Feminism has often grappled with the complex and frequently fraught relationship between biology and gender. Throughout history, biological arguments have been deployed to justify restrictive societal roles for women, dictating their behavior, limiting their opportunities, and confining their activities. These interpretations, often presented as scientific truths, are deeply intertwined with prevailing ideologies, cultural norms, and political agendas. The early 20th century provides a stark example, where medical professionals argued that intellectual stimulation could harm women’s reproductive organs, thus advocating against their education. Consequently, feminist movements have consistently challenged the misuse of biology to uphold sexist ideologies. This history has led to a certain skepticism, even a reflexive aversion, among feminists towards biological arguments. However, in rejecting deterministic interpretations, there’s a risk of discarding valuable scientific insights into the female body.
The feminist awakening of the 1990s was often marked by encountering a barrage of biologically deterministic ideas about women’s nature and prescribed roles. This led to a problematic conflation of biology itself with its politically and ideologically driven interpretations. Biology, rather than the biased interpretations of it, became the perceived enemy, fostering a disengagement with the subject. The prevailing deterministic framework made it difficult to see beyond these narrow interpretations, effectively shutting down any meaningful exploration of the biological realities of being female. While problematic arguments about women’s roles persist, the discourse around biology and gender has evolved considerably, suggesting a readiness for a more nuanced, scientifically grounded conversation.
Two recent books exemplify this shift, offering fresh perspectives on female biology. Cat Bohannon’s ”Eve: The Disastrous History of Women’s Health and How We Fix It” (originally titled “Eve – Kvinnokroppen: den mänskliga evolutionens motor sedan 200 miljoner år”) frames biology not as the enemy, but as a crucial element in the feminist struggle. Bohannon argues that a lack of understanding about women’s bodies creates significant risks, particularly in healthcare. Medical research has historically prioritized male bodies, often due to the perceived complexities of the female reproductive cycle in research. This male bias has profound implications for women’s health. Astonishingly, the first drug tested on a significant number of women wasn’t approved until 2004. This disparity in research continues to disadvantage women when they require medical care, as treatments and dosages are often based on male physiology.
This male-centric approach is particularly evident in the case of pain medication. While such medications are more frequently prescribed to women, often for conditions specifically related to female biology like endometriosis, the dosages are primarily based on studies conducted on men. This irony highlights the urgent need for research that considers the unique biological realities of women. Bohannon’s book expands beyond a critique of medical research to explore the broader evolutionary history of women. Through meticulous research across various scientific disciplines, she traces the crucial role women have played in human evolution and development, challenging conventional narratives that center on male agency. She re-examines significant milestones in human history, arguing that the development of tools, often attributed to male ingenuity, was likely driven by the needs of women who bore the responsibility of feeding and caring for offspring.
Beyond tools, Bohannon posits that gynecological knowledge, including practices surrounding childbirth, played a pivotal role in human survival and advancement. These practices, developed and refined by women over generations, mitigated the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth, demonstrably contributing to human evolution. Bohannon carefully distinguishes between biological sex and gender identity, cautioning against simplistic translations of biological realities into cultural expectations. She challenges the enduring, and often damaging, stereotype of active males and passive females, a narrative deeply embedded in Darwinian theory and reinforced by subsequent interpretations. This perspective unfairly diminishes the active role females play in shaping their own lives and evolutionary history.
Lucy Cooke’s ”Bitch: On the Female of the Species” further dismantles these stereotypes. While acknowledging differing roles in reproduction across species, Cooke argues against the simplistic characterization of female animals as passive, attributing this misconception to historical underrepresentation and cultural biases in scientific observation. She criticizes Darwin’s projection of Victorian gender roles onto the animal kingdom, demonstrating through examples like the assertive female Northern Goshawk, a bird of prey where females engage in aggressive aerial displays while males remain relatively peaceful, how these assumptions often contradict observed reality. Cooke’s examples reveal how scientific interpretations can be skewed by prevailing social norms, highlighting the importance of challenging these biases to achieve a more accurate understanding of female biology and behavior. Both Bohannon and Cooke offer compelling arguments for revisiting our understanding of female biology, not as a justification for limiting women’s roles, but as a celebration of their complex contributions to human evolution and survival. Their work encourages a renewed appreciation for the biological realities of being female, free from the constraints of sexist interpretations, opening up new avenues for feminist thought and action.
