How language shapes science: New research examines definitions of sex, gender across different studies

In 1609, English beekeeper Charles Butler confirmed and help popularize a shocking discovery: the existence of the queen bee.

Before then, scholars widely believed beehives were ruled by "king" bees, reflecting a time in society when men were at the top of the social hierarchy.

Metaphors are often used to make science more understandable, but they also carry cultural weight. Because they draw on shared values, metaphors frequently reflect ideas about gender and sex roles. Just as early social hierarchies shaped how scientists imagined bee societies, cultural worldviews have long influenced the study of humans — from sexual reproduction to brain function. These perspectives affect not only the questions researchers ask, but also how they design studies, collect data and interpret results.

Recent research published in the American Journal of Human Biology by Cindi SturtzSreetharan, a President’s Professor within Arizona State University's School of Human Evolution and Social Change, looks at how human biologists use the terms "sex" and "gender" in their research.

After analyzing 68 original studies published in 2023 in the American Journal of Human Biology, SturtzSreetharan and her colleagues found wide variation in the definition and application of these terms, noting that they were often conflated and lacked a clear definition.

“Historically, I think people really wanted sex to be in the realm of biology only,” SturtzSreetharan said. “Whereas gender was supposed to be capturing this idea that it’s something happening only in the social world. In the past, maybe two decades, people have been putting these terms back together.”

In analyzing how the terms “sex” and “gender” were used, the team looked for both explicit and implicit definitions. Explicit definitions were clear statements, like “biological sex is ...” or “sex was reported as ...” while implicit definitions were produced from surrounding text that indicated how the terms were being used. An “other” category captured cases that didn’t fit neatly, including phrases like “both genders” or “opposite sexes.” This approach helped track not only how the terms were defined, but also the ways they were used throughout the texts.

In total, 30 articles used implicit definitions, relying on binary categories like men/women, male/female or boy/girl. Eleven articles used explicit definitions, and 25 fell into the “other” category.

The findings provide insight into how human biologists currently understand and use the terms sex and gender in their research. How these scientific findings are understood by readers can influence institutions including health care, law, academia and political legislation, among others.

As a linguistic anthropologist, SturtzSreetharan studies language in all of its manifestations and how it contributes to making us human. This includes things like spoken language, written texts and ritual performances. Sometimes her work examines how language is shaped by and reinforces gender and sex, revealing how societal norms, roles and expectations around masculinity and femininity have changed over time.

“Think of all of the books out there about male and female differences,” said SturtzSreetharan. “It's often couched in ideas about different planets, or like they're at war, or we can never understand each other, or something like this. There's this cultural ideology, or belief system, around men and women being very different.”

These differences come with loaded descriptions of men and women as well, with women often generalized as soft and nurturing, and men being aggressive and dominant. While these traits don’t describe every individual, they are often projected onto biological processes in science research, just like the “king” bee. This shows that when scientists use language without being aware of the multiple social meanings of their language use, we risk oversimplifying biology and overlooking variation and complexity.

“Every time we're using language to try to describe something that we think is objective, concrete and hard science, we're using language that has all these other meanings wrapped up into it. And as far as I can tell, we can't get out of it,” SturtzSreetharan said.

However, she does have some idea of where we can start: Define how sex and gender are being operationalized in research, embrace the idea that language is social action and review current literature about sex and gender prior to publication.

“I won't say gender hasn't changed over time. I think what we're doing is we're modifying it. What I'm finding is people are pulling out different ways of thinking about gender. And so, as opposed to just using gender as a big term that has everything, I think people are achieving levels of nuance and definitions.”

SturtzSreetharan says that by examining and questioning the words researchers use, it becomes possible to uncover hidden biases and allow for more nuanced understanding. In doing so, scientists can move toward describing life and human biology with greater accuracy and care.