For a long time, scientists have accepted the notion that male mammals are generally larger than females. However, this conclusion has been largely based on assumptions rather than solid evidence. Charles Darwin introduced this idea in 1871 within his influential work, The Descent of Man, but did not provide substantial proof. This theory, which fit neatly into the prevailing beliefs about male superiority, quickly gained traction as a supposed truth. Even though later research has called this view into question, it continues to persist in contemporary discourse.

A recent study published in Nature Communications revisited the topic of sexual dimorphism—the differences in size between male and female species—and discovered that this phenomenon is not as universal as once thought. By analyzing the weight of males and females across 429 mammal species from 66 out of 78 families, researchers found that in only 45% of cases did males outweigh females; conversely, females were heavier in 16% of cases, while 39% exhibited similar size. Furthermore, the observed differences in mass were not particularly pronounced for most species.

The study also evaluated body length, revealing no significant size discrepancies in around half of the species examined. This suggests that the notion of pronounced sexual dimorphism has been exaggerated. Much of the focus has been directed toward well-studied species where males are larger, like lions and gorillas, while species with reversed or negligible differences, such as rabbits and bats, have received far less attention.

This is just one of many instances illustrating how male-centric perspectives have clouded our understanding of both the natural world and our own identities. Attention has predominantly been given to male-dominated primate species, such as baboons and chimpanzees, leading to the misconception that male primates inherently dominate their female counterparts—and, by extension, that this applies to humans as well.

However, this belief has faced significant scrutiny, especially since the latter half of the twentieth century when more women entered primatology. Current understanding acknowledges that many primate societies are not male-dominated; rather, in numerous instances, it is females who lead, or males and females share power equally.

An analysis of 79 primate species found that in 42% of them, females either held dominance or were on equal footing with males. Yet, a stark imbalance persists in the attention given to male-led versus female-led species, with over 350,000 scholarly articles on male-dominant baboons compared to a mere fraction for female-dominant lemurs.

The long-standing narrative of ‘Man the Hunter’ gained traction in the 1960s, suggesting that hunting was integral to human evolution and that men, being the primary hunters, assumed leadership roles. This idea resonates with ancient beliefs of male superiority, echoing notions from the Greco-Roman era where women were viewed as inferior.

This assumption has shaped modern scientific interpretations, leading to the erroneous classification of ancient burials and artifacts. For instance, a high-ranking Viking warrior thought to be male was later revealed to be female, as were some significant figures in Iberian prehistory. Moreover, many ancient burials previously labeled as male may have actually belonged to women, based solely on the tools or objects found with them.

In the realm of biology, outdated ideas persist. The early notion proposed by Dutch physicist Nicolaas van Hartsoeker that sperm contained an entire tiny human being suggests that men alone are responsible for creating life. Although this theory lost traction, the idea of a competitive "sperm race" has endured, despite evidence indicating that eggs may have a more decisive role in reproduction.

These misconceptions are not surprising given the male-centric lens through which early scientists viewed the world. As noted by philosopher Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex, men were seen as the standard of humanity while women were regarded as 'the other.' This perspective influenced scientific inquiry, resulting in a self-perpetuating cycle of patriarchal validation.

Efforts to counter these misconceptions have been ongoing. The first paper addressing larger female mammals was published in 1976, and significant works challenging male dominance in primates emerged in the late 1980s. Even so, many of these ideas have been overlooked in favor of traditional narratives.

Recently, I came across a proposal from 1941 by Phyllis Deane to include unpaid domestic labor in gross domestic product calculations—a notion that remains relevant today. The push to recognize and validate diverse perspectives continues, as many revolutionary ideas challenging patriarchal norms are not new but have gained renewed attention.

Androcentrism has distorted scientific inquiry in numerous ways, causing researchers to emphasize behaviors that align with male-centric views while neglecting those that do not. This has led to a lack of representation of women's contributions in science, known as the Matilda Effect, where women’s achievements are minimized or forgotten.

Even today, women in science face significant hurdles in research funding, citation rates, and recognition compared to their male counterparts. This not only perpetuates harmful myths but can also result in flawed scientific conclusions, as seen in studies of mammals, primates, and human societies.

It is imperative that we refrain from making unexamined assumptions, as doing so undermines scientific integrity and perpetuates damaging myths about gender. The prevalent narratives of male dominance and superiority continue to skew perceptions of gender equality, reinforcing stereotypes that devalue women's roles in society.

These myths also impose burdens on men, creating pressure to conform to outdated notions of masculinity. The skewed narrative surrounding reproduction contributes to a male reproductive health crisis, impacting fertility treatments.

Thus, it is in everyone's interest to challenge these long-standing myths. Despite decades of research countering androcentric views, the information has yet to fully penetrate public consciousness.

We must persist in questioning existing narratives, exploring new theories, and striving for a more accurate understanding of the natural world, ourselves, and our societal structures—free from the overpowering influence of male-centric ideologies.