Giftedness, defined as exceptional cognitive abilities and a set of other specific skills assumed to be above average, though it also encompasses other elements too extensive to cover in this introduction, has been studied through various lenses, including, and particularly relevant here, gender differences. However, debates persist about whether these differences are real, significant, or simply the result of cultural and methodological biases. The idea of this article is not to conduct a meta-analysis but rather to review the different scientific research on this subject, distinguishing solid empirical results from unfounded speculations.

Part 1: Differences Identified by Science and Those from Observation

A. Cognitive and Neurobiological Differences: Studies and Empirical Results

1. Verbal and Mathematical Abilities:

Study by Hyde and Linn (1988):

• Methodology: This meta-analysis compiled results from 165 studies on gender differences in verbal abilities, including a wide range of samples from preschool children to adults.
• Results: Girls showed a slight advantage in verbal skills with a Cohen’s d (effect size) of 0.11, considered a small effect size. Conversely, boys showed a slight advantage in mathematical abilities, particularly in geometry and problem-solving, with a Cohen’s d ranging from 0.20 to 0.30.
• Conclusion and Implications: The gender differences in these domains are minimal and often influenced by environmental factors such as parental encouragement and quality of education. The study concludes that biological differences are small and suggests future research should focus on the impact of educational and social contexts that can exacerbate or reduce these differences.

2. Cognitive Variability:

Study by Arden et al. (2010):

• Methodology: This study used IQ tests on a large sample of over 80,000 individuals, analyzing the variability of scores by gender.
• Results: Men showed greater variability in IQ scores than women, meaning they are overrepresented both in the very low and very high IQ categories. However, the average IQ between genders was similar.
• Conclusion and Implications: This greater variability could explain why men are more often identified as having exceptional talents or, conversely, learning disabilities. The study suggests that further research is needed to understand the environmental and genetic factors that might influence this variability.

3. Neurobiology of Giftedness:

Study by Haier et al. (2005):

• Methodology: Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), this study compared the brain structures of 48 men and 48 women with similar levels of intelligence.
• Results: Men showed greater activation in brain regions associated with spatial reasoning and motor skills, while women had greater activation in regions related to emotional processing and verbal skills. However, these differences in brain organization do not translate into significant differences in overall cognitive performance.
• Conclusion and Implications: The differences in brain structure between genders do not suggest cognitive superiority of one gender over the other but rather variations in strategies used to solve similar problems. Future research should explore how these neurobiological differences interact with the environment to influence cognitive abilities.

B. Clinical Observations and Sampling Bias

1. Over-Identification of Boys:

Study by Silverman (2013):

• Methodology: Silverman analyzed data from several gifted research centers, comparing the identification rates of gifted boys and girls.
• Results: Boys are more often identified as gifted, particularly in mathematical and scientific domains. This is partially due to identification criteria favoring more visible behaviors, often associated with boys, such as assertiveness and independence.
• Conclusion and Implications: The current criteria for identifying giftedness may be biased against girls, who may express their potential in less visible ways. The study recommends revising identification criteria to include more varied measures that recognize the less visible talents of girls.

2. Masculinization of Gifted Traits:

Study by Terman and Oden (1959):

• Methodology: This longitudinal study followed more than 1,500 gifted children over several decades, examining how gender stereotypes influenced their development.
• Results: Traits traditionally associated with giftedness, such as intellectual curiosity and independence, were more often valued and encouraged in boys. Gifted girls were less likely to be recognized or supported if they did not exhibit these traits as prominently.
• Conclusion and Implications: The results highlight the importance of recognizing and valuing different types of behaviors that may indicate giftedness, regardless of gender stereotypes. The study calls for greater awareness of cultural biases in the processes of identifying talent.

3. Detection Bias:

Study by Ramus (2013):

• Methodology: Ramus examined the methods for evaluating gifted children in various European countries, analyzing potential biases in detection processes.
• Results: The study found that girls were often underrepresented in clinical samples because evaluation criteria favored more externalized traits, such as competitiveness and self-confidence, more common in boys.
• Conclusion and Implications: The methods for evaluating giftedness need to be revised to reduce detection biases. Ramus recommends including more nuanced assessments that account for gender differences in the expression of abilities.

C. What Science Has Invalidated

1. Alleged IQ Differences Between Men and Women:

Study by Feingold (1992):

• Methodology: Feingold conducted a meta-analysis of IQ studies conducted in different cultural contexts, including over 200,000 participants.
• Results: The differences in IQ between genders were negligible, with a slight tendency for men to have slightly higher scores in spatial reasoning and women to have better scores in verbal skills. However, these differences were minimal and often insignificant.
• Conclusion and Implications: The idea that men have a superior IQ to women is largely unfounded. The observed differences are more related to selection biases and environmental factors. Feingold calls for a re-evaluation of IQ tests to ensure they are free of cultural and gender biases.

2. Stereotypes About Girls Being Less Gifted in STEM:

Study by Ceci and Williams (2010):

• Methodology: This study examined the performance of boys and girls in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) over several decades, considering educational contexts and gender equality policies.
• Results: The performance differences between genders in STEM are strongly correlated with educational policies and cultural stereotypes. In countries where gender equality is more advanced, girls perform as well as, or better than, boys in these fields.
• Conclusion and Implications: Stereotypes that girls are naturally less gifted in mathematics and science are unfounded. The study suggests that educational policies and culture play a crucial role in shaping these perceived differences, and encouraging girls in these fields can reduce or eliminate these disparities.

Part 2: Myths Not Validated by Science or Observations

A. Myths Surrounding Academic Differences

1. Girls Are Supposedly Better in Literacy but Not in Numeracy

Study by Stoet and Geary (2018):

• Methodology: This study used data from the PISA assessment for over 300,000 15-year-old students across 65 countries, examining performance in literacy and mathematics in relation to educational policies.
• Results: Girls generally performed better in literacy than boys. However, the differences in mathematics varied significantly by country. In contexts where gender equality was promoted, girls' performance in mathematics was often comparable to that of boys.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: The differences in academic performance between genders are strongly influenced by cultural context and educational policies. Educational environments that promote gender equality tend to reduce or eliminate performance gaps in mathematics, suggesting that these differences are not biologically determined but rather the result of social and educational factors.

Study by Wai et al. (2010):

• Methodology: The study analyzed the participation rates of girls in mathematics and science competitions compared to boys, examining family and educational influences.
• Results: The underrepresentation of girls in STEM competitions is related to differences in encouragement and support received rather than innate differences in abilities. Girls receive less support to pursue careers in STEM, which influences their participation.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: Gender biases and lack of educational support are crucial factors explaining the underrepresentation of girls in STEM fields. Strengthening educational policies and support programs is recommended to encourage more balanced participation.

2. Gifted Girls Are Supposedly More Emotionally Stable

Study by Neihart (1999):

• Methodology: Neihart reviewed the literature on emotional differences between gifted girls and boys, examining case studies and clinical research.
• Results: The study shows that the idea that gifted girls are more emotionally stable is unfounded. Emotional differences are more related to personality and environmental factors than gender differences. Gifted girls can also face emotional challenges such as anxiety and perfectionism.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: Generalizations about the emotional stability of gifted girls are not supported by data. Interventions should be tailored to individual needs rather than based on gender stereotypes.

B. Stereotypes and Biases Not Supported by Science

1. Gifted Girls Are Supposedly Less Ambitious

Study by Reis and Callahan (1989):

• Methodology: This study examined the career aspirations of gifted girls compared to gifted boys, considering social and family influences.
• Results: The ambitions of gifted girls are not inherently lower than those of boys, but they can be influenced by socialization and family and school expectations. Girls may develop ambitions in different fields due to social norms.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: The ambitions of gifted girls should be supported and encouraged without being limited by gender stereotypes. Educational programs should promote a more inclusive view of career aspirations for both girls and boys.

Study by Eccles (2009):

• Methodology: Eccles explored the cultural and educational influences on the career aspirations of young people, examining gender differences and their impact.
• Results: Differences in career aspirations are primarily influenced by cultural and educational norms rather than intrinsic gender differences. Gender stereotypes affect career choices and aspirations of girls.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: To reduce the career aspiration gap between genders, it is essential to change cultural and educational perceptions. Educational policies should encourage diverse careers for both girls and boys.

2. Gifted Girls Supposedly Do Not Face Particular Psychological Challenges

Study by Silverman (1993):

• Methodology: Silverman studied the psychological challenges faced by gifted girls compared to gifted boys, using clinical data and case studies.
• Results: The study shows that gifted girls can suffer from psychological problems similar to those of boys, such as anxiety, perfectionism, and social isolation. However, these problems are often minimized or ignored because of the perception that gifted girls are less vulnerable due to their academic performance.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: The psychological challenges of gifted girls must be recognized and addressed with specific interventions. Professionals should be aware of the mental health issues that can affect gifted girls and provide appropriate support.

Conclusion

The myths surrounding female and male giftedness are often based on cultural generalizations and stereotypes rather than solid scientific evidence. A thorough review of scientific research on female and male giftedness reveals that preconceived notions about fundamental differences between the two sexes are often unfounded or exaggerated. Empirical data show that the distinctions observed between girls' and boys' academic abilities, particularly in literacy and numeracy, are largely influenced by contextual and cultural factors rather than intrinsic biological differences.

Studies by Stoet and Geary (2018) and Wai et al. (2010) clearly demonstrate that performance gaps in mathematics between genders are not manifestations of innate differences but rather repercussions of educational environment and social encouragement. Furthermore, data from Neihart (1999) and Silverman (1993) refute the myth that gifted girls are more emotionally stable than their male counterparts, showing that the emotional challenges faced by gifted girls are comparable to those faced by boys.

Erroneous beliefs about the ambitions and psychological challenges of gifted girls are also highlighted by the works of Reis and Callahan (1989) and Eccles (2009). These studies show that girls' ambitions are not inferior but may be directed differently due to the influence of cultural norms and educational expectations and that the psychological challenges faced are often poorly recognized due to gender.

In conclusion, current science does not support the idea that giftedness manifests differently between sexes in a significant way or that fundamental distinctions exist between female and male giftedness. It is crucial to base educational policies and support approaches on solid scientific data and to deconstruct gender stereotypes that still influence perceptions and practices regarding giftedness. To advance towards true equality of opportunities, it is essential to promote a nuanced understanding of giftedness that transcends clichés and generalizations, emphasizing individual needs.

A question remains: why is such a distinction propagated to the general public and to what end? This will be the subject of another article.

References

• Arden, R., Gottfredson, L. S., Miller, G., & Pierce, A. (2010). Intelligence and variability: Does the greater male variability hypothesis hold in the United States? Intelligence, 38(5), 501-510.
• Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 275-279.
• Feingold, A. (1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 61-84.
• Haier, R. J., Jung, R. E., Yeo, R. A., Head, K., & Alkire, M. T. (2005). The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: Sex matters. NeuroImage, 25(1), 320-327.
• Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269(5220), 41-45.
• Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 53-69.
• Ramus, F. (2013). The neurodevelopment of giftedness and talent. In The Oxford Handbook of Gifted Children. Oxford University Press.
• Silverman, L. K. (2013). Giftedness 101. Springer Publishing Company.
• Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in STEM education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593.
• Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life: Thirty-five years' follow-up of the superior child. Stanford University Press.
• Eccles, J. S. (2009). Gendered educational and occupational aspirations: The role of parents and teachers. In The role of gender in educational and occupational aspirations. Springer.
• Neihart, M. (1999). The social and emotional development of gifted children. In Handbook of Gifted Education. Allyn & Bacon.
• Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1989). The underachievement of gifted girls: A review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(2), 83-94.
• Silverman, L. K. (1993). The “gifted” girl: A study of the social and emotional development of gifted girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 138-142.
• Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in STEM education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593.
• Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 629-644.