Opinion: How treating men and women the same can be dangerous

A few years ago, I ordered T-shirts for a family reunion. The sizing said “unisex,” which implies the shirts are designed to fit men and women. But when they arrived, I realized mine did not accommodate my body the way it fit my husband. In fact, the “unisex” shirt looked just like every other man’s T-shirt.
This small example typifies a much larger issue — that we assume that data collected from men provides us with universal information. The assumption has been that men’s bodies, perspectives and experiences are the “standard” and “normal” and that women’s are probably (or should be) the same. These assumptions have led to mistakes, mistreatment, discrimination, injury and even death. Although things are changing, there is a lot that has not.
I just reread the book “Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men,” which highlights so many examples of data bias through the decades and how it has been — and continues to be — problematic for women. Although there are hundreds of examples, let me provide four here:
First, hundreds of health studies and drug trials have failed to include women participants or analyze results by gender. This has led to the male physiology being used to define both conditions and treatments. Much of this is still used today. For instance, medical textbooks have outlined the typical symptoms of heart attacks that men experience, and for a long time it went unnoticed that women present very different symptoms. As a result, women suffering heart attacks today are still treated half as often as men because their symptoms aren’t “typical.”
Research has found differences between men and women in every organ system and tissue in the human body. In fact, a host of studies have found that men and women metabolize drugs differently, react to vaccinations differently, are impacted by diseases differently, in terms of prevalence and severity, and respond to strokes differently, particularly in the way cells die. Many medical professionals still don’t know the differences.
Second, the crash-test dummies that have been used for decades to test vehicle safety have been based on an average male body, which then puts women at higher risk of getting injured in an accident. In fact, one study noted that because of this, women were 47% more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than men. Although this is changing, it is still taking time.
Third, a few years ago I published an editorial titled “Can snow plowing be sexist? Yes it can.” The research started as a joke at a town meeting in Karlskoga, Sweden. After conducting research, the town’s leaders actually discovered their snowplow routes were indeed designed for men, without considering the unique commuting patterns of women. The town experimented by flipping the snow-clearing order, clearing first for pedestrians and public transport that more women were utilizing. Over time, they realized that the cost of pedestrian accidents in bad weather was twice the price of snow maintenance. The root of the problem was the assumption that all residents in communities have the same needs.
Fourth, I also published a piece in 2023 titled “We need to address the problem of bathroom equity,” where I brought up the issue that in most public spaces, the square footage of men’s and women’s restrooms are the same or “equal.” There is an assumption that if you give everyone exactly the same things, everyone’s needs will be met. However, as should be obvious, anatomical differences between men and women result in women needing more time in bathrooms. I won’t provide more details, but I’ll just say it is not because we are slow or high maintenance — it is a function of anatomy. And, according to research cited in “Invisible Women,” urban planning often does not account for women’s risk of being sexually assaulted when determining the location of public bathrooms and other spaces.
Being aware of the gender data gap is a good place to start. Making sure we know the separate data for men and women in everything we do is important for making better decisions at the individual, family, organizational, societal and state levels. This means that we need to be collecting more data by gender and other demographic variables that are important to who we are. As we do this, we can be more effective by providing the right resources to those who need them most.
As the author of “Invisible Women” stated, “Seeing men as the human default is fundamental to the structure of human society. It’s an old habit and it runs deep.” Men and women are different. No surprise there. But because there are so many differences, there need to be spaces, programs, centers and initiatives where those differences can be better served. Remember: One size does not fit all.