Men and Women: Gender Ideology and the Gender Binary

What is the gender binary, and how do we make sense of it? As part of a special issue at Archives of Sexual Behavior– “How many sexes are there? How many genders are there?” – our commentary asked on what people even count as a woman or man – and why. In this blog post, we share some key original ideas from our commentary, highlighting the relevance for the sex research and therapy world.

Who Counts as a Woman? Who Counts as a Man?

People often question the gender/sex of nonbinary and/or transgender people, but there are a number of ways that cisgender, binary women are judged not to be women and, similarly, that cisgender, binary men are judged not to be men.

For example, women who are and/or have been seen as ugly, fat, not good mothers, uninterested in femininity, tall, feminist, good at sports, intelligent, wanting/liking sex, lesbians, and/or members of racialized and/or colonized groups have been excluded from the category of women, as have those with higher testosterone, ovarian cancer, infertility, or even who are postmenopausal.

Men have also not been seen as “men” for reasons that overlap and diverge from those above. For example, men who are and/or have been seen as short, less hairy, caring about their appearance, vegan/vegetarian, experience emotions other than anger, gay, members of “lower social status groups”, feminist, or do not hold paying jobs have been excluded from the category of men, as have men with low sperm counts, low levels of desire, erectile issues, or genital cancers.

Clearly, men and women have been excluded from their rightful gender/sex categories for reasons that include sexuality directly or indirectly. And what is tragic is that so many of us (and clients, for clinicians) have felt the sting of this exclusion. In this way, who counts as a woman or man is not just a neutral question, but one that continues to affect people’s lives, notably in relation to sexuality.

How Cisgender Women and Men are Excluded: Precarious Manhood and Naturalized Womanhood

What does it mean when someone doesn’t fit the gender/sex checkboxes, and how are cisgender, binary people are excluded from their rightful gender/sex categories? We focus on two insidious gender ideologies as mechanisms.

You’ve probably heard phrases like “are you man enough?” or “man up!” These are examples of precarious manhood: the idea that men need to continually prove their manhood. Manhood is seen as carrying social rewards (e.g., power, higher pay) but! Precarious manhood is unfair to men because it suggests they can and should achieve manhood, whereas, in reality, the standards are impossible and shifting. This pressure has costs, e.g., focusing on the quantity of sex rather than on its quality for all involved or limiting options for what men can be and what do.

There is no equivalent of precarious manhood for women; after all, we don’t say “be a woman”. But there is a parallel: naturalized womanhood. This is the idea that womanhood is something that women are born with or are without effort. Like manhood, womanhood is seen as carrying value (albeit more limited) because it can include protection or meeting social norms. But it, too, carries a cost. Naturalized womanhood defines women as lesser than, weak, and leads to the majority of women being or feeling excluded from the category of “woman” at some point in their life.

We provide a figure that visualizes how these gender ideologies work to exclude binary, cisgender women and men from their rightful gender/sex categories – and transgender people as well. It can be powerful to see how the same gender ideologies apply to – and police – all of us. Check it out in the paper for full effect!

Why We Are Excluded and Who Benefits From This?

If the binary rejects so many of us from the “woman” or “man” categories, why does it exist, and what are these categories doing? These binaries and gender ideologies give gender/sex majorities the idea that they are “safe” in their gender/sex category if they have, e.g., the right body parts (for women) or just try hard enough (for men). This makes for “divide and conquer”, separating gender/sex majorities from minorities, women from men, and separates “us” versus “them”. Under this regime, instead of attacking gender ideologies that police all of us, majorities often direct their frustration at gender minorities. For example, cisgender binary men failing to “prove their manhood” are encouraged to blame feminist or “woke” agendas, transgender people for “muddying” gender, feminists for “ruining” sexuality, or even just women for being “unfairly” sexually disinterested. Likewise, cisgender, binary women are encouraged to scapegoat transgender women for “taking their spaces” rather than attack the gender ideologies that constrain them.

But as we describe above, these gender ideologies are actually agnostic about whether we are cisgender or transgender; they cannot be used to selectively police some of us. All of us are judged and frequently found wanting by these ideologies. So instead of debating “how many genders?”, “how many sexes?”, or “who counts as a woman or man”, we can focus on “who is asking this” and “why”, as well as “how can we work together to increase all gender/sex rights for all of us.”

By Sari van Anders & Eun Ju Son

Note: some content includes phrases taken from our paper!

Read the full paper: van Anders SM & Son E, in press. Commentary: Men and women: Gender ideology and the gender binary. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Special Issue “How Many Sexes Are There? How Many Genders Are There?”. doi: 10.1007/s10508-025-03343-8