The Egg and the Sperm: Do Biology Textbooks Exacerbate Gender Norms?

In the early 1600’s Galileo Galilei made the distinction between primary and secondary characteristics of knowledge. The former refer to scientific findings that are objective and quantifiable, while the former refer to subjective characteristics that cannot be measured scientifically. Throughout history, ‘science’ has thus become analogous to ‘objectivity.’ However, is it possible that societal biases somehow seep into and infiltrate the way scientific knowledge is dispersed and communicated? In her article “The egg and the sperm: how science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles,” Emily Martin elaborates on some of the many ways biology and physiology textbooks inadvertently are grounded on gender norms, and thus exacerbate gender stereotypes. 

In her article, Martin stresses how diction in academic textbooks subtly reinforces gender roles. Specifically, she argues that female physiological processes are depicted as degenerative instead of productive and fertile, and within the fertilization process, the sperm is presented as the active agent, while the egg is portrayed as a passive entity. For instance, while describing menstruation, Martin states that most medical texts designate it as the process by which the “debris” of the uterine lining is shed, and often refer to it using adjectives with negative connotations such as “wasteful”, “dying”, “losing” and “ceasing”. A best-selling biology textbook even states “oogenesis is wasteful.” In stark contrast, however, male’s vast production of sperm is seen as anything but wasteful, with most textbooks complimenting the “amazing magnitude” pertinent to the process of spermatogenesis. This contrast is quite salient in the classic text by Vernon Mountcastle, Medical Physiology: “whereas the female sheds only a single gamete each month, the seminiferous tubules produce hundreds of millions of sperm each day”. While the male produce “fresh” sperm daily, female’s eggs are stockpiled and merely degenerate slowly as they sit on the shelf.

Perhaps Martin’s most compelling argument stems from her discussion pertaining to the language used to describe the fertilization process. She postulates that, in accordance to stereotypical male and female roles, the egg is normally portrayed as a passive entity that relies on the action of the sperm to adequately fulfill her duty and even survive (see Figure 1 below for a classic example). For instance, Martin states that in most texts, the egg does not move and is instead passively transported, is “swept” or “drifts” along the fallopian tube. The sperm, on the other hand, travels in an “impressive velocity” to “deliver the genes to the egg” with their “strong” and efficiently powered tails, which, with a “whiplash motion and strong lurches” journey into “the deepest recesses of the vagina” where they “burrow through the egg coat and penetrate it.”  Although for a long time it was assumed that the egg had an impenetrable coat which the sperm had to break through, research has shown that in reality, the sperm is extremely weak. The egg traps the sperms and adheres to it tightly; in fact, the sperm’s movements are generally an attempt to escape the egg’s chemical grasp (Martin, 1991).

Perhaps even more striking, Martin comments on how some texts anthropomorphize the agents involved in the process and construct a fairy-tale like narrative in which the distressed egg must be rescued by the brave sperm. For instance, a text refers to the egg as “a dormant bride awaiting her mate’s magic kiss, which instills the spirit that brings her to life” and sperm as having a “ mission to move through the female genital tract in quest of the ovum” in a “perilous journey.” While some fall away “exhausted,” the “survivors” get to claim the prize and “assault” the egg. An article published by Discover Magazine emphasizes how perhaps most importantly, the egg is portrayed as a helpless damsel in distress, whose life depends on the success of the sperm’s rescue mission: “once released from the supportive environment of the ovary, the egg will die within hours unless rescued by a sperm” (Martin, 1991).

As Martin states, biology textbooks are importing cultural ideas about passive females and heroic males into the “personalities” of gametes, which means that science has the potential to be grounded by, and therefore exacerbate cultural norms. This notion becomes particularly salient when talking about how seemingly objective findings are being interpreted by scientists and disseminated to the public. For instance, attributing neural anatomy differences between males and females to evolutionary processes or to stereotypical or gender norm congruent skills (or lack thereof) can be a dangerous process that prescribes, rather than ascribes gender and sex differences, thereby perpetuating the cycle.

Figure 1. Typical example taken from google image search of 'fertilization'. The sperm is usually depicted as playing an active role in approaching and infiltrating the egg, while in reality, the egg attracts and envelops the sperm in a complex chemical process. (Image taken from carsonnfcb4c.wordpress.com)

References

Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: how science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. The University of Chicago Press, 16(3): 485-5011.

Biology's Impact on Gender Role

The topic of gender identity is a controversial topic when studying individuals who deviate from the norms. Individuals who are transgender have a gender identity which does not match their biological sex. Much controversy surrounds the basis of gender identity, with some attributing gender to social factors and others assuming a biological explanation. One model, shown below (figure 1), highlights the importance of hormones, while others focus on genetics or environment.

 Recent research has focused on the biological conditions which are correlated with a high rate of gender role change. In a review of the literature, Peggy T. Cohen-Kettins examined studies of individuals with 5α-reductase-2-defficiency (5α-RD 2) or 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17β-HSD-3).

What are 5α-RD 2 and 17β-HSD-3? 5α-RD 2 and 17β-HSD-3 are enzyme deficiencies which result in the outer genitals being incompletely masculinized. At birth, the individual may be labeled as female due to lack of external genital features; however, the individual has XY chromosomes, internal male genital structures, and will develop male secondary sex characteristics(Cohen et al., 2005). Frequently the disorder emerges around age 12 when individuals begin to develop the male secondary sex characteristics. Recent research has found that the majority of individuals originally raised as female change their gender identity to male, matching their biological sex. These conditions are both rare, caused by autosomal recessive genes (figure 1), 5α-RD 2 affecting 1 in 5,5005-Alpha-Reductase Deficiency and17β-HSD-3 affecting 1 in 127,00017-beta hydroxysteroid deficiency. Figure 2. Diagram of unaffected parents and the possible genes for their children Wikipedia.

Cohen-Kettins found that 56-63% of individuals with 5α-RD 2 and 39-64% of individuals with 17β-HSD-3 assigned a female role at birth later changed their gender to male. This research has serious implications on the ways in which we treat individuals with genital ambiguity. As a result of ambiguous genitalia, parents and doctors often feel forced to pick a gender for their child. Many parents choose to have their child’s external genitalia surgically altered to match the gender they select. However, based on this study, approximately half of individuals assigned as female will change their gender identity to male. Therefore, we should not perform genital surgery at a young age as the chosen gender identity may change as a child enters adulthood. As such, “the utmost care should be taken not to assign a gender to the child before evaluation and consultation with an experienced, multidisciplinary team. The first words spoken to the parents are likely to be remembered and should focus on the overall health of the infant”  New Internationalist Magazine.

Ethically, making a decision for a young child can be a very difficult decision. Having a child undergo genital reconstruction surgery will lead to large and irreversible changes in the child’s life. While perhaps more of an ethical dilemma than a scientific one, science can help us determine what factors impact an adult’s gender role and better predict outcomes. This is not a universal problem; however, as some societies have adapted to this abnormality. Some areas of the world have an exceptionally high incidence rate and therefore have special names (such as guevedoche) for these disorders. In these areas, in which the incidence can be as high as one in 150, a separate gender category is created. This leads me to wonder if the current two sex categories are inaccurate. Perhaps these individuals fit into neither of these categories and exist in a category that we fail to recognize.

If we take a standpoint that focused exclusively on the role of neonatal androgen levels in the brain, then we would expect to see all individuals assigned as female seek a change in gender identity due to the high neonatal testosterone levels. The lack of consensus on gender identity suggests that there are several other factors, besides genetics, that affect the gender role of an individual. These factors include the severity of the mutation, cultural and environmental pressures, a patient’s psychological reaction, and the reaction of the social environment.

The main problem with this research is that researchers are unable to directly manipulate the variables and have a randomized, double-blind procedure. Given the ethics involved in human research, we cannot manipulate the environment that individuals grow up in and therefore we must gather information from the experiences of individuals affected by these disorders. Studying disorders like these provides insight onto different variables and their effect on an individual’s gender identity; however, this is just the first step in better identifying the factors that affect an individual’s gender identity.

Improving health outcomes for trans* individuals by proving a biological basis for gender dysphoria

In my mind, “good science” seeks to find a link between the biological or physiological and social, which is what neuroscience often strives to do. The application of such science to current social issues is increasingly meaningful as various disciplines of science gain reputation and legitimacy. One such issue that can be addressed by scientific study is that of trans* identities and any biological basis for such identities. In our current society, a trans* identity is very highly stigmatized and carries many negative repercussions. A study carried out by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality in 2011 revealed high rates of poverty, mental illness, suicide, harassment and discrimination in school, the workplace, healthcare facilities, and in public. Coinciding with this is limited family acceptance and difficulty acquiring updated identity documents. Despite the high discrimination and violence faced by trans* individuals, they remain steadfast in their identities, which to some researchers suggests a biological difference and basis for their identity even in the face of such backlash. Recently, neuroscience has sought to draw a link between a biological basis of trans* identities and social issues in an attempt to further understand how sex manifests in the human brain and to alleviate the stigma faced by trans* individuals.

As such, Chia-Shu et al. (2014) set out to discover differences in brain activity and function between cis- and transsexuals in regards to body image and found significant results supporting a biological basis for gender dysphoria as experienced by trans* individuals. They found there to be significant differences in the body representation neural network between cis (CIS) and trans (TX) groups, both in location and in the connectional pattern of neurons, which suggests differences in functioning and how neurons in the brain activate, as can be seen below in Figure 1. These findings are in agreement with long-term dysphoric experiences held by those with gender dysphoria. 

Figure 1 “Connectional pattern of the node of interests (NOIs). The nodes with stronger connections (i.e., group connectivity .10%) within each of the NOIs are displayed for the TX and the CIS groups. The nodal size and edge color denote the strength of the group connectivity between a node and the NOI. Stronger group connectivity indicates that a larger number of participants shared the same edge in their binary networks.” (Chia-Shu et al. 2014)

Attribution of gender dysphoria to neurological functioning is an important step to legitimizing the disorder and to an individual’s desire to identify and present themselves as male or female through a variety of means. By proving a biological basis for this disorder, conditions for those suffering from stigma based on their identity can be greatly improved. Not only will it aid in eliminating stigma experienced in public, schools, and health care facilities, it will also improve health outcomes through changes in medical insurance provision and federal aid. Additionally, it will help to smooth the process of re-issuing of identification documents with the proper gender and in directing governmental policy and regulation regarding issues surrounding trans* individuals.

By exploring biological and physiological effects of what are often considered social phenomena, a link is created between the two that allows science the capability to significantly influence current social situations and impact future directions in terms of policy and decision-making, social acceptance and atmosphere, and quality of life.

Neuroaesthetics, a new discipline?

“Neuroaesthetics”, a field which has just recently been explored by some more adventurous neuroscientists, is an attempt to explain the human experience of art, and particularly the appreciation of some art pieces over others, in terms of cognitive mechanisms. John Hyman, Professor of philosophy at Oxford, recently argued in his piece “Art and Neuroscience” that the “neuro-aesthetics” proposed by the two main theorists in the field, V.S. Ramachandran and Semir Zeki, fail on numerous levels, such as improper translation from animal experiments to human experience, failure to distinguish the art object from other kinds of pleasurable objects (a difficult task but one long thought essential to aesthetic theory), and, most importantly, a narrow or otherwise unworkable definition of art itself. Hyman thinks these difficulties stem from a failure to build upon existing aesthetic theories.[1] When looking at the two scientists’ definitions of art, it is easy to see where he is coming from, Ramachandran’s view is essentially that all art is caricature, and Zeki believes that all “great art” is defined by its capacity for multiple interpretations. As Hyman puts it at the end of his article, “In neuroscience, and in psychology in general, philosophy is unavoidable; and if we ignore the philosophy of the past, we shall simply reinvent the wheel. In other words, our ideas will be based on mediocre and amateurish philosophy of our own.” And, what may well be worse, these theories create a model of a universal viewer, utterly ignoring gender, sex, and other forms of social positionality.

One of the principle problems with these neuroscientific approaches to aesthetic theory is that even if they could effectively explain the mechanisms by which human beings enjoy art, they would still be providing a “how” answer, when at least part of the question in aesthetics is always a “why”. For instance, Patrick Cavanaugh, in his article “The artist as neuroscientist” for Nature Neuroscience[2] claims that a recent study by Vuilleumier et al.[3] which demonstrated that blurry faces activated the amygdala more than sharpened or unfiltered versions perhaps demonstrates why impressionist paintings can be so emotionally evocative, when a photograph of the same scene seems unlikely to do the same. While it may be unscientific for Cavanaugh to make this leap, his story is somewhat plausible, but even if we take it to be true, the question remains, why do we like this? What about deriving an emotional experience from an art object is pleasurable?

An even bigger and more basic problem—which seems to have gone largely undiscussed—with these recent neuro-aesthetic theories is that they assume that a single piece of art’s quality can be expressed with a single explanation. In other words, they seem to be utterly unaware of the role of positionality in the perception and enjoyment of art. This is particularly obvious in Ramachandran’s chosen example of his proposed peak-shift (see figure and comment for explanation) effect, which is the exaggerated sex characteristics of classical sculptures of Indian goddesses. But one also has to ask, what exactly would Ramachandran’s explanation be for a straight woman or gay man who likes these sculptures? Zeki fails on similar grounds, seemingly failing to consider at all how the multiplicity of interpretations is dependent largely upon the viewer’s social position.

The peak-shift effect as demonstrated by pigeons pecking in response to different light wavelengths in H.M. Hanson’s experiment. The birds are first conditioned by being rewarded for one stimulus (s^D) and not for another (s^Δ), but then when shown a range of stimuli, they tend to overestimate the difference between the stimuli for which they are rewarded and that which they are not, causing the response peak to be “shifted” away from the reward stimulus.[4]  

Hyman argues that neuroscience, with its origins in 19^th century modes of thought and a philosophy of perception inherited from Locke and Kant is unlikely to succeed in the field of aesthetics without acknowledging its heritage. A number of 20^th century philosophers went further, arguing that art is precisely the thing which the scientific worldview cannot encapsulate. I am not willing to go that far. I think there is ample commonality between art and science, they are both ways of making sense of experience via observing and manipulating the world, so both are fundamentally exploratory. Interestingly, Cavanaugh makes a point about how the un-naturalistic but still readily visually acceptable uses of space and light in renaissance and baroque painting indicate how the visual system functions; while this same piece of evidence is used by cultural critics construct psychoanalytic meanings.  I think that explanations of neural mechanisms definitely have a promising place in aesthetics, but first we must understand more about the brain in general, and particularly the interrelated neural and social differences between viewers, and that these explanations will be much more useful if they are incorporated into the existing discipline rather than used to build a new one. 

                                                                                                                                                                       -Nathaniel Tingley

---

[1] Hyman, John. (2010) R. Frigg, M.C. Hunter (eds.), Beyond Mimesis and Convention, Boston Studies 245

in the Philosophy of Science 262.

[2] Cavanagh, P. (2005). The artist as neuroscientist. Nature, 434(7031), 301-307. doi:10.1038/434301a

[3] Vuilleumier, P., Armony J. L., Driver, J. & Dolan R. J. (2003). Nature Neurosci 6, 624-631.

[4] Hanson, H. M. (1959). "Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization". Journal of Experimental Psychology 58: 321–334.

Linguistic Change, Women, and the Power in Neuroscience

The poem “Totally, Like, Whatever” by Taylor Mali made the viral rounds several years ago and playfully criticizes the way younger generations speak with one another. He mocks the conversion of declarative sentences into questions, also known as “uptalk” (raised intonation at the end of phrases), and the excessive use of “like” and “you know” that characterize young people’s speech habits.

In the 1970’s, a new sociolect (a variety of a language spoken by a certain social group) in Southern California called “valleyspeak” or “valley girl” started making its way into popular culture. The characteristics of this way of talking? Uptalk and excessive use of “like”. Taylor Mali’s depiction of a generation’s language that is similar to a sociolect of the 1970’s exhibits a phenomenon virtually unknown to the general public: that women are the linguistic innovators that spark language evolution for future generations of both males and females.

Linguists have documented this phenomenon, and they are careful to state that such linguistic change is never indicative of a language’s descent into a “lower quality” state. Dialects and languages are not better structured than other variations; they are simply different and each has its own complex set of rules. Documentation of uptalk between both genders and descriptions of how both genders use it strategically help support the idea that changes in language trends do not mean a lowering of a linguistic standard. So, Taylor Mali’s criticism of the new way of speaking is linguistically flawed, and, radically speaking, against women’s ways of talking in 1970’s southern California.

Setting sociolinguistics aside (whole books can be written on this subject), it is trickier to explain why and how language change occurs, and why women in particular are agents in this process. Studies that investigate linguistic change over time are capable of describing what happens and suggesting how women are able to instigate linguistic change and innovation. An article in the New York Times summarizes some theories; one, that women use language to assert their power in a culture that usually denies them agency, and two, that young women are socially permitted to experiment with language,

While linguistic and sociological studies can describe what occurs on the surface, they cannot get into the deeper reasons that may explain what determines this phenomenon. When I refer to “deeper reasons”, I refer to the possibility that there could be structural features in the female brain that may contribute to their roles as linguistic innovators in society. A study conducted by Douglas D. Burman, Tali Bitan, and James R. Booth in 2008 attempts to explain how men and women differ in language abilities. Using a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging, the researchers were able to identify what parts of the brain are used when performing certain verbal tasks by measuring the amount of oxygenated blood that flows to certain regions.

They found that girls use language-specific structures in the brain and are more accurate when performing language tests, whereas boys rely on other brain structures not related to language and perform less accurately on the tests. The researchers conclude that girls “have significantly greater activation in linguistic areas of the brain” than boys. This study may explain why women are linguistic innovators: if women are more efficient at learning and using language than men are, it is a logical conclusion that women are more capable of introducing new linguistic ideas into the population.


While this study presents sound methods and reasonable analyses and conclusions on the data, it is always important to proceed with caution when trying to attribute differences between the sexes and social behavior to biological structures. Science has often been used to justify existing gender biases and reinforce the idea that women are passive beings who are subject to the changes placed upon them. However, with this study and the idea that women have power when it comes to language change, it is possible to rethink previous ideas about language and power, and expand our knowledge base instead of reinforcing what is already believed. Embracing linguistic change as an expansion, instead of rejecting it as a downgrade like Taylor Mali, supports the idea that women can have power in society and help dictate the future of linguistic change.