Author draft - Final published version is available June 6, 2022 at:

[Link]

Broadening Diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

(STEM) through Gender and 2SLGBTQ+ Equity

Vural Özdemir1 and Simon Springer2

1. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, New York

2. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Discipline of Geography and Environmental

Studies, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of

Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia

Address correspondence to:

Prof. Vural Özdemir, MD, PhD, DABCP

E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

AND

Simon Springer, PhD, MA, BA

E-mail: simonspringer@[Link],
[Link]@[Link]

1
 “Courage is as contagious as fear”

- Susan Sontag (1933-2004)

Editorial

Large gaps exist in gender parity and equity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM) fields worldwide. In the United States, women are underrepresented

throughout higher education. In certain STEM fields (computer science, engineering,

mathematics and physical sciences), women account for only 38% of bachelor's degrees

(Charlesworth and Banaji, 2019). From 2000 to 2015, the representation of women has

actually decreased in computer science. Gender gaps in STEM begin early in middle and

high school and persist in the academic workforce where disparities are pronounced, and

particularly in senior leadership positions.

In June issue of OMICS, Yosr Hamdi, Nicola Mulder and Sonia Abdelhak make a timely

contribution to the literature. They analyze and reflect on gender parity and equity in STEM,

with attention to systems science. Importantly, they expand our gaze beyond North America

and examine some of the hitherto overlooked gaps in gender equity affecting women

scientists in Africa; the ways in which gendered disparities are further accentuated with the

COVID-19 pandemic; and suggest possible solutions going forward. Additionally, they

highlight the emerging frontiers of systems science such as digital transformation,

automation, the rise of cyber-physical systems, and the concept of Industry 4.0 where gender

parity and equity are crucial.

We have much work to do for diversity and democracy in science, technology and

innovation, however. We need to think beyond heteronormativity and the gender binary (Joel,

2
2019), so transgender, nonbinary and 2SLGBTQ+ scientists are well represented in science,

health research and society. Heteronormativity refers to societal and cultural biases,

conscious or unconscious, that privileges heterosexuality, ignoring diversity and continuum in

sexual orientation, and assuming all people are heterosexual.

2SLGBTQ+ stands for Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and

questioning; (+) acknowledges many other identities which are not covered in the acronym

such as pansexual and asexual and that those identities are valid as well (see for further

reading, Carrier et al. 2020; Joel, 2019; Hinsliff, 2019; Özdemir 2021a; Rosenberg, 2018).

Two-Spirit captures Indigenous individuals who identify as gay or lesbian, transgender, or

occupy multiple gender categories and sexualities. It is important to note that Two-Spirit is

not an all-encompassing term for Indigenous people in the LGBTQ community, however; as

individuals must choose to adopt any gender based term for themselves.

We live in an age of massive disinformation and post-truth (Springer and Özdemir, 2022). It

is noteworthy in this context that social construction of heterosexuality, assumed as a

universal norm, has thus far escaped critical analyses. In 1901, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary

referred to heterosexuality as an “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.”.

For readers who might want to read on ‘invention of heterosexuality’, we refer to the following

BBC piece (Ambrosino, 2017).

Scholars, funders and leaders in STEM ought to acknowledge that women’s rights and

2SLGBTQ+ rights are human rights, and that diversity is a sine qua non (cannot do without)

on principled, normative and ethical grounds as well as practically. Achieving diversity in

STEM means institutions in science will thrive better, creative ideas and innovations come to

fruition in a robust manner.

3
In an interview on the LGBTQ+ STEM Day on November 18th, Kyle Shanebeck notes,

“queer people, people of color, people with disabilities, and other minorities bring lived

experience and ways of thinking that are unique, which strengthens a team. We are resilient,

hard-working, and creative because you must be to overcome inequalities. We are valuable

not because we fulfill a diversity quota, but because we have perspectives and experience

that cis/straight people do not.” (Editorial, 2021).

Sometimes, our best friends, neighbors, colleagues, families and workplaces can be

homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, or a NIMBY (an acronym for "Not In My Backyard,") and

lack the necessary critical gaze to advocate for inclusion and equity in STEM. An adequate

knowledge of critical social sciences and humanities, and political theory are enormously

important in this regard, and useful to understand and respond to such intersectional,

structural, systemic, historical and current social injustices (hooks, 2014).

OMICS has advocated for democratization of science and diversity in STEM and the

importance of feminist conceptual lenses in study of emerging frontiers such as digital

transformation (Özdemir, 2021b). We also need to adopt an intersectional conceptual lens

(Crenshaw, 1989; hooks, 2014) and work across the board in support of universal human

rights so we fight sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, class-based discrimination or

commodification of planetary public goods such as air, water and ecosystems that are

currently putting planetary sustainability, social justice and peace greatly at risk.

Lastly, we shall mention that diverse publics and minorities do not want to be treated with

tokenism. What minorities in STEM and society need is not pity nor to be others’ feel good

stories. What they want is, amongst other things, dignity, autonomy, self-determination, equal

rights protected by constitution (Özdemir 2021b). While we advocate for diversity and

inclusion here, we recognize that such efforts are often not enough in the context of

institutional settings. Not because those who sit on such committees within universities do

4
not believe in these principles, but rather because they are operating within the constrained

parameters of a hierarchical institutional framework that risks tokenism at every conceivable

turn.

In this sense we should be compelled to go a step further towards a liberationist perspective,

wherein academics would seek to disassemble existing institutional structures that were from

their outset designed to reinforce patriarchal, heteronormative, and indeed white supremacist

ideas, and work to reconstruct them in ways that serve the broadest remit of our

communities. To live into the promise of equity, the desire for diversity and inclusion must

mean more than simply shuffling a stacked deck so that we might draw a better hand.

Instead, we must be willing to do the difficult work of questioning and unpacking the game

itself so that we are better positioned to rewrite its rules.

We welcome your new manuscripts in systems science for peer-review in OMICS. We also

recommend the article by Hamdi and colleagues in this issue to readers interested in gender

parity and equity in STEM specifically, and social justice in global science and society more

broadly.

Disclaimer

Views expressed are the personal opinions of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect

the views of the affiliated institutions.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors declare no conflicting financial interests.

Funding Information

No funding was received for this editorial article.

5
References

Ambrosino B. The invention of ‘heterosexuality’. BBC Future, March 15, 2017. Available at

[Link] Accessed May

1, 2022.

Carrier L, Dame J, Lane J. Two-Spirit Identity and Indigenous Conceptualization of Gender

and Sexuality: Implications for Nursing Practice. Creat Nurs 2020;26(2):96-100.

Charlesworth TES and Banaji MR. Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions. J Neurosci 2019;39:7228-7243.

Crenshaw K. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of

Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago

Legal Forum (1989): Volume 1989: Issue 1, Article 8. Available at

[Link] Accessed May 1, 2022.

Hinsliff G. The pansexual revolution: how sexual fluidity became mainstream. The Guardian,

February 14, 2019. Available at [Link]

pansexual-revolution-how-sexual-fluidity-became-mainstream Accessed May 1, 2022.

hooks B. Feminism Is for Everybody. Passionate Politics, 2nd edition. New York and London:

Routledge, 2014.

Joel D. It’s Time for a World without Gender. Scientific American, October 4, 2019. Available

at [Link] Accessed

May 1, 2022.

6
Özdemir V. (2021a) A rainbow for everyone. Duvar English, July 7. Istanbul. Available at

[Link] Accessed May 1, 2022.

Özdemir V. (2021b) Digital is political: Why we need a feminist conceptual lens on

determinants of digital health. OMICS 2021b;25:249–254.

Q&A (no authors listed) Scientific QUEERies: an interview with Scott Cocker and Kyle

Shanebeck on improving LGBTQ2S+ visibility in STEM. Commun Biol 2021;4:1293.

[Link]

Rosenberg S. Coming In: Queer Narratives of Sexual Self-Discovery. Journal of

Homosexuality 2018;65(13):1788-1816.

Springer, S, and Özdemir, V. Disinformation as COVID-19's Twin Pandemic: False

Equivalences, Entrenched Epistemologies, and Causes-of-Causes. OMICS 2022;26:82-87.