Each day, a woman navigates through a world shaped by gender bias, one that has been primarily designed for a man. She struggles with pockets too tiny for even her phone, tightens a seatbelt that goes across her neck instead of her chest, and later, she undergoes a medical procedure with little to no pain relief attempts since “it is just a little discomfort.” These are not isolated problems, but the effects of a systematic design bias that has affected every aspect of life, from the clothes we wear to the medical care we receive.
The male default is not just a workplace issue or a tech industry problem. It is deeply embedded in every aspect of daily life, creating a world where women need to constantly adapt to products, systems, and places that are not made for them. The male perspective has been the sole point of reference from the moment we dress in the morning to the medical procedures we go through, leaving women as an afterthought in their own lives.
The Clothes That Fail Us: An Example of Gender Bias
The most obvious indication of this bias can be found in something as simple as pockets. Clothing for women always has pockets that are either decorative or very small and not functional, if at all they exist. While men’s pants often always include pockets deep enough for phones, wallets, and keys, women’s pockets often can’t even accommodate a smartphone.
This certainly isn’t a product of fashion. Initially, women’s clothes were made in a way that it was expected that women would carry their things in a purse and men would have pockets for the tools and money. That assumption persisted even as women entered the workforce and needed the same functionality. What has actually happened is that women have become bearers of extra baggage, which, on the one hand, enables them to be robbed more easily, and also limits their mobility.
The problem is more than just pockets. Appearance in women’s shoes gets precedence over the health of the foot and functionality, thus leading to a higher rate of foot problems and workplace injuries. Despite the fact that women are exposed to workplace demands similar to those of men, the absence of durability features in professional women’s clothing, which are present in men’s clothing, is not taken into account.
Transportation’s Daily Hazards
The seatbelt is a dangerous example of male-default design. Crash test dummies are traditionally based on the average male body, which means seatbelts, airbags, and overall car safety features are optimised for men. Seatbelts for women, especially those who are shorter or have bigger breasts, will cross the neck instead of the shoulder, not only resulting in discomfort but also creating safety risks.
Even when correctly positioned, seatbelts provide safety still more suitable for male body proportions. Women are 47% more likely to be seriously injured in car crashes and 17% more likely to die, simply because cars aren’t tested adequately for female bodies. This is because the safety systems of the car don’t take very well into account traits such as differences in bone density, muscle distribution, and centre of gravity. It was only in 2011 that the first female dummy was created for testing car crashes; however, it was merely a smaller version of a male dummy.
The interiors of the car are adding fuel to the fire of these problems. The seats were designed keeping in mind male proportions. It may create some situations where shorter drivers will not be able to reach the pedals properly while also keeping a safe distance from the airbags. The steering wheels and controls that are located in positions that fit longer arms will not only create the problem of overreaching, but also cause fatigue and reduced reaction times.
Medical Care’s Painful Gender Bias
Perhaps nowhere is the male default more dangerous than in healthcare. Medical research has historically excluded women from studies, creating a cascade of problems that affect treatment effectiveness and safety. The assumption that medical findings from male subjects would apply equally to women has proven repeatedly false. Such bias shows most clearly in the gynaecological field. Medical interventions considered routine for women—such as pap smears, IUD insertions, endometrial biopsies, and cervical biopsies—often come with minimal or no pain management, despite causing significant discomfort to patients.
The vaginal speculum, a device used worldwide for gynaecological exams, was originally designed by J. Marion Sims in the 1840s. The design of the device was achieved through experiments on enslaved Black women without anaesthesia. For nearly two centuries, this basic design remained largely unchanged – until recently. In 2024, researchers at TU Delft, led by Ariadna Izcara Gual and Tamara Hoveling, redesigned the speculum with a new prototype called “Lilium.” This addressed the fact that about 35% of women experience shame, fear, or pain during vaginal exams. The speculum had “stayed frozen in time since the 1800s because men made it.” Now, women engineers have finally redesigned it to be more comfortable. This breakthrough shows how including women in designing tools for women’s bodies can lead to better solutions. This change took 180 years because the right people weren’t in the room.
Pharmaceutical Failures
Drug development and testing have, in an organised way, definitely sidelined women and thus have resulted in the production of drugs that have different effects or even fail to work in female patients. The FDA clearly stated in 1993 that women of reproductive age should not participate in any drug trials. It implies that most of the medications have been created and tested only on males.
This discrimination has been the cause of terrible consequences. Women metabolise many medications differently due to hormonal changes, liver enzyme activity, and body composition. For over 20 years, men and women were given the same doses of Ambien, a sleeping pill. This was until scientists discovered that women take longer to clear the drug from their systems. As a result, women faced increased risks of next-day drowsiness and accidents if they weren’t careful.
Pain medication can be an example that shows the troubling nature of the matter to a great extent. Research shows that women’s pain is often neglected or dismissed as emotional, leading to under-treatment. Even when pain is acknowledged, medications dosed for men may not be enough for women due to metabolic differences.
Heart disease medications are one more example that points out the serious issues at hand. Women’s heart attacks often show different symptoms than men’s – like nausea, fatigue, and back pain instead of chest pain. Because diagnostic criteria and treatments are mostly based on male samples, women are frequently misdiagnosed or face delayed care.
Technology’s Gender Gap
Voice assistants like Siri, Google Assistant, and Alexa used to struggle recognising female voices or accents as accurately as male ones. Facial recognition software has shown higher error rates in identifying women, especially women of colour, due to biased training data sets.
The Workplace Equipment Gap
Professional tools in various industries show male-default behaviour. Construction equipment, medical instruments, and laboratory tools are of the size of male’s hands and strength levels. Office temperatures are often calibrated for the average male metabolic rate, leaving many women uncomfortable and cold. In India’s growing manufacturing sector, female workers say their tools are too big and heavy, causing accidents and lowering productivity. Safety equipment issues affect many professions. Female police officers, firefighters, and soldiers often struggle with poorly fitting gear, making them unsafe and less effective. During COVID-19, healthcare workers reported that PPE designed for male faces left women at risk.
When Cities Forget Half Their Residents
Women often face longer queues for restrooms due to equal space being allotted for men and women, without accounting for the time women typically need or the presence of caregivers/children. Urban planning often overlooks women’s safety needs: poorly lit streets, lack of surveillance, and inadequate public transport options during night hours disproportionately affect them.
Good intentions aren’t enough to fix this bias. Deep changes are needed to tackle the root of the problem. This involves empowering women not only as consumers but also as creators, investigators, and decision-makers throughout the development processes. It also involves using diverse datasets, testing with representative populations, and questioning assumptions about “universal” design.
We can see some good changes. Medical schools have started to incorporate information about sex differences in disease presentation into their curriculum. Car companies are coming up with more advanced methods to conduct test crashes. Clothing companies are doing some experiments with functional designs for women’s clothing.
A world created for men doesn’t have to be that way anymore. But to do this, it is necessary first to recognise that the male experience is not universal and that if the aim is to design for all, then in reality it means including everyone in the design process.
