Imagine you are invited to a room only to remain unnoticed for more than an hour. You are sitting back patiently and waiting to be seen, addressed or at least experience the feeling of inclusivity. Over time, the silence begins to feel intentional, as though your presence matters less than everyone else’s in the room.
For decades, this has been the reality for many women and LGBTQ+ individuals within scientific and psychological research. While science claims to study humanity as a whole, history shows that not all human experiences have been treated equally. Much of medical and psychological research has centred around male, heterosexual perspectives, leaving other identities underrepresented, misunderstood, or completely ignored.
Who becomes the ‘Standard Human’?
Historically, scientific research has centred around male bodies and experiences. Clinical trials have been carried out only on males. This is a phenomenon described as androcentrism, where men are viewed as the default standard for humanity. Women were excluded due to concerns like pregnancy, hormonal cycles and biological complexity (Perez,2019). Although these exclusions were often justified as medical precautions, they resulted in understanding male bodies far better than female bodies.
This bias has had serious consequences. Symptoms of a heart attack in women, for example, often differ from the classic symptoms commonly taught in medical books because those symptoms were originally drawn out through studies done on male bodies. As a result, women’s symptoms were more likely to be dismissed, misunderstood or labelled as emotional exaggeration.
When Research Ignores Women
The effects of androcentrism extend beyond physical health and into psychology as well. For decades, psychological theories and diagnostic criteria were studied only on white heterosexual men from Western societies. These findings were then generalised throughout the society despite the differences in gender, culture, life experiences and sexuality.
A major real-life example can be seen in the Autism Spectrum Disorder ( ASD ) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Diagnostic criteria were primarily based on how symptoms occurred in boys. Girls often displayed symptoms differently, such as masking social difficulties, internalising emotions or appearing quiet rather than being disruptive. Because of this, many girls remained undiagnosed until adulthood ( Lai et al, 2015).
Historically, this bias was also visible through the diagnosis of hysteria, a condition once associated only with women. During the 19th century, women who were experiencing intense emotions, anxiety or sadness were considered chaotic rather than being understood or medically evaluated. The term itself originated from the Greek word hystera, meaning uterus, reflecting the belief that women’s bodies and emotions are unstable ( Showalter,1985).
Research shows that women’s pain is taken less seriously, leading to late diagnosis and inadequate treatment ( Hoffman &Tarzian,2001).
The People Science Chose to Ignore
The concept of the standard human has also marginalised LGBTQ+ individuals. For many years, psychology viewed non-heterosexual identity through a pathological lens. Homosexuality, for example, was considered a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders ( DSM) until 1973. This reflects how scientific institutions were more about social prejudice, ignoring the objective truth.
An example of this can be seen in conversion therapy practices, where LGBTQ+ individuals were forced into harmful treatments intended to correct their sexuality. These caused psychological harm and reinforced the belief that only being heterosexual is accepted in society and is considered to be normal. Gender schemas influence how society defines acceptable behaviour ( Bem,1981). Even today, LGBTQ+ communities often remain underrepresented in health and psychological research, resulting in gaps in mental health care and support systems.
Who Decides What is “Normal”?
Psychologist Sandra Bem proposed the Gender Schema Theory, which explains how societies develop rigid ideas about masculinity and femininity that shape behaviour and expectations ( Bem,1981). These gender schemas not only influence social interaction but also scientific research, affecting what researchers should study and how they interpret their findings.
In addition, feminist psychologists argued that men’s experiences were considered normal human experiences while ignoring women’s perspectives. This shows that science and research are often influenced by the cultural and societal beliefs of their time ( Gilligan,1982).
Read More: Understanding Gender and Sexuality in Psychology
Beyond One “Default” Human
In recent years, researchers have realised and recognised the need for inclusive and intersectional research practices. Clinical trials and psychology research have started including participants from different genders, races, sexual orientations, and cultural backgrounds. Such diversity is important because no single group can represent the entirety of human experiences.
For instance, modern medical research has begun to specifically study women’s health conditions such as endometriosis and postpartum depression, issues that were historically neglected. Similarly, growing LGBTQ+ mental health research has helped create more supportive and affirming therapeutic approaches.
Ultimately, the question that becomes the standard human reveals that science is deeply shaped by social power. A truly fair and accurate scientific research must recognise and include the diversity of human experiences rather than treating one Identity as a universal norm.
References +
- Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364.
- Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
- Hoffmann, D. E., & Tarzian, A. J. (2001). The girl who cried pain: A bias against women in the treatment of pain. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 29(1), 13–27.
- Lai, M. C., Lombardo, M. V., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2015). Autism. The Lancet, 383(9920), 896–910.
- Caroline Criado Pérez. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. Abrams Press.
- Showalter, E. (1985). The female malady: Women, madness, and English culture, 1830–1980. Pantheon Books.
