Prof. Sari Van Anders on Feminism, Gender, Sex, and Desire

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/22

Dr. Sari van Anders is the Canada 150 Research Chair in Social Neuroendocrinology, Sexuality, and Gender/Sex and Professor of Psychology, Gender Studies, and Neuroscience at Queen’s University. Dr. van Anders has published about 100 papers with research that sets out new ways to conceptualize, understand, measure, and map gender/sex, sexual diversity, and sexuality and also provides unique tools and theories for feminist and queer bioscience, especially within social neuroendocrinology and studies of testosterone. Dr. van Anders’ work has been recognized with the 2013 Janet Taylor Spence Award for Transformative Early Career Contributions from the Association for Psychological Science, the 2014 Frank Beach Young Investigator Award from the Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology, the 2016 and 2020 Distinguished Publication Award from the Association for Women in Psychology, the 2019 George A. Miller Award for an Outstanding Recent Article on General Psychology from APA Division 1, the 2012 Ira and Harriet Reiss Theory Award from the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, the 2016 Committee on Women in Psychology Leadership Award from the American Psychological Association, the 2022 Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the Society for Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity (APA Division 44), and more. Dr. van Anders has also been named one of 50 Distinguished Sexual and Gender Health Revolutionaries from the University of Minnesota’s Program in Human Sexuality and a Member of the Royal Society of Canada’s College of New Scholars. Dr. van Anders is committed to progressive transformation efforts for academic spaces and beyond. Van Anders emphasized that testosterone, often linked to masculinity, reflects social experiences, not innate biology. Her work explores how societal roles, heteronormativity, and household inequities influence sexual desire and hormone levels. Rejecting binary and deterministic frameworks, she highlights the dynamic interplay of gender and sex. The steroid-peptide theory further examines how hormones like testosterone and oxytocin shape behaviours outside traditional gendered assumptions. Her goal is to advance inclusive, empirical, and justice-oriented research, transforming societal understanding of gender/sex.

Scott Douglas. Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Sari van Anders. How did you become interested in gender, sex, and the various aspects of this deeply human topic?

Prof. Sari van Anders: I have been interested in feminism for most of my life. When I went to university, I became curious about understanding evolution, sex, and gender. Over time, I developed a stronger interest in feminist science and eventually worked to integrate all of these areas. Surprisingly, I also found myself drawn to the study of hormones.

If you are interested in hormones and psychology, it almost inevitably leads back to gender, sex, and sexuality. I became fascinated with how these areas interconnect.

Jacobsen: How do you integrate feminist and queer theories with psychology and sex? That’s a broad area, so how do you connect these elements? How do you approach this formally?

van Anders: During my undergraduate and graduate studies, I read extensively about feminist science studies and emerging queer scholarship. Most of this reading was self-directed. There wasn’t much available on how to conduct feminist science; it was largely focused on theoretical critiques of science.

I used those critiques and my growing scientific practice to develop an approach.To that end,  I incorporate feminist and queer perspectives into how I study and select research topics. Not every project integrates all of these elements, however. For instance, some projects focus on topics like porn or desire, but they are always explored through a feminist and queer lens.

Some projects involve hormones, while others do not. I am particularly interested in how social contexts—related to sexuality, gender, power, and oppression—shape our experiences, including how they influence our sexuality and even our hormones. I’m also intrigued by the fundamental ways we conceptualize gender, sex, sexuality, and hormones like testosterone.

Much of what we think we know—our theories, concepts, and categories—is based on non-empirical foundations or biased starting points. My goal is to create empirical theories and knowledge that address injustice and are inclusive and applicable to everyone, not just those who fit normative standards.

Jacobsen: How do societal roles—whether imposed overtly or subtly—affect sexual desire and, in turn, influence hormone production? Does this alter levels of testosterone, estrogen, or stress hormones? How does this process work?

van Anders: We’ve done some work on how sexual context might impact testosterone. I’ll give you two examples. The first example is that we find sexual thoughts increase testosterone. When people are assigned to have sexual thoughts, their testosterone levels increase.

This finding challenges the common assumption that hormones drive sexuality—that testosterone levels are the cause or influence on desire and sexuality. While I’m not saying there’s no relationship in that direction, the reverse relationship is much more strongly supported by empirical evidence. Sexual contexts are more likely to influence testosterone.

Of course, people of various genders and sexes do not access or encounter sexuality in the same way. Some people are taught that sexual thoughts are normal and normative, while others are taught that sexual thoughts are sinful, dirty, or appropriate only for people of another gender/sex. Accordingly, even something as seemingly simple as sexual thoughts is heavily gendered.

I’ve also done work on how gendered experiences themselves might change testosterone in a more general sense. Most people know that, on average, men have higher testosterone levels than women. However, there’s not much research on testosterone levels in non-binary people, so I’ll focus here on binary genders and sexes.

People often assume that testosterone differences between men and women reflect innate sex differences. However, some of my work calls that assumption into question. For example, could our gendered experiences overlap with phenomena that are evolutionarily salient for testosterone? Society pushes people to engage in activities aligned with gender norms, and ironically, those activities often increase or decrease testosterone in ways that align with those norms.

What we think of as sex differences may reflect, at least in part, gendered experiences. This is one of the reasons I use the term “gender/sex.” If we look at something like testosterone, we assume it reflects innate biological or evolved sex differences. However, my research, along with that of others, suggests that testosterone may reflect social experiences.

For instance, the higher testosterone levels observed in men on average may not necessarily represent a purely natural process. Instead, they might reflect how we live and adhere to gendered expectations.

Jacobsen: What does this mean for the categories or terms we use? Could we be heading toward a future where terms like “gender” and “sex” become outmoded, especially if there’s this fluid overlap between what we currently consider innate biological or evolved traits?

van Anders: Yeah, that’s a great question. Many of us work to make clear how gender and sex are often entangled—intertwined or tied up with each other. This doesn’t mean that inequities in roles, such as in the home or workplace, can be justified as evolved differences. Historically, some have argued that women have “just evolved to be nurturing,” so it’s not an inequity that they do more caring labour, for example. But that’s not what this is about.

This isn’t about justifying inequities by arguing that they’re biological, so we don’t need to address them. Instead, the concept of gender/sex is about acknowledging how our biological bodies are not immune to gendered processes.

Traditionally, people tend to put sex, nature, and hormones on one side and gender, culture, and nurture on the other. Gender/sex, and this way of thinking, is about recognizing how intertwined and entangled they can be.

As for the future, do I envision a time where we no longer use terms like “gender” and “sex” or where terms like “man,” “woman,” and “non-binary person” become irrelevant? I don’t anticipate that happening. At least for now, gender/sex is deeply embedded in many people’s lives—whether they are binary, non-binary, transgender, cisgender, or something else. Gender is a significant part of the lived experiences of many, though not everyone; some people are agender.

I envision instead a broader understanding of the overlap between gender and sex. For example, many aspects of what we think of as “sex” or “nature” —immune function, hormones, neural processes, bone density, and cardiac function—are shaped by social experiences. When we study differences in health patterns across genders, we often find these differences reflect lived experiences, oppression, and life trajectories rather than purely genetic or in-utero processes.

Jacobsen: I sense that this creates a constellation of data where there’s significant overlap or “mushiness” between categories but also areas where they remain somewhat distinct. Where would you identify the greatest areas of mushiness and the greatest areas of distinctiveness within the categories we traditionally use?

van Anders: One of the interesting things is how we define gender, sex, and related categories such as “man,” “woman,” “girl,” “boy,” or “non-binary person.” These definitions have shifted over time and continue to evolve. For instance, in some cultures, a woman who has never given birth might not be considered a “full” woman, while in other cultures, that characteristic is irrelevant to the definition of womanhood.

This variability shows us that what qualifies someone for a category—whether related to gender or sex—changes over time. Even with things like testosterone or traits as seemingly trivial as liking the colour pink, there have been shifts in whether these are seen as aspects of gender, sex, or neither. Historically, and even now, pink has been placed in both categories—or seen as just a colour unrelated to either.

The dividing lines between these concepts are constantly shifting and highly dynamic. What goes into each category and where the lines are drawn is not static.

As for where there might be clear-cut distinctions, that’s more of an empirical question. In terms of hard lines between gender and sex, there’s very little of sex that gender cannot influence. To use a metaphor, sex is a pie with many fingers in it. However, there are aspects of gender where it might not be necessary to consider sex.

For example, when addressing gender inequities in pay, we don’t need to bring evolved differences to explain disparities. At the same time, completely excluding biological realities, such as pregnancy, lactation, or chestfeeding, has historically led to further inequities for those affected. So, while gender analysis might suffice in many areas, ignoring or excluding sex entirely can be problematic.

I wouldn’t call the lines between gender and sex “mushy,” as that term often implies unfounded or overly flexible boundaries. Instead, I would describe them as dynamic and porous—reflecting a deep interactivity between the two.

Jacobsen: Deep interactivity.

Van Anders: Yes.

Jacobsen: Rather than mushy. What about heteronormativity and its psychological effects—how people internalize societal expectations about what they’re supposed to do, which then interacts with the psychology of what they think they have to do? This external and internal interplay, acted out over the developmental lifespan, could impact hormone production and even gross anatomical differences in the brain. How is research progressing in understanding this dynamic?

van Anders: We research heteronormativity, and one of the areas we’re particularly interested in is its impact on desire. This is a topic where all my interests converge. People often assume that desire reflects testosterone levels and is something innate—either you have a strong drive, which reflects high testosterone, or you don’t. Similarly, if someone has low desire, people might think it’s due to low testosterone, requiring a pill. Others might suggest mindfulness or stress reduction, which can also play a role.

However, our research has been examining how gender inequities in the household, often tied to heteronormativity, significantly impact desire. This isn’t a new idea—feminists, especially women, have long argued that inequities in daily life influence sexual desire. Yet, there’s a persistent “zombie idea” that desire is purely hormonal or physiological, which remains oddly resistant to evidence against it.

Our research and others’ findings suggest that gender inequities in household labour directly reduce desire in women partnered with men. This supports some of the theories we’ve developed. We’re also exploring related areas, such as gender differences in leisure. For example, no woman aspires to spend her life making dental appointments for her kids or cleaning the countertop for the millionth time.

Hormones come into this as well. Heteronormativity can create problematic dynamics for women in relationships with men, as it often positions women as caretakers or even “mothers” to their male partners. This dynamic isn’t beneficial for anyone—being in a parental role isn’t conducive to a sexual relationship with the person you’re in that role with. This positioning might reduce testosterone levels in the women, which in turn reduces desire.

So, there are potentially two main pathways to lower desire: one involves perceived unfairness and exhaustion from unequal household labour, and the other involves physiological mechanisms triggered by experiencing one’s partner as a dependent. Heteronormativity affects sex lives in significant ways that could be addressed, and many women report experiencing these challenges in managing relationships with their male partners.

Jacobsen: What is the steroid-peptide theory of social bonds?

van Anders: The steroid-peptide theory of social bonds examines how hormones like testosterone (a steroid), and oxytocin and vasopressin (peptides) individually and collectively help us understand various behavioural phenomena and contexts. Typically, hormone researchers—and our culture more broadly—focus on how hormones influence behaviour. However, an important perspective is studying hormonal responses to behaviour to understand those behaviours better.

For example, testosterone is often studied about masculinity, maleness, manhood, and boyhood. However, there are many behaviours associated with masculinity that do not increase testosterone. Similarly, there are behaviours often associated with femininity, womanhood, or femaleness—such as some parental behaviours—that can increase testosterone.

The steroid-peptide theory helps us make sense of these findings by moving beyond traditional frameworks that equate testosterone with masculinity. Testosterone is connected to a wide range of functions, including immunity, cardiac health, and parenting, that researchers have historically overlooked due to entrenched assumptions.

Likewise, oxytocin is often stereotyped as the “cuddling hormone” associated with goodness and sweetness. Yet, it’s also linked to phenomena like in-group favouritism, which can contribute to biases such as racism, heteronormativity, or transphobia. This theory explores hormonal responses to behaviour outside of narrow or outdated frameworks, offering a more nuanced and empirical understanding of how these hormones operate.

Jacobsen: Where do you see this research moving in the future? Are there any theoretical frameworks or technologies that could help us pinpoint the differences and directions of interaction more precisely, such a complex field intersects the organism, social constructs, and individual psychology.

van Anders: Yeah. There’s so much to explore. In some ways, these are specific, discrete, experimental, and empirical research questions. However, in other ways, they are part of larger theoretical frameworks.

For example, I’ve often emphasized the importance of looking at testosterone beyond its association with masculinity. That doesn’t mean ignoring that it can sometimes be tied to phenomena associated with masculinity, but expanding our perspective opens up opportunities for research in psychology, health sciences, ecology, and more—areas that are crucial for us to explore.

I also developed a theoretical framework called Sexual Configurations Theory, which helps us engage with gender and sex—concepts that matter deeply to people—but in ways that move beyond binaries and biological determinism. Biological determinism assumes that gender equals sex and sex equals genes, which is a limiting perspective.

This framework allows individuals to locate themselves within a model that includes gender/sex but in a much more expansive and inclusive sense. The goal is to leverage feminist and queer science frameworks to conduct research that is more empirical, accurate, and just.

Jacobsen: All right, thank you very much for your time today.

van Anders: Okay, thanks so much. If there are any follow-ups, just let me know.

Jacobsen: Thank you. Have a good day.

van Anders: Bye-bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.