Chapter 1: The Oversight of Non-Binary Representation

In an era where intelligence is highly valued, it's perplexing that the scientific community frequently overlooks the experiences of non-binary and transgender individuals. This exclusion raises questions about the commitment to true equality and equity within scientific circles.

Science, as many learn early on, is not just a method for understanding the universe; it is also a complex institution that encompasses a variety of roles ranging from funding bodies to students. It's widely recognized that this institutional framework grapples with significant gender-related challenges.

Numerous studies highlight the underrepresentation of women in scientific research publications, their struggles to secure funding due to biases, and the harassment they often face in various settings. Additionally, women frequently have to exert extra effort just to have their voices heard.

Unfortunately, many male scientists remain oblivious to these issues. Some who wish to be allies mistakenly believe that hosting "women-only" events is a viable solution rather than working towards an integrated approach to equality. In this ongoing endeavor to reform the scientific community, non-binary individuals often remain unseen.

For instance, science communicator Merryn McKinnon recently published an article on The Conversation discussing the gender disparity in science media. The findings were unsurprising: men are significantly more likely to be authors or featured voices in popular science articles, while non-binary and gender-fluid identities were largely ignored due to flawed methodologies.

Research papers concerning gender representation in science tend to follow similar patterns. Authors select a specific publication or time frame and begin compiling names. Subsequently, they assign genders based on assumptions or automated systems like Namsor to classify names into male, female, or unspecified categories. This method is fundamentally flawed.

Is it not evident how problematic this approach is? The notion of "men's names" and "women's names" is a societal construct. Names do not inherently denote gender. Furthermore, individuals such as Dave, Steve, Miriam, or Erika might identify as non-binary or gender nonconforming. Assigning gender based solely on names disregards the complexity of identity.

The authors of these studies rarely engage directly with their subjects. Instead, they compile names, categorize them using a binary framework, and proceed with their analysis. This narrow focus perpetuates the belief that gender exists solely as a binary construct and fails to recognize the experiences of non-binary individuals.

As the scientific community appears hesitant to embrace true equality, a "wait your turn" mentality seems to prevail. Cisgender men continue to dominate the field, while cisgender women struggle for recognition and respect. Equality should extend not only to men and women but also to those who reject traditional gender classifications.

If science as a discipline does not acknowledge non-binary identities, it cannot claim to be inclusive. Additionally, focusing solely on achieving a 50/50 gender balance ignores the systemic inequalities faced by marginalized groups, including people of color, Indigenous peoples, individuals with disabilities, and neurodivergent individuals. Our prevailing image of what a scientist looks like remains mired in centuries of oppression and bias.

Some argue that science operates as a meritocracy where ideas take precedence over personal identities. This assertion is misleading and often serves to protect the privileges of those already in positions of power. For those of us striving for change, it can feel as if we are being told to remain patient while the status quo persists. When transgender and gender-fluid individuals voice their concerns, there is an expectation to remain silent and not disrupt the narrative, even as the scientific community continues to use derogatory terms in its discourse.

Efforts to address these disparities must also evolve. If discussions of gender diversity in science exclude non-binary identities, they fail to represent the full spectrum of diversity. This oversight sends a message that non-binary individuals are invisible, unwelcome, and must endure ongoing struggles to engage with the scientific world.

This issue extends beyond theoretical discussions; even well-meaning researchers can perpetuate harm through ignorance.

Last summer, while participating in an expedition in Nevada's Pilot Range to study ancient marine reptiles, I encountered a distressing situation. Shortly after arriving, a local rancher approached our team, only to launch into a tirade filled with hateful language towards various groups, including derogatory comments aimed at the LGBTQ+ community.

As a newly out non-binary transfemme, still adjusting to my identity and physical changes, I felt extremely vulnerable. I distanced myself from the group, seeking safety and solace with my dog, painfully aware of the rancher's prejudices.

After the rancher departed, I confided in one of my team leaders about my unease. Their response, questioning how the rancher would even recognize my gender identity, reinforced my anxiety. The implication that I didn’t have to worry because of my appearance was dismissive of the very real fears I faced as a non-binary person.

This video, titled "Gender Equality in Science: Why is it taking so long?" features Prof. Paul Walton and delves into the barriers to gender equality in scientific fields. It emphasizes the importance of inclusivity beyond just the male-female binary.

In another insightful video, "Why Science Says Men & Women Will Never Be The Same," David Geary discusses the scientific perspectives on gender differences and their implications for inclusion in the field.