Genders, sexes, and health: what are the connections—and why does it matter?

Nancy Krieger

Department of Health and Social Behavior, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boson, MA 02115, USA. E-mail: nkrieger{at}hsph.harvard.edu


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 References
 
Open up any biomedical or public health journal prior to the 1970s, and one term will be glaringly absent: gender. Open up any recent biomedical or public health journal, and two terms will be used either: (1) interchangeably, or (2) as distinct constructs: gender and sex. Why the change? Why the confusion?—and why does it matter? After briefly reviewing conceptual debates leading to distinctions between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ as biological and social constructs, respectively, the paper draws on ecosocial theory to present 12 case examples in which gender relations and sex-linked biology are singly, neither, or both relevant as independent or synergistic determinants of the selected outcomes. Spanning from birth defects to mortality, these outcomes include: chromosomal disorders, infectious and non-infectious disease, occupational and environmental disease, trauma, pregnancy, menopause, and access to health services. As these examples highlight, not only can gender relations influence expression—and interpretation—of biological traits, but also sex-linked biological characteristics can, in some cases, contribute to or amplify gender differentials in health. Because our science will only be as clear and error-free as our thinking, greater precision about whether and when gender relations, sex-linked biology, both, or neither matter for health is warranted.


Keywords Epidemiological methods, epidemiological theory, gender, men’s health, sex, women’s health

Accepted 18 February 2002

Open up any biomedical or public health journal prior to the 1970s, and one term will be glaringly absent: gender. Open up any recent biomedical or public health journal, and two terms will be used either: (1) interchangeably, or (2) as distinct constructs: gender and sex. Why the change? Why the confusion?—and why does it matter?

As elegantly argued by Raymond Williams, vocabulary involves not only ‘the available and developing meaning of known words’ but also ‘particular formations of meaning—ways not only of discussing but at another level seeing many of our central experiences’ (ref. 1, p. 15). Language in this sense embodies ‘important social and historical processes’, in which new terms are introduced or old terms take on new meanings, and often ‘earlier and later senses coexist, or become actual alternatives in which problems of contemporary belief and affiliation are contested’ (ref. 1, p. 22).

So it is with ‘gender’ and ‘sex’.2,3 The introduction of ‘gender’ in English in the 1970s as an alternative to ‘sex’ was expressly to counter an implicit and often explicit biological determinism pervading scientific and lay language.2–8 The new term was deployed to aid clarity of thought, in a period when academics and activists alike, as part of and in response to that era’s resurgent women’s movement, engaged in debates over whether observed differences in social roles, performance, and non-reproductive health status of women and men—and girls and boys—was due to allegedly innate biological differences (‘sex’) or to culture-bound conventions about norms for—and relationships between—women, men, girls, and boys (‘gender’) (Table 1Go). For language to express the ideas and issues at stake, one all-encompassing term—‘sex’—would no longer suffice. Thus, the meaning of ‘gender’ (derived from the Latin term ‘generare’, to beget) expanded from being a technical grammatical term (referring to whether nouns in Latin and related languages were ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’) to a term of social analysis (ref. 1, p. 285; ref. 4, p. 2; ref. 5, pp. 136–37). By contrast, the meaning of ‘sex’ (derived from the Latin term secus or sexus, referring to ‘the male or female section of humanity’ [ref. 1, p. 283]) contracted. Specifically, it went from a term describing distinctions between, and the relative status of, women and men (e.g. Simone DeBeauvoir’s The Second Sex9) to a biological term, referring to groups defined by the biology of sexual reproduction (or, in the meaning of ‘having sex’, to interactions involving sexual biology) (ref. 1, p. 285; ref. 4, p. 2; ref. 5, pp. 136–37).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1 Definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. From A Glossary for Social Epidemiology2
 
As the term ‘gender’ began to percolate into everyday use, however, it also began to enter the scientific literature,3–8,10 sometimes with its newly intended meaning, other times as a seemingly trendy substitute for ‘sex’—with some articles11 even including both terms, interchangeably, within their titles! Other studies, by contrast, have adhered to a strict gender/sex division, typically investigating the influence of only one or the other on particular health outcomes.3–8,10 A new strand of health research, in turn, is expanding these terms from singular to plural by beginning to grapple with new constructs of genders and sexes now entering the scientific domain, e.g., ‘transgender’, ‘transsexual’, ‘intersexual’, which blur boundaries not only between but also within the gender/sex dichotomy (Table 1Go).8 The net result is that although lucid analyses have been written on why it is important to distinguish between ‘gender’ and ‘sex’,4–8 epidemiological and other health research has been hampered by a lack of clear conceptual models for considering both, simultaneously, to determine their relevance—or not—to the outcome(s) being researched.

Yet, we do not live as a ‘gendered’ person one day and a ‘sexed’ organism the next; we are both, simultaneously, and for any given health outcome, it is an empirical question, not a philosophical principle, as to whether diverse permutations of gender and sex matter—or are irrelevant. Illustrating the importance of asking this question, conceptually and analytically, Table 1Go employs an ecosocial epidemiological perspective2,12 to delineate 12 examples,13–24 across a range of exposure—outcome associations, in which gender relations and sex-linked biology are singly, neither, or both relevant as independent or synergistic determinants.25 These examples were chosen for two reasons. First, underscoring the salience of considering these permutations for any and all outcomes, the examples range from birth defects to mortality, and include: chromosomal disorders, infectious and non-infectious disease, occupational and environmental disease, trauma, pregnancy, menopause, and access to health services. Second, they systematically present diverse scenarios across possible combinations of gender relations and sex-linked biology, as singly or jointly pertinent or irrelevant. In these examples, expressions of gender relations include: gender segregation of the workforce and gender discrimination in wages, gender norms about hygiene, gender expectations about sexual conduct and pregnancy, gendered presentation of and responses to symptoms of illness, and gender-based violence. Examples of sex-linked biology include: chromosomal sex, menstruation, genital secretions, secondary sex characteristics, sex-steroid-sensitive physiology of non-reproductive tissues, pregnancy, and menopause.

As examination of the 12 case examples makes clear, not only can gender relations influence expression—and interpretation—of biological traits, but also sex-linked biological characteristics can, in some cases, contribute to or amplify gender differentials in health. For example, as shown by case No. 9, not recognizing that parity is a social as well as biological phenomenon, with meaning for men as well as women, means important clues about why parity might be associated with a given outcome might be missed. Similarly, as shown by case No. 11, recognition of social inequalities among women (including as related to gender disparities between women and men) can enhance understanding of expressions of sex-linked biology, e.g. age at perimenopause. Because our science will only be as clear and error-free as our thinking, greater precision about whether gender relations, sex-linked biology, both, or neither matter for health is warranted.


KEY MESSAGES

  • Gender, a social construct, and sex, a biological construct, are distinct, not interchangeable, terms; the two nevertheless are often confused and used interchangeably in contemporary scientific literature.
  • The relevance of gender relations and sex-linked biology to a given health outcome is an empirical question, not a philosophical principle; depending on the health outcome under study, both, neither, one, or the other may be relevant—as sole, independent, or synergistic determinants.
  • Clarity of concepts, and attention to both gender relations and sex-linked biology, is critical for valid scientific research on population health.

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2 Selected examples of differential roles of gender relations and sex-linked biology on health outcomes: only gender, only sex-linked biology, neither, and both

 

    Acknowledgments
 
Thanks to Sofia Gruskin for helpful comments. This work was not supported by any grant.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 References
 
1 Williams R. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Revised Edn. NY: Oxford University Press, 1983.

2 Krieger N. A glossary for social epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:693–700.[Free Full Text]

3 Krieger N, Fee E. Man-made medicine and women’s health: the biopolitics of sex/gender and race/ethnicity. Int J Health Serv 1994;24:265–83.[ISI][Medline]

4 Oudshoorn N. Beyond the Natural Body: An Archeology of Sex Hormones. London: Routledge, 1994.

5 Hubbard R. Constructing sex differences. In: Hubbard R. The Politics of Women’s Biology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990, pp. 136–40.

6 Schiebinger L. Nature’s Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.

7 Doyal L. Sex, gender, and health: the need for a new approach. BMJ 2001;323:1061–63.[Free Full Text]

8 Fausto-Sterling A. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000.

9 DeBeauvoir S. The Second Sex. NY: Vintage Books, 1974 (1952).

10 Institute of Medicine, Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences. Wizemann TM, Pardue M-L (eds). Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter? Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.

11 Boling EP. Gender and osteoporosis: similarities and sex-specific differences. J Gend Specif Med 2001;4:36–43.[Medline]

12 Krieger N. Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: an ecosocial perspective. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:668–77.[Free Full Text]

13 Ippolito G, Puro V, Heptonstall J, Jagger J, De Carli G, Petrosillo N. Occupational human immunodeficiency virus infection in health care workers: worldwide cases through September 1997. Clin Infect Dis 1999;28:365–83.[ISI][Medline]

14 Liesegang TJ. Contact lens-related microbial keratitis: Part I: Epidemiology. Cornea 1997;16:125–31.[ISI][Medline]

15 Ranke MG, Saenger P. Turner’s syndrome. Lancet 2001;358:309–14.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

16 Aoki Y. Polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and polychlorinated dibenzofurans as endocrine disrupters—what we have learned from Yusho disease. Environ Res 2001;86:2–11.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

17 Pickle LW, Gillum RF. Geographic variation in cardiovascular disease mortality in US blacks and whites. J Natl Med Assoc 1999;91:545–56.[ISI][Medline]

18 Van Tongeren M, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Gardiner K et al. A job-exposure matrix for potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals developed for a study into the association between maternal occupational exposure and hypospadias. Ann Occup Hyg 2002;46: 465–77.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19 Melvin CL, Rogers M, Gilbert BC et al. Pregnancy intention: how PRAMS data can inform programs and policy. Matern Child Health J 2000;4:197–201.[CrossRef][Medline]

20 Hader SL, Smith DK, Moore JS, Holmberg SD. HIV infection in women in the United States: status at the Millennium. JAMA 2001; 285:1186–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

21 Kravdal O. Is the relationship between childbearing and cancer incidence due to biology or lifestyle? Examples of the importance of using data on men. Int J Epidemiol 1995;4:477–84.

22 Feldman T, Silver R. Gender differences and the outcome of interventions for acute coronary syndromes. Cardiol Rev 2000;8:240–47.[Medline]

23 Wise LA, Krieger N, Zierler S, Harlow BL. Lifetime socioeconomic position in relation to onset of perimenopause: a prospective cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:851–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24 Watts C, Zimmerman C. Violence against women: global scope and magnitude. Lancet 2002;359:1232–37.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

25 Darroch J. Biological synergism and parallelism. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:661–68.[Abstract]