Exploring gender distinctions in giftedness is crucial for a nuanced and fair understanding of the situation. Traditionally, society has often categorized gifted individuals based on their gender, leading to biases that affect both the recognition and development of talents. This binary view fails to reflect the complexity of giftedness and overlooks the specific needs of each individual. Moreover, gender stereotypes influence public perception, educational interventions, and support strategies, resulting in persistent inequalities.

Scientific research shows that the unique experiences faced by gifted girls are contextual and not significantly different from those of boys, as seen in articles titled "Female and Male Giftedness: ...". The results of these studies and meta-analyses often contrast with the simplified representations found in specialized and popular literature, as well as in podcasts, blogs, YouTube videos, and Instagram coaches, which often offer distorted representations of gifted girls and women, thus influencing the personal perception of their audience about their experiences. For some authors or support professionals, it is useful to convey the notion of specific needs for a specific audience of gifted individuals, regardless of their gender, who sometimes suffer from image or recognition issues. Indeed, creating a need and exclusively mentioning a certain category of gifted individuals is the best way to develop a niche clientele and form a group around a particular idea.

It is therefore essential to briefly revisit what we have already discussed in other articles before exploring the marketing positioning issues and the impact on gifted women.

Scientific Context: No Significant Gender Differences

Research shows that gender differences in cognitive abilities and experiences of gifted individuals are minimal and primarily contextual. Hyde and Linn (1988) conducted a meta-analysis and analyzed verbal and mathematical ability differences between genders from 165 studies. Their research showed that the observed differences were more due to social and educational factors than intrinsic biological differences. Stoet and Geary (2018) analyzed student performance in over 80 countries and found that in countries with more advanced gender equality, girls perform as well as, or better than, boys in mathematics.

The research concludes that gender differences in giftedness are largely contextual and not intrinsic. This suggests that gendered distinctions in giftedness are often overestimated and that it is important to focus on individual needs.

Context of Popular and Media Representations: Based on Stereotypes

The representation of gifted girls in specialized and popular literature has often been stereotyped, depicting specific needs based on their gender difference. In the media, these young girls are frequently portrayed as isolated prodigies, surrounded by stories of intellectual precocity that do not take their diversity into account. In the United States, a New York Times article depicts gifted girls as constantly struggling against social expectations of conformity. Similarly, The Atlantic highlights the disproportionate academic pressures they face, emphasizing the culture of academic perfection. In France, Le Monde addresses the issue of gifted girls by highlighting the obstacles they encounter in the education system, sometimes presenting them mainly as victims of their own intelligence.

Without going into detail here, as this has been covered in another article, it is important to remember the frequent emphasis on giftedness through the lens of gender prejudices, which persist and are validated empirically from very small samples of gifted individuals with problems, who seek out specialists. This is known as sampling bias. These observations have almost no statistical value, to be lenient.

Niche Strategies and Specific Marketing of Female Giftedness

In the world of entrepreneurship or multidisciplinary training for support, from sophrology to coaching, it is often advised to specialize to stand out. Marketing experts and personal development coaches encourage learners to identify or create a niche to attract a specific target audience. This market segmentation strategy is seen as a necessary path to commercial success in a world where it has become difficult for the average professional to add more value than another. In this context, some have unfortunately chosen to focus on female giftedness, thus creating a niche with offerings supposed to meet the needs of gifted women.

Creating a niche around female giftedness raises fundamental questions about the consequences of such practices. This approach mainly poses a problem because it capitalizes on gender stereotypes, which feed popular thought by reinforcing beliefs and transforming the perception of giftedness based on unsupported hypotheses.

The emergence of specific support services for gifted women highlights the absurdity of the situation. As if certain offerings were specifically designed for them. To illustrate my point, a quick search brings up some offerings via books and coaching programs dedicated exclusively to gifted women, including a non-exhaustive list:

• Coaching and personal development
• Stress management
• Work-life balance
• Self-esteem development
• Self-confidence
• Workshops on perfectionism
• Leadership programs
• Emotion management
• Mentoring
• Emotional intelligence training

While these subjects are relevant, their presentation as specifically dedicated to women, and specifically gifted women, perpetuates artificial distinctions and raises numerous issues, primarily the impact on women.

Impact on Gifted Women

Specialized companies and coaches use commercially effective marketing strategies to attract a female audience by playing on feelings of group belonging and the need for unique understanding, which has detrimental consequences on perceptions and even reinforces the sense of difference among gifted women. All empirical research shows that this great difference from the norm has been poorly experienced for many years, sometimes their entire lives.

This psychological leverage seems particularly insidious and inconsistent to me, coming from a category of support professionals who position themselves as aiming for the well-being of their clients.

This situation creates an unbearable dichotomy, in my view, between the goals of some and the expectations of others, especially when the latter are sometimes born from deep suffering that led to the voluntary step of seeking support. Incidentally, I remind you that this is in total contradiction with scientific conclusions on the similarity of cognitive needs of gifted individuals, regardless of their gender.

The belief in specific and distinct needs for gifted women has considerable impact. This approach not only reinforces gender distinctions but also perpetuates inequalities and stereotypes and conveys ridiculous concepts and beliefs with well-being as the goal. Paradoxically, we see this phenomenon in a society where, according to personal development gurus, believing and thinking oneself unique leads to the best version of oneself and has become the symbol of self-acceptance and affirmation. By making gifted women believe they need special treatment, a reductive view of giftedness is fed that does not account for the diversity of individual experiences.

Here, an amusing parallel can be drawn, questioning the relationship to inclusivity and whether a priori or specifically gendered distinction is counterproductive on the path to full inclusivity. That is another debate.

In conclusion, I consider this approach harmful to the advancement of thought on giftedness. By maintaining artificial distinctions, it prevents a more meta and holistic understanding of the needs of gifted individuals. It can also limit access to appropriate resources and support for everyone by reinforcing barriers based on gender rather than real needs.

To move towards a more inclusive approach, it is necessary to focus on individual needs and raise public awareness of the implications of gendered distinctions. By adopting a holistic perspective, we can offer more adapted and equitable support to all gifted individuals, regardless of their gender.