Three maxims for countering sex essentialism in scientific research.

To explain observed disparities in health outcomes between men and women, sex essentialist approaches assign causal primacy to sex-related biology. In this essay, we present three case studies to illustrate how sex essentialism can distort human biomedical research and distill three maxims for countering this distortion: (1) engage in responsible citation practices; (2) generate and weigh alternative hypotheses for apparent observations of sex differences; (3) take care in constructing the appropriate denominator when making sex comparisons. We offer these maxims as broadly applicable standards of evidence to guide biomedical research that includes analysis of potential sex differences, as well as to support Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), funders, publishers, and peer reviewers in evaluating sex difference findings. If widely applied, these maxims would substantially improve the rigor, precision, and utility of the knowledge base of sex and gender science.