Consider how factors such as gender identity and biological sex influence political, social and economic outcomes.
Introduction
Gender has been an area of increasing consideration in the world of political science over the last two decades. Similar to previous sections in this chapter, how a term is defined has implications for how it is discussed, so it is important that terms and definitions are clear. Gender can be broadly defined as a spectrum of characteristics ranging from feminine to masculine, and gender tends to have more to do with how a person wants to identify. The difference between biological sex versus gender identity is critical to understand. According to the World Health Organization, biological sex refers to “the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.” whereas Gender refers to:
the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. The concept of gender includes five important elements: relational, hierarchical, historical, contextual and institutional. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit” established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health.
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Three icons for people with different gender identities, adapted from an image by Dan Brunsdon for The Noun Project (Source: by Arkirkland via Wikimedia Commons is licensed underCC0 1.0 Public Domain)
People frequently confuse the terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex,’ as though they mean the same thing. Instead, gender identity has much more to do with how a person chooses to identify, rather than on their biological sex, which is usually assigned at birth but can be changed in the course of life. Relating to biological sex, the divide between male and female has often influenced politics. Most frequently, women in most societies have been historically underrepresented and discriminated against. Looking globally at women’s suffrage, which is the right of women to vote in elections, over 180 countries now allow women to vote in some capacity. Nevertheless, most of the world’s movement towards allowing women to vote in elections came in the 20th century, including in the United States, where women were only granted the right to vote as of 1920. Beyond the right to vote, women’s rights globally are still not necessarily fully institutionalized, upheld or prioritized.
In most countries, women do not earn the same as men in similar positions, even when their credentials and experience meet or exceed their male counterparts. An interesting case study of the unequal treatment for women’s rights can be seen with the COVID-19 pandemic, which, in most countries, tended to push women out of the workplace. In the United States alone, female workforce participation dropped to 57%, the lowest levels since 1988. Of the 1.1 million people who were pushed from the workforce, 80% were women. Economic projections calculate it will take women twice as long as men to recover from their economic circumstances as a result of the pandemic. The pandemic, which forced many children into lockdown and quarantine, disproportionately affected women greater than men. Consider this:
One of the main drivers of this disparity is the increased burden of unpaid care—shopping, cooking, cleaning, taking care of kids and parents in the household—which is disproportionately carried by women. Pre-COVID-19, women on average already did almost twice as much unpaid care compared to men. The COVID-19 crisis has added a very uneven addition onto an already unequal baseline (Ellingrud & Hilton, 2021).
Outcomes around the world were also poor for women. Globally, it has been calculated that women’s jobs are twice as much at risk than male jobs. Women account for 39% of all jobs worldwide, but their participation in the workforce dropped by 54% worldwide with the pandemic. These findings have led a number of scholars to note that the pandemic has had a regressive effect on gender equality worldwide. This has led many scholars and organizations to consider ways to best reintroduce women into the workplace, and try to support the re-entry of women into the workplace. If women are not able to re-enter the workforce to the levels from pre-pandemic, it is likely that many economies will suffer greatly. Some calculations say the loss of women in the workforce will result in the loss of trillions of dollars of economic output.
Another factor of concern in this area is acceptance of gender identity in different political systems. More attention has been given in recent years to more diversity of options in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is defined as the sustained pattern of romantic and/or sexual attraction to people of opposite sex or gender, same sex or gender, or to both. The top five countries in the world for being accepting of different gender identities and sexual orientations are Iceland, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada.
Some of the countries accused of mistreating citizens of different gender identities and sexual orientations include: Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Malawi and Oman. Countries that are less accepting of different gender identities tend to have laws or legal codes against transgender and LGBTQIA+ communities. Also, there tends to be state propaganda and morality laws. In some cases, a person’s identity can be tantamount to a crime. Punishments can include long prison sentences and state-sanctioned violence, such as flogging. Some countries even go as far as to outlaw speaking about issues of gender identity and sexual orientation. At present, the US is ranked 20th for its treatment of the LGBTQIA+ community, primarily because not all US states offer protection against gender-based discrimination. In addition, other US states prohibit discussion of homsexuality and LGBTQIA+ issues. Interestingly, a report published by UCLA’s School of Law, the “Social Acceptance of LGBTQIA+ People in 175 Countries and Locations, 1981-2020,” found that 56 out of 175 countries have experienced improvements of acceptance since 1981. In contrast, 57 countries have experienced decreases in acceptance, whereas 62 countries have experienced no change in the acceptance of the LGBTQIA+ community (Flores, 2021).
