GeneBites

Genetics continues to come under scrutiny in an educational context, with well-meaning simplification often erasing critical nuance and causing harm. Our teaching choices must embrace a more humanistic view of science.

The 2024 Paris Olympics recently became the focal point of a significant controversy in women’s boxing, where two female athletes were wrongfully accused of being male. The accusations garnered widespread news coverage, with major internet personalities, celebrities, and politicians contributing to the spread of misinformation regarding the athletes’ biological sex. As a result, the athletes faced harmful threats and discrimination. Incidents like this highlight the danger of misunderstanding and misrepresentation in discussions about sex and gender on a genetic level. How do these misunderstandings come about and what can science educators consider in addressing them?

These misunderstandings often originate from outdated and incorrect views that still exist in educational settings, particularly in biology classrooms. The prevailing perspective in these environments is often one of biological essentialism, which suggests that sex and gender are purely determined by genetics, with each sex displaying distinct, uniform traits and behaviors. According to this perspective, males and females are seen as having inherent genetic differences that are not at all influenced by external factors.

These essentialist ideas, however, do not reflect the scientific consensus. Researchers and experts who research sex determination understand that there is significant complexity and diversity within both male and female categories, and that gender is not synonymous with sex. A group of scientists and educators set out to identify why these essentialist ideas persist in society. They recognized that these ideas often have sociocultural origins, stemming from conceptual misunderstandings and cultural norms that lack scientific grounding.

To delve deeper into the sociocultural nature of these misconceptions, Donovan et al., (2024) examined high school biology textbooks. They analyzed six widely used textbooks, focusing on chapters related to genetics and sex determination. Their analysis revealed an alarming prevalence of non-scientific essentialist views being portrayed and discussed. The perpetuation of outdated ideas within educational media contributes to discrimination and stereotyping, causing harm and division within society. We see this  in how politicians and political commentators seize opportunities to degrade and engage in negative discussion, and how easily their ideas are amplified through social media. The discussion devolves from a scientific one to a political one, and facts are largely ignored.

To counteract this narrative, the researchers made several recommendations related to textbook design, science communicators and the science education community at large. First, both defining and differentiating between the concepts of biological sex and gender is a crucial starting point. The way these terms are used interchangeably is simply wrong and results in much of this misinformation. Second, they emphasized that discussing the complexity of sex determination, which involves genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors, and emphasizing the continuous variability within sex and gender groups will build a necessary foundation for discussion of these topics. Third, acknowledging the social construction of gender roles is crucial, too. By incorporating these changes, textbook authors can help students develop a nuanced and informed perspective on biological diversity and human identity.

As an educator, I’ve found that engaging in discussions with parents who hold essentialist views presents its own set of challenges. Many parents opt their children out of sex education due to fears that this curriculum would conflict with their personal or religious beliefs, which are often rooted in essentialist notions. This resistance poses a significant challenge to science educators striving to instill scientific literacy in students. When personal beliefs limit the acceptance of scientific paradigms, it often becomes difficult to encourage students’ exposure to, let alone acceptance of, sound scientific theory.

At the Olympics this year, the two boxers faced discriminatory aggression in being accused of being biological males despite being anatomically female, which is an argument rooted in biological essentialism. However, other characteristics that did not align with essentialist views, compounded by misinformation from unreliable sources, fueled the controversy. Their perceived physical dominance in competition was unfoundedly attributed to a genetic advantage, since any other explanation would run counter to essentialist ideas. ‘Men are dominant in this way, not women’, according to the essentialist cannon. These athletes were victims of significant online aggression, calls for their removal from the games, and threats of violence. The grossly inaccurate bigotry displayed against these athletes underscores the dangers of weaponizing incorrect science to discriminate against individuals.

Canadian science educator Ted Aoki once remarked that “Science…must be taught as a humanity.” By emphasizing the human element in science education, Aoki correctly understands the purpose of science as serving humanity, and as benefiting all who engage with it. Scientific discovery generally exists to fuel technological advancements and downstream societal benefits. In some unfortunate instances, however, science is misused to target and harm individuals, thereby contradicting the very essence of scientific inquiry.

This contradiction is particularly highlighted in the tension between biological essentialism and the scientific consensus on sex and gender. The misuse of incorrect science for discrimination runs counter to the goals of the broader scientific endeavor. A humanity-based view of science education, on the other hand, would give students perspective on the ethical and moral side of science’s relationship with society. By adopting a humanity-based or human centred view in science education instead, we can better appreciate the dignity and fair treatment of individuals in relation to biology and genetics. In my view, this shift starts in K-12 schools and should be carried on in higher education. A humanity-based approach to teaching science, which considers the real human impact of these ideas, is crucial to moving away from harmful non-scientific beliefs such as biological essentialism.

To achieve this, a critical examination of teaching materials is necessary, along with a commitment to improving science communication and to update curriculum. Biological essentialism has no place in modern science classrooms. By refurbishing science curricula to incorporate humanistic views on issues, we can begin to build a better informed and socially accepting populace with an understanding of science rooted in both theory and practice. Misinformation such as presented in our Olympic case study would not propagate due to society’s understanding of humanistic science. It is time for all of us to do better and foster a more informed and inclusive understanding of science that respects and supports diversity in human identity.

Edited by Jameson Blount & Jayati Sharma