Facilitating inclusive discussions on sensitive topics in biology

We are writing in response to John R. Pannell's (2023) commentary, “Sex, sexes, sex roles, and gender in land plants,” published in the American Journal of Botany. While Pannell's discussion about the use of the term “plant gender” in biology raises important points, it also highlights broader issues about how biologists engage with sensitive topics. This letter serves as a starting point to reflect on how we can approach such discussions more thoughtfully and inclusively. Natural scientists often perceive themselves as objective, focusing on empirical evidence and data (Beebe and Dellsén, 2020). However, history has shown that science is a human endeavor, and humans are naturally subjective beings. There are numerous examples through time where this has led to problematic scientific experiments or outcomes, including, for example, phrenology (Bank, 1996), genetic essentialism (Moore et al., 2025), the eugenics movement (Allen, 2011), nonconsensual human research practices such as the Tuskegee syphilis study (Paul and Brookes, 2015) or the theft of Henrietta Lacks' cervical cancer cells (Beskow, 2016), and finally, the misuse of science to support antiqueer and antitrans policies (McNamara et al., 2022). These instances of scientific racism and sexism have enduring consequences that shape public trust in science and affect marginalized communities to this day. For example, research continues to show that students have a difficult time separating the social construction of race from phenotypic differences in skin color (Donovan et al., 2020). More relevant to this piece is the harm that persists in the conflation of sex and gender (Stuhlsatz et al., 2020; Forsythe et al., 2024b), a point that we will further unpack in the later sections. We emphasize through these examples that science is not practiced in a vacuum—every scientist is shaped by their subjective experiences and social context (Haraway, 1988). Science does not only aim to describe reality, it also shapes how it is discussed. This becomes particularly important when addressing socially sensitive topics tied to identity, such as gender, sexuality, race, nationality, religion, or disability. For this reason, many journals require position statements from authors on both the lived experiences and identities that they hold, and what makes them experts in the topics they discuss. For example, the authors of this letter are queer and/or transgender. When reading Pannell's (2023) commentary supporting the continued use of “gender” to describe different aspects of reproductive function in plant biology, we found ourselves in collective disagreement and concerned about the potential of this argument to further confuse students and the general public. This reaction underscores why the perspectives of those most affected must actively be sought out and their opinions valued when revising terminology. Clarity and specificity in scientific language are essential to safeguard against misuse and the potential to cause harm. Additionally, when discussing interdisciplinary topics, we as scientists should always seek out input from people with diverse areas of expertise, rather than just cementing subjective views by those with the most powerful voice. The use of terms like “male” and “female” to describe reproductive function in the sporophyte (which produces spores, not gametes) is biologically imprecise. These terms would be more appropriately applied to gametophytes, the haploid generation that actually produces gametes. Reproduction through meiosis and fertilization in plants occurs across two generations: (1) meiosis in the sporophyte produces haploid spores, which develop into gametophytes, and (2) the gametophytes produce gametes by mitosis, which fuse during fertilization giving rise to a new sporophyte. Unlike in animals, where these events form a single continuous process, this alternation of generations can be confusing for students. In flowering plants, gametophytes may also be elided over, because they are highly reduced: the microgametophyte is the pollen grain, and the megagametophyte develops within the ovule, enclosed by sporophytic tissue. However, collapsing two distinct generations into a binary framework derived from animal reproduction can mislead students and scientists alike, flattening a complex and fascinating system into language that obscures rather than clarifies. While such simplifications may be convenient, they risk reinforcing a binary view that is biologically inaccurate. Similarly, just as we can refer to flower morphology as staminate and pistillate or polliniferous and ovuliferous (Pannell, 2023), or binate for flowers that produce both pollen and ovules (Subramaniam and Bartlett, 2023), it is clearer to describe reproductive function with terms such as pollen-producing and ovule-producing (or pollen-dispersing and seed-producing). Furthermore, Oberle and Fairchild (2023) argue that the use of “gender” in plant biology creates unnecessary confusion and reinforces anthropocentric and binary thinking. They point out that gender, as it is understood in social sciences and by the public, applies to human identity and social constructs, not biological function. Their work further highlights that retaining this terminology in plant biology not only misrepresents the complexities of the biological processes involved in plant reproduction, but also conflates the important distinction between sex and gender, thereby alienating individuals whose gender identities do not conform to binary frameworks. Their critique directly challenges Pannell's assertion that using the term “plant gender” in biology could be useful or benign. However, Oberle and Fairchild are just one example of a growing movement within the science community to grapple with complex ideas at the social and scientific borders and ethically move the field towards language and ideas that reduce harm. In Taylor and Dewsbury (2018), the authors tackle the complex, often problematic use of metaphors in science. Hales (2020) provides science instructors with a guide on how to teach complicated concepts within the science curriculum to reduce harm. Ogden (2024) provides a compelling argument against using terms like “invasive” and other war and xenophobic metaphors when discussing ecology. These examples all point towards a growing theme: while the relation between science and social constructs may be complex and deeply historical, we cannot choose to ignore these problematic concepts for the sake of temporary simplicity. We add our voices to this growing movement and call upon the science community to reframe problematic language in science. When natural scientists and educators engage with sensitive social issues, there is a responsibility to educate themselves deeply on the topic (Driessen et al., 2024). Expertise in natural sciences does not automatically translate to an understanding of social sciences. Additionally, the majority of academic biologists have not received formal training on the best practices in education (Winberg et al., 2019; Forsythe et al., 2024a), let alone teaching inclusively. But inclusive pedagogy has the potential to make a critical difference between alienating or welcoming students from diverse backgrounds (Hales, 2020). Within biology specifically, content that tackles complex social constructs can increase student retention and understanding of the material itself by making the concepts more relevant and therefore more interesting to students (Dewsbury et al., 2022). It is important that anyone facilitating discussions on sensitive issues carefully ensures that they are prepared, not only with scientific knowledge but also with a nuanced understanding of the social, historical, and political context of the issue (Matlin et al., 2019). Researchers and educators facilitating difficult conversations should consider pointing out their own subjective limitations and encourage participants to do the same (Harding, 1995). Additionally, any two controversial positions should not be treated as equally valid simply because they are presented within a scientific framework (Grimes, 2019). The facilitator must take a mediating and guiding role, not to impose their own viewpoint, but to steer the conversation toward inclusion and respect (Pendergrass, 2017). The classroom is an especially delicate environment for these discussions, even more so when the identity being debated is particularly vulnerable and/or represented by a minority within the group. In, for example, a classroom consisting primarily of Christian students and only one Muslim student, a discussion about conflicts between Islam and evolution creates a high risk of alienating the singled-out Muslim student and creating tension within the group. Minority students often bear the weight of representation, and poorly facilitated discussions can deepen feelings of isolation and exclusion (Tuitt, 2012). Thus, a discussion about conflicts between Christianity and evolution would be much more appropriate in this context. Similarly, this dynamic also applies to discussions about gender and sexuality. A nonbinary or transgender student might feel singled-out or invalidated during a discussion about “plant gender”. Learning about sensitive issues is often valuable to students (Lowe, 2015), but this should never come at the cost of marginalized groups. The rights of gender minorities such as transgender and intersex people depend on precise and inclusive language (Miyagi et al., 2021). This makes it imperative that discussions addressing sex or gender must be carefully phrased to avoid any ambiguity that could be used in support of antigender ideologies or populist narratives. Thus, it would be much more beneficial to frame a discussion on plant reproduction in a way that allows the students to question the status quo and learn about perspectives beyond their own discipline. An excellent basis for this would be, for example, the essay published by Subramaniam and Bartlett (2023). Facilitators must be sensitive to these dynamics and work actively to prevent harm while encouraging open, respectful dialogue. Additionally, they should adapt the choice of discussion topics depending on their own expertise as well as the composition of each specific cohort. Based on our experience, discussing sex and gender in the lecture theatre in a sensitive and inclusive way has the potential to do more than just reduce harm: it can actively affirm queer and trans students' identities, helping them feel seen, respected, and valued within the academic space. Scientific progress often involves revising our understanding and adapting to new perspectives. It is natural for even experienced scientists to be misguided at times or unaware of the broader social implications of their work. What matters most is how we respond once these issues are pointed out. We all should be committed to improving the culture and practices of science by reflecting intellectual integrity and willingness to grow by first acknowledging harm. Scientific discourse continually evolves to reflect new understanding and societal progress. Biological sciences have repeatedly abandoned terms laden with bias or misrepresentation in favor of precision and neutrality (e.g., Houk et al., 2005; Callaway, 2024). Similarly, in the context of “gender” in plant biology, recognizing the perspectives of those most affected by the language we use and adjusting accordingly will strengthen both the scientific and social foundations of our work. Like Oberle and Fairchild (2023) and Subramaniam and Bartlett (2023), we propose moving away from using imprecise terms like “gender” in plant reproductive biology, and instead adopting terms that are scientifically accurate, contextually clear, and free from political connotations. This change will not only clarify plant reproductive systems but also align the field with the broader scientific community and serve as a model for thoughtful language use in science. Despite change sometimes being hard, it is not the insurmountable challenge it may seem. Especially when teaching the next generation of scientists, a simple change in the way we teach these concepts will have immediate results, e.g., terms like “reproductive allocation strategy” or “quantitative mating system” could easily replace the term “plant gender”. The biological sciences are not isolated from social issues. When biologists engage with topics at the intersection of natural and social sciences, they must recognize the social and political weight these conversations carry. Facilitating interdisciplinary, thoughtful, informed, and inclusive discussions requires more than presenting opposing viewpoints. It requires guiding conversations toward understanding, respect, and inclusion. Pannell's commentary highlights the need for biologists to engage with these issues more carefully, ensuring that the voices of those most affected are not just heard but also valued. S.M. conceived and developed the ideas and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors actively contributed to writing and refining the text, engaged in discussions that shaped the paper, provided critical feedback, and approved the final version. We would like to thank Spencer Barrett for starting the conversation; Bruce Anderson for encouragement; Vincent James, Janice Parks, and Jeremy Yoder for helpful comments; and the Advancing Queer and Trans Equity in Science (AQTES) Consortium for offering a platform for collaboration. We would also like to thank the editors and reviewers for their supportive comments and suggestions on how to make the manuscript clearer to readers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.