Is Being Gender-Atypical Easier for Women or Men?

Source: Alagich Katya, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Girls learn to be girls and boys to be boys from an early age and most maintain this gender distinction throughout early adolescence and into young adulthood. Developmental research demonstrates that it is during the pre-teen and early adolescent years when these gender roles are accepted and solidified, with the possibility of expansion.

Frequently, gender expression becomes a source of pride and satisfaction if youths conform to gender expectations or becomes calamitous if they fail to measure up to gender stereotypes. We know a considerable amount about gender-atypical youths and the consequences of not “appropriately” acting like others of their sex because of research that has focused on the verbal and physical ridicule gender-nonconforming youths receive from ostracizing peers and disappointed parents.

Pressures to conform

By contrast, we know relatively less about the pressures of conformity for those who are in the range of socially acceptable gender expression. Research by Matthew Nielsen and colleagues raised a provocative question: Are there costs for youths who are gender-typical as they conform to gender expectations?

They asked nearly 500 sixth graders, ages 10 to 13, to assess their gender typicality relative to peers and whether they felt pressure from self, parents, and peers to conform to gender norms. For example, girls were asked [reversed for boys], “I would be upset if I saw myself acting like a boy;” “My parents would be upset if I liked boys’ toys and activities;” and “Other kids would be upset if I acted like a boy.”

Nearly half of the youths described themselves as typical of adolescents of their gender. A quarter attributed to themselves being typical of both genders, and the rest were either low on gender characteristics of both sexes or they were gender atypical (cross-sex) for their biological sex.

Overall, by contrast to early adolescent girls, boys reported higher levels of coercion to conform to gender norms and expectations, primarily due to pressure they inflicted on themselves and, secondarily, the pressure they felt from parents and peers. That is, for example, boys sensed a stronger pull to being an appropriate boy in male groups than girls felt to be an appropriate girl in female groups. Although gender-typical girls tended to be more popular than gender-atypical girls, in girl culture there were sufficient alternatives (e.g., having athletic, professional, or artistic skills) to generate acceptance and popularity. In sum, it was far easier for a girl to be a tomboy than for a boy to be a sissy.

Nielsen and colleagues also asked the question, “Why would the most gender-typical individuals feel the most pressure to conform to norms?” Perhaps these are the individuals who, despite already recognizing that they are like other boys or girls of their sex, are most invested in maintaining the binary gender categories and roles they are conforming to. They are gender-schematic in that they are more likely to see the world through a gender-distinct lens because it is highly salient for them—especially for boys. They feel pressure to maintain their appropriate gender in a way that is less true for gender atypical youths who might have little hope of being gender-typical.

Given today’s society, boys benefit by being boys and thus feel a greater pressure than girls to conform and hence hope to gain more benefits from their biological sex. They have so internalized gender norms they become “gender police," not only for themselves but for others. Seen in this light, seemingly anti-gay discourse is less directed at gays/lesbians and more fixated on upholding and enforcing traditional gender norms for straight boys/girls. “Fag discourse” is less about sexuality and more about gender.

My take

I have devoted a considerable amount of research, teaching, and clinical efforts to enhancing the acceptance of sexual and gender diversity for and among youths. A related concern—one that I have pursued less frequently and with less concern—has been the effects of living up to traditional gender stereotypes for heterosexual youths. Nielson and others have done this for me, and the resulting findings are tragic: The pressure felt by both boys and girls to live up to what they have learned is ideal for their gender in terms of behavior, beliefs, and values can be intense and destructive to their wellbeing.

For many years, sexual minority youths have told me that it wasn’t their desire to have sex with a same-sex person which caused them grief from their peers but that they were behaving in a gender atypical manner. They advocated for the promotion and acceptance of gender diversity in all forms; if this happened, then sexual diversity would be less of a problem. That is, sexism trumps homophobia in importance.

Gender Essential Reads

How Biology and Culture Shape Gender Identity

Thinking About Gender

Although my focus on helping sexual minority youth accept and celebrate their gender diversity remains paramount for me, the research briefly outlined in this post expands that commitment to heterosexual youths who feel straitjacketed into gender conformity. They, too, need the freedom to experience and express their gender diversity. I enthusiastically agree with Nielsen and colleagues: “Thus, interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of gender diversity will likely improve the lives of sexual and gender minorities more effectively than interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of sexual minorities.” Although gender-conforming youths likely show less obvious signs of distress than their gender-atypical peers, the conformity pressure can lead to detrimental outcomes, including risky behavior such as alcohol-induced sexual encounters. Where are the interventions aimed at reducing the gender conformity pressures youth feel are standard for appropriate behavior?