. On a cognitive level, the use of imposes processing costs, including slower reading speeds and poorer recall of information. In experiments with Swedish texts incorporating the neutral pronoun "hen," participants exhibited measurable delays in comprehension and memory retention compared to gendered alternatives, suggesting an added mental burden that could accumulate in educational or professional settings requiring precise communication. Increased from inclusive forms also correlates with reversion to habitual gendered language under stress, potentially undermining the intended neutrality while fostering frustration or errors in diverse linguistic contexts. Societally, gender-neutral policies in areas like have unintended consequences for women's advancement. In , reforms shifting from mother-specific to gender-neutral leave quotas led to women taking longer absences, resulting in a substantial drop in female tenure rates in academia—up to 7 percentage points lower—while boosting tenure, as biological realities of and primary caregiving persisted despite policy incentives for shared responsibility. Similar patterns in and U.S. policies show women bearing disproportionate leave utilization, exacerbating the "motherhood penalty" and widening gaps in high-skill careers. Broader enforcement of neutrality, by blurring sex-based protections rooted in physical differences (e.g., strength disparities averaging 50% in upper body), risks eroding safeguards in , prisons, and shelters, where empirical documents advantages persisting post-puberty, potentially increasing or displacement for females without corresponding societal benefits. These outcomes highlight causal mismatches between policy and , prioritizing ideological uniformity over evidence-based sex realism. In Vlaming v. West Point School Board (2023), a high school French teacher in was terminated after refusing to use male pronouns for a biologically female student, citing religious convictions and free speech protections; the ruled 6-1 that the dismissal violated the teacher's rights under the state constitution's free speech and religious exercise clauses, emphasizing that compelled speech on constitutes viewpoint . The school board later settled for $575,000 in damages and attorneys' fees in September 2024, including policy revisions to accommodate such objections. Similarly, in Meriwether v. Hartop (2021), a philosophy professor at faced discipline for declining to address a male-identifying with female pronouns, invoking First Amendment protections; a federal district court ruled in the professor's favor, finding the university's policy unconstitutional as it compelled ideological speech without adequate justification, leading to a settlement with damages, backpay, and expungement of records. This case highlighted tensions between mandates in educational settings and protections against coerced expression. In v. Varner (2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a federal district court could not compel a pro se litigant to use a prosecutor's preferred pronouns during proceedings, as such mandates risk violating First Amendment rights and judicial impartiality by endorsing contested views on ; the ruling vacated contempt sanctions while denying the litigant's request for female pronouns herself, underscoring limits on judicial enforcement of gender-neutral or identity-affirming speech. Challenges to gender-neutral facilities have also arisen, particularly in schools. In ongoing litigation like the America First Legal suit against (filed 2024), parents and students contested policies permitting students access to bathrooms aligning with rather than biological sex, alleging violations of privacy protections and increased risks of discomfort or harm; a federal hearing in June 2024 addressed these claims, with critics arguing such policies erode sex-based distinctions without empirical justification for safety benefits. Conversely, districts like Massapequa in New York sued state authorities in October 2025 to maintain biological sex-based bathroom assignments amid pressures for inclusive access, citing federal precedents like the Supreme Court's September 2025 ruling allowing a student in a sex-aligned facility but preserving local discretion. These cases reflect broader debates over whether gender-neutral or identity-based facility use prioritizes accommodation over verifiable privacy and safety concerns rooted in biological differences.

Activism and Advocacy Movements

Activism promoting gender neutrality emerged prominently in the 1970s through feminist efforts to reform language practices. Organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) issued the Guidelines for Nonsexist Use of Language in 1975, advocating replacement of masculine generics like "he" and "man" with neutral alternatives to avoid implying male default in mixed or unspecified contexts. The Linguistic Society of America similarly developed guidelines evolving from nonsexist principles, emphasizing inclusive forms to reflect diverse identities. These initiatives influenced style manuals in academia and publishing, though empirical evidence linking such changes to reduced bias remains limited, with critics noting persistence of biological sex differences in and behavior. In the realm of children's products, campaigns targeted toy marketing to dismantle perceived gender stereotypes. The UK-based Let Toys Be Toys organization launched in November 2012, lobbying retailers to eliminate "boys" and "girls" signage and marketing that confines interests by sex, arguing it restricts play and development. By 2016, surveys indicated nearly all major stores had removed such labels following advocacy pressure. Similar efforts influenced corporate policies, as seen in Lego's 2021 commitment to reduce gender stereotypes in after internal highlighted their impact on , though studies show innate sex-based toy preferences persist across cultures. In the United States, Assembly Bill 2826, effective January 1, 2024, mandates large toy retailers maintain at least one gender-neutral section, reflecting activist pushes for merchandising free of sex-based categorization. Advocacy extended to parenting practices and public facilities in the 2010s, coinciding with rising non-binary identification. Gender-neutral or "gender-creative" parenting movements encourage avoiding sex-based assumptions in clothing, toys, and expectations to foster self-determination, as promoted by groups like Gender Creative Kids Canada, founded in 2015 to support families raising children outside binary norms. Organizations such as the Trans Youth Equality Foundation, established to advocate for transgender and non-binary youth, push for neutral language and options in schools and legal documents. For facilities, campaigns like Safe Bathrooms DC, launched by the Office of Human Rights, urge conversion of single-occupancy restrooms to gender-neutral signage to accommodate transgender, non-binary, and family users, citing reduced harassment risks despite data showing low incidence of facility-related crimes by gender-nonconforming individuals. These efforts often intersect with broader LGBTQ+ advocacy, including 's resources for non-binary support since the 2010s.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender-neutral
  2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gender-neutral
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7031194/
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23480560_Sex_Differences_in_Infants%27_Visual_Interest_in_Toys
  5. https://www.genderscilab.org/blog/gender-equality-does-not-equal-gender-neutrality
  6. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-reimer-and-john-money-gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case
  7. https://www.simplypsychology.org/david-reimer.html
  8. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/01/us/gender-neutral-toy-aisles-are-now-law-in-california
  9. https://www.shrm.org/enterprise-solutions/insights/gender-neutral-restrooms-what-employers-need-to-know
  10. https://quillette.com/2019/04/11/ignoring-differences-between-men-and-women-is-the-wrong-way-to-address-gender-dysphoria/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10523819/
  12. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3030621/
  14. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-02133-012
  15. https://syllabus.pirate.care/library/Brianna%2520Weir/Gender%2520Equality%2520%255B_%255D%2520Gender%2520Neutrality_%2520When%2520a%2520Paradox%2520is%2520Not%2520So%2520Paradoxical%2C%2520After%2520All_%2520%2528269%2529/Gender%2520Equality%2520%255B_%255D%2520Gender%2520Neutrality_%2520Whe%2520-%2520Brianna%2520Weir.pdf
  16. https://paloaltou.edu/resources/translating-research-into-practice-blog/gender-equality-inequality-risk-assessment
  17. https://sk.sagepub.com/dict/mono/download/key-concepts-in-gender-studies-2e/chpt/equality.pdf
  18. https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/lc/gender_terms.pdf
  19. https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/thesaurus/terms/1071?language_content_entity=en
  20. https://www.calm.com/blog/gender-blindness
  21. https://www.sentinelassam.com/more-news/life/gender-blindness-and-its-impact-637986
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26553083
  23. https://sk.sagepub.com/dict/mono/download/50-key-concepts-in-gender-studies/chpt/equality.pdf
  24. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=gender%2BAND%2Bdiscrimination%2BAND%2Btodays&pg=7&id=ED314328
  25. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:944217/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  26. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Handbook-on-gender-mainstreaming-for-gender-equality-results-en.pdf
  27. http://www.yorku.ca/horowitz/courses/lectures/07_plato_gender.html
  28. https://www.journals.uts.edu/volume-vii-2006/66-gender-in-western-philosophy-and-unification-thought
  29. https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177
  30. https://nonbinary.wiki/wiki/History_of_nonbinary_gender
  31. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-language/
  32. https://msmagazine.com/2010/08/27/whats-in-a-name-for-ms-a-long-history/
  33. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/29/gender.uk
  34. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/magazine/25FOB-onlanguage-t.html
  35. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-27681-001
  36. https://www.scholars.org/contribution/what-gender-inclusive-language-and-why-does-it
  37. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/when-unisex-was-the-new-black/390168/
  38. https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they
  39. https://las.illinois.edu/news/2020-01-29/tracing-history-gender-neutral-pronouns
  40. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49754930
  41. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sheilacallaham/2019/12/22/gender-neutrality-language-like-culture-ever-evolving/
  42. https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/06/gender-neutral-pronouns-arent-new/619092/
  43. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/timeline-bathroom-wars/
  44. https://www.milrose.com/insights/state-and-federal-gender-neutral-bathroom-laws
  45. https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/transgender-bathroom-laws-history
  46. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28551105/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022096517302692
  48. https://qz.com/1006928/swedens-gender-neutral-preschools-produce-kids-who-are-more-likely-to-succeed
  49. https://www.equaldex.com/timeline
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380515501_Gender_Neutrality_A_New_Problem_in_the_Garb_of_a_Solution
  51. https://www.rmcad.edu/blog/exploring-gender-neutral-fashion-breaking-stereotypes-in-design/
  52. https://www.sociologyjournal.net/archives/2024/vol6issue1/PartA/6-1-19-936.pdf
  53. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/gender-neutral-language-and-gender-disparities
  54. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Solano_Community_College/SOC_002%253A_Social_Issues_and_Problems/11%253A_Gender_Stratification_and_Inequality/11.03%253A_Sociological_Perspectives_on_Gender_Stratification
  55. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-introductiontosociology/chapter/theoretical-perspectives-on-gender/
  56. https://nordicparadox.se/
  57. https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct
  58. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable
  59. https://www.city-journal.org/article/understanding-the-sex-binary
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9156798/
  61. https://elifesciences.org/articles/65031
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X1500189X
  63. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2017.1320
  64. https://dornsife.usc.edu/wendy-wood/wp-content/uploads/sites/183/2023/10/Eagly_Wood_1999_the_origins_of_human_sex_differences.pdf
  65. https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different/
  66. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-021-01757-1
  67. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2011/01/31/evolutionary-psychology-gender-construction/
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513823000107
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10570613/
  70. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1908156116
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344069433_Hen_can_do_it_Effects_of_using_a_gender-neutral_pronoun_in_recruitment
  72. https://www.nber.org/papers/w31400
  73. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31400/w31400.pdf
  74. https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article/91/1/62/6031/Singular-they-An-Empirical-Study-of-Generic
  75. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.880687/full
  76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09658416.2020.1869753
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4486751/
  78. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19463014.2022.2084427
  79. https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/evidence-gendered-wording-job-advertisements-exists-and-sustains-gender-inequality
  80. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1657753/full
  81. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1325986.pdf
  82. https://www.edweek.org/education/preschool-in-sweden-strives-to-be-neutral-about-gender/2012/11
  83. https://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/legis-redact/legistics/p1p15.html
  84. https://globalnews.ca/news/11448300/quebec-bans-gender-neutral-pronouns-documents/
  85. http://robertgarcia.house.gov/media/in-the-news/house-democrats-introduce-gender-neutral-laws-bill
  86. https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/Gender%2520Identity%2520and%2520Expression_Factsheet_04182017.pdf
  87. https://oag.ca.gov/ab1287
  88. https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/27/spain-agrees-to-prevent-toy-manufacturers-advertising-products-using-gender-stereotypes
  89. https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/childrens-toy-advertising-code-spain-gets-gender-equality-update
  90. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/holiday-shopping-in-gender-neutral-toy-aisles-playing-for-the-future/
  91. https://www.dw.com/en/spain-to-end-gender-stereotypes-in-toy-advertising/a-63946093
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291123000025
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9364298/
  94. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-52878-001
  95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31989412/
  96. https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/s/toy-preference-meta-analysis-Todd-et-al-2017.pdf
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383035925_Effect_of_gender-neutral_activities_on_preschool_children%27s_gender_stereotypes
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6096664/
  99. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-soh-gender-neutral-parenting-20170106-story.html
  100. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/27703371.2022.2089309
  101. https://www.beatsexism.com/articles/raising-a-gender-neutral-generation
  102. https://digiday.com/marketing/theyre-just-fierce-rise-gender-fluid-advertising/
  103. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bonniemarcus/2023/12/01/new-report-reveals-how-the-marketing-of-toys-reinforces-gender-stereotypes/
  104. https://www.spiralytics.com/blog/gender-neutral-advertising/
  105. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388777983_EXPRESS_The_Effect_of_Gender-Neutral_Marketing_on_Consumer_Attribute_Preference
  106. https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/future-of-marketing/management-and-culture/diversity-and-inclusion/gender-representation-media-bias/
  107. https://geenadavisinstitute.org/
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681325000072
  109. https://polis.cass.anu.edu.au/news/lego-s-return-gender-neutral-toys-good-news-all-kids-our-research-review-shows-why
  110. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMarketing/comments/k6r9vu/what_will_gender_neutrality_do_to_the_industry/
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4293036/
  112. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36427384/
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8024272/
  114. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-11633-007
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691823000550
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11370625/
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8468362/
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11868673/
  119. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1054886/full
  120. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2422247122
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7733804/
  122. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/srichard/files/richardson_et_al_gender_equality_paradox.pdf
  123. https://routledgeopenresearch.org/articles/2-48/v1/pdf?article_uuid=d09627bc-3a46-42ee-90f9-241d2ad3880a
  124. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-94895-001.html
  125. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12721
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4803818/
  127. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol4/2/4-2.pdf
  128. https://www.aei.org/society-and-culture/gender-neutrality-in-childrens-toys-is-a-fools-errand/
  129. https://torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral-pronouns/
  130. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74
  131. https://quillette.com/2018/11/10/camille-paglia-its-time-for-a-new-map-of-the-gender-world/
  132. https://rlo.acton.org/archives/106361-camille-paglia-the-fearless-feminist.html
  133. https://www.aei.org/articles/you-can-give-a-boy-a-doll-but-you-cant-make-him-play-with-it/
  134. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-society-review/article/abs/reassessing-gender-neutrality/C196D7BF456A108F1C41624A9AC95CF3
  135. https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-022-00448-w
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969295/
  137. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16026499/
  138. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.2064
  139. https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/edukid/article/download/86087/pdf
  140. https://capmh.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13034-024-00822-z
  141. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:868417/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  142. https://ifstudies.org/blog/do-gender-neutral-family-leave-policies-disadvantage-women
  143. https://hbr.org/2018/09/do-longer-maternity-leaves-hurt-womens-careers
  144. https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-paid-family-leave-hurts-women
  145. https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/2023/211061.html
  146. https://virginiamercury.com/2024/09/30/va-school-board-to-pay-575k-to-fired-teacher-who-refused-to-use-transgender-students-pronouns/
  147. https://www.thefire.org/news/ohio-professors-pronoun-use-lawsuit-delivers-first-amendment-victory
  148. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/united-states-v-varner/
  149. https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-public-schools-fcps-virginia-court-lawsuit-gender-inclusive-bathroom-pronoun-policy-lgbtqia-america-first-legal-student-teachers-hearing
  150. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/22/nyregion/massapequa-new-york-bathroom-lawsuit.html
  151. https://ncte.org/statement/genderfairuseoflang/
  152. https://www.lsadc.org/guidelines_for_inclusive_language
  153. https://www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/
  154. https://www.lottie.com/blogs/blog/draft-let-toys-be-toys-lottie-dolls-challenging-established-categories
  155. https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news/2021/september/lego-ready-for-girls-campaign
  156. https://time.com/5885697/gender-creative-parenting/
  157. http://www.transyouthequality.org/
  158. https://ohr.dc.gov/page/safe-bathrooms-dc
  159. https://pflag.org/resource/nonbinary-resources/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.