The Problem With the “Opposite Sex”

The phrase “opposite sex” was first documented in English in the late 1600s and has few signs of losing its appeal as a way to describe women versus men. Google Scholar reveals its ongoing widespread use in academic articles, including its use to describe nonhuman animals such as mice and birds. The New York Times just used the phrase this week in the heading to a book review about gender. The phrase “opposite gender” is similarly, if less often, used as a synonym.

People have objected to this term, including the American Psychological Association (APA) which recommends against its usage in scientific articles. The typical objections are reasonable: The term “opposite sex” exaggerates gender differences, or it ignores that some people do not identify along the gender binary of men and women.

Masculinity and Femininity

However, those do not include my main objection to the phrase “opposite sex” (or “opposite gender”). My concern is that it treats qualities associated with women (femininity) and those associated with men (masculinity) as though they cannot coexist in an individual. It implies that masculinity and femininity exist on a single dimension, where if you are described at one end of the pole, such as exceptionally masculine, you therefore lack anything at the other end of the pole, such as any femininity. For example, people assume that a female construction worker may not be emotionally approachable, or a male dancer may not be interested in watching professional sports.

But gender expression doesn’t work that way. Concepts of femininity and masculinity exist along two dimensions, such that an individual can be both masculine and feminine at the same time. The idea in psychology is old. The classic work in psychology, a 1974 paper written by Sandra Bem, introduced the Bem Sex Role Inventory, which allowed individuals to self-identify with qualities that were both masculine and feminine. Identifying with one did not require disavowing the other. You could embrace elements of both, and those who did were labeled “androgynous.”

"Androgynous"

That would have been a perfectly useful term, but the way androgynous became distorted in the popular culture was to have it not mean identifying with both masculine and feminine qualities equally as Bem intended, but to mean identifying with neither. The quintessential representation of “androgynous” in American culture was not a feminine woman who embraced her masculinity or a masculine man who embraced his femininity, but the character Pat from Saturday Night Live in the 1990s who was devoid of any cues of sex or gender and made the brunt of a longstanding joke. This was not an appealing advertisement for those who would otherwise identify with Bem’s notion of androgyny.

Regardless, it is useful to see masculinity and femininity as separate dimensions. Scientists have argued that these dimensions go beyond how we see ourselves; they form the backbone for how we view our social world. The term “opposite sex,” however, denies this reality. It reinforces the idea that the existence of femininity means the absence of masculinity. Is this why so many men experience threats to their masculinity when asked to do feminine tasks such as braiding hair? What if men could be reassured that adopting healthy feminine traits does not come at a cost to their masculinity? It may make an important difference for men’s health and for our political world.

Instead of saying “opposite sex,” usage guides such as the APA Manual suggest “another sex” or “another gender” when comparing sex or genders. Heterosexual couples can be described as being in “mixed-gender” relationships. These examples are improvements on what I hope will soon be recognized as an old-fashioned term, “opposite sex.”