Challenging Gender Stereotypes in Medical Science: A Critical Examination of Periphery and Power Dynamics
- Policy Corner JSGP
- Apr 5
- 5 min read
By Deeksha Gupta
Abstract
This essay reflects on the concept of “Periphery” in the context of gender discrimination, systemic inequalities and historical exclusion in medical sciences, decision making structures and technology. It discusses about the gendered portrayal of reproductive biology and deep-rooted stereotypes (Martin, 1991). Likewise, Eubanks (2018), assesses the effect of algorithmic decision-making on marginalised groups and how biased data gives fire to inequalities in society. The essay argues that technology is shaped by human biases, and it can reimpose societal prejudices. Acknowledging these systemic biases can bring more equitable representation and opportunities for all where power is not concentrated at the core but distributed fairly across all individuals.
When something is on the periphery of your vision, you can only see it when you’re looking sideways. Periphery in literal sense means right at the boundary of something. The essay discusses the gender stereotypes, biases, historical exclusion of women and marginalized communities in the medical sciences, and how they happen to be at the periphery of the society and how they are being excluded from the mainstream society, decision - making, opportunities and acknowledgement. A report by World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2019, mentions that women constitute 70% of the total global health workforce but hold only 25% of senior roles, which reflects an imbalance in the society (WHO, 2019).
Martin's (1991) depiction of egg and sperm in scientific literature and its reflection of gender stereotypes proves the existence of male biases in medical science. Sperms are described as energetic, strong, and efficient while scientific language portrays eggs as passive and lacking agency. Despite the vast number of wasted sperm, menstruation is labelled wasteful. The egg is seen in need of getting rescued by the sperm like Rapunzel waiting for the prince to get herself rescued. Such arguments reflect broader societal stereotypes. Such imagery shows that men in the society dominate the lives of women and take decisions or make choices without consulting/incorporating their input. It’s a sheer reflection of patriarchy in the society. It can influence public perceptions and have implications on reproductive rights and technological advancements. The perception of sperm at the centre and eggs at the periphery is reflected through this.
However, recent scientific discoveries challenge traditional narratives (Like egg has the passive role in the reproduction process unlike sperm). Research tells us that, through chemical signalling, egg attracts and selects the sperm for fertilisation and hence, debunking the idea of passivity and establishing it is an active participant in the process. Discussions around reproductive rights and technologies, such as In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and genetic engineering, often intersect with societal perceptions of gender and personhood. By challenging gender stereotypes and promoting more inclusive and accurate representations, we can contribute to a more equitable understanding of reproductive biology and support reproductive justice for all individuals.
Jackson (2019) highlights the historical exclusion of women in medicine (as it was dominated by a male-centric perspective), leading to gaps. Medical knowledge gaps are often filled with hysteria narratives, particularly when women’s symptoms persist despite treatment. Historically, medical research has predominantly focused on male subjects, including cells, animals, and humans. The male bias in research leads to misdiagnosed diseases in women, contributing to their undertreatment and suffering. For example, delay in understanding hormonal fluctuations, and exclusion of women from early heart disease prevention trials led to delayed understanding of women’s heart health needs, resulting in higher mortality rates. We can observe that males are at the core and women are at the periphery. Another case in point could be - When manufacturing a car, the anatomy of a male is taken into consideration, neglecting the women.
Eubanks explores the intersection of technology, social inequality, and public policy, emphasizing the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. It highlights the complexities and shortcomings of automated eligibility systems in healthcare, where algorithmic decisions can adversely affect access to vital medical treatment and financial security. It underscores the broader impact of automated decision-making on an individual’s well-being and the need for more empathetic and responsive systems. Automated decision-making system disproportionately target marginalized communities, widening inequalities and perpetuating stereotypes. The misuse of data and algorithms by policymakers can lead to punitive measures against vulnerable populations, for example, restricting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients’ access to benefits. It raises ethical concerns like lack of transparency, accountability and oversight in the design and implementation of automated decision-making systems (Eubanks, 2018).
To ensure that technological innovations serve the public good and uphold the principles of fairness and justice we need to emphasize greater scrutiny and regulation. The use of surveillance technologies such as data analytics and predictive algorithms, to monitor and control the behaviour of marginalized communities is against ethics. Eubanks (2018) critiques the tendency to view technology as a panacea for all social problems. Greater awareness, accountability and ethical considerations in the design and implementation of such systems are the need of the hour.
Gendered stereotypes in science hinder young women’s self-identification with STEM fields, which affects their career choices and aspirations. According to Global Gender Gap Report (2023) which is published by World Economic Forum (WEF), only 29.2% of the STEM workforce is constituted by women in 146 nations evaluated. It leads to a lack of representation, recognition, and promotion for female researchers, resulting in shorter, less well-paid careers and under-representation in leadership positions. It not only affects women but also impedes a country’s development by limiting a talent pool and compromising the capacity to solve complex problems. Programs like ASPIRE, which focuses on incorporating gender-equitable teaching strategies into science instruction, and, CURIE, which aims to create world-class women scientists in all areas of science and technology to excel in research, are needed. The peripheries are visible in all spheres of life starting from the smallest unit of society that is, the family (the final decision taken by the head of the family, usually a male) to the global level (decision-making by few developed countries for all). The position holder changes but the notion remains the same.
Conclusion
The concept of the theme Periphery realizes the positionality of individuals/communities in society. The power remains at the centre, or the core and it reduces as we move towards the boundary. This position can be defined by many social markers like caste, class, gender, etc., and culture plays an important role in defining this position. The concept of co-production that is, science shapes culture and culture shapes science, is true for ages. The bigger question to ask in the 21st century is, can technology be biased? In my opinion, yes, as technology is a human product and hence is bound to operate on algorithm set and influenced by humans which in the larger sense is affected by the existing human social systems. Machine learning models and artificial intelligence (AI) systems are dependent on historical data which may or may not showcase the societal prejudices. If any community is unrepresented in the data, then the AI system might show results which is unfavourable to that community. For this century, “data is the new oil” which signifies that like oil, it holds huge value when utilized effectively. Like oil fuelled the industrial revolution, data powers the modern economy, decision making and societal progress1.
References:
Martin, E. (1991, April). The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance
Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(3), 485–501.
Gordon, F. (2019, November 25). Virginia Eubanks (2018) Automating Inequality: How High- Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: Picador, St Martin’s Press. Law, Technology and Humans, 162–164.
Jackson. (2019, November 13). The female problem: how male bias in medical trials ruined women’s health. The Guardian.
World Economic Forum. (2023). Gender gaps in the workforce. Global Gender Gap Report 2023.
About the Author
Deeksha Gupta is a final year masters student in Public Policy. Her interests span around gender, intersectionality and gender politics and endeavour to work at the intersection of it. Alongside she also loves to explore her potential and takes a deep interest in painting and music.
Comments