34th Annual Scientific Meeting proceedings

The World Health Organisation defines gender as “the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time”. Gender has implications throughout life, often intersecting with other markers of inequality such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, and sexual orientation. Of note, gender is recognised as a spectrum, not a binary concept. It is however important that we don’t misuse recognition of the gender spectrum to distract from investigation or statement of the inequalities faced by women in work and society. Acknowledging and characterising the inequalities faced by women does not negate or dismiss those faced by gender-fluid or non-binary individuals. 

As a profession, veterinary medicine was historically dominated by men, however by the late 1980s there were broadly equal numbers of male and female undergraduates in the UK. By the mid-2010s, women comprised >70% of new veterinary graduates in the UK and US, by 2019 approximately 75% of graduating veterinarians in the UK were women, and in 2021 approximately 80% of graduating veterinarians in the USA were women. Despite this changing demographic, women remain proportionately under-represented in senior management and leadership positions; at higher levels in academia; they continue to receive lower salaries than male counterparts; career progression in academia is typically slower than for men; and they receive fewer professional awards.  

A publication from 2021 evaluated gender distribution at each academic level within accredited veterinary faculties in Australia and New Zealand (8), the USA and Canada (38) Europe (98). Women occupied respectively 47.9%, 45.5% and 47.5% of academic positions, but they were clustered in lower ranked positions compared to their male peers (‘the higher the fewer’). If we consider global leadership gender demographics for veterinary medicine, we see a similar picture.  Currently, women account for approx. 34.6% of executive leaders and 25.5% of Deans/Dean equivalents. The relative lack of women at more senior and leadership levels reflects the ‘leaky pipeline’ phenomenon first described in 1996 within Science Technology Engineering Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) subjects. The ‘leaky pipeline’ description recognised that women were consistently under-represented at higher levels despite equal representation at the recruitment stage. The term ‘leaky pipeline’ is not ideal however as it suggests a passive loss of talent, but the reality is frequently that women are lost from these professions because of barriers to career progression.

To date, 6/58 (10.3%) ACVS Presidents have been women and 7/70 (10%) ACVS Awards have been given to women. Of 187 honoured mentors, 28 are women (15%). No figures are publicly available regarding the proportion of ACVS Diplomates that are women, but a publication from 2019 stated it was 37%. In 2023, women comprised 33.8% of ECVS Diplomates, based on figures provided by the ECVS Office, and by 2025 6/31 (19.4%) ECVS Presidents have been women. According to information on the ECVS website (www.ecvs.org), the Inaugural Distinguished Service Award in 1995 was presented to a woman, the ECVS Secretary at the time, two subsequent awards were given to a charitable foundation and to the ACVS, and the remaining three awards all went to men.

Gender stereotypes and stereotype threat
This information comes from research in human healthcare, as we currently have no similar published information for veterinary medicine. The author’s opinion is that there is likely to be significant commonality between the two so cautious extrapolation is appropriate. Academic sexism in surgical training in human healthcare is most expressed through implicit bias in assessments that impact merit and promotion e.g. performance evaluations, trainee feedback, expectations of collegiality. Research shows that surgical residents (both male and female) believe their seniors, their fellow residents, and the general public, all think men are superior surgeons (despite evidence to the contrary). Studies using text analysis of reference letters for residency applicants in human medicine and surgery show that letters for male applicants have significantly more standout adjectives and discussion of achievement. They also have more reference to awards, ability, hardship, leadership potential and scholarship. Letters for female applicants have more general/non-specific comments (delightful, good conversationalist), and more caring words (care, time, patients, support) and were more likely to comment on personality and physical appearance.

Junior staff and nurses typically resent correction from female seniors more than they do from men, and they are more likely to judge female seniors on personal criteria e.g. they are not friendly enough, not chatty enough, not nice enough. Female faculty in academic medicine tend to receive lower scores from residents and training fellows than their male peers. Women in senior roles often face a likeability-competence double bind – if they aren’t seen as likeable enough, they will be resented as leaders, but if they are seen as likeable enough, they are usually then seen as less competent.

Implicit, or unconscious, gender bias is a key player in perpetuating gender inequity, and one that is often misunderstood. Critical to understanding implicit gender bias is that no-one is exempt from it – it’s something we’re all exposed to through our upbringing and daily lives. Implicit bias is based on years of exposure to cultural messages; it may be completely different to consciously held or stated opinions. Implicit bias is demonstrated nicely in a study looking at how science faculty from research-intensive universities interpreted letters of recommendation for men and women applying for the same job. The letters were identical other than being randomly assigned a name conventionally associated with either a man or a woman. Apparently male applicants were viewed as more competent and suitable for hire than the (identical) applicants that were believed to be women. They were offered higher starting salaries and greater opportunities for mentoring to develop their careers.

Another good example is in a report by the British Veterinary Association in 2017 (Motivation, satisfaction and retention: Understanding the importance of vets’ day-to-day work experiences – available at www.bva.co.uk). This report included the findings of a study demonstrating that overt discrimination against women in veterinary medicine was commonly perpetuated by those who firmly believed gender discrimination does not exist anymore, and that they personally do not discriminate against women.

A final word
Women are often just as guilty as men of perpetuating gender inequality, so this is a problem that requires buy-in from everyone to address the existing problems. Many people – again, women as well as men – have an instinctive distrust of any talk about gender inequality and how to address it. It’s not unusual for any such discussion to be immediately dismissed as simply a move to impose unwanted gender-based quotas. Diversity of inclusion does not however mean compromising on excellence, or that someone will be handed recognition they have not earned through merit. Rather, it means ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to progress their careers based on merit and achievements, regardless of their gender.

Supporting references/further reading

1. Allen LC. Feminisation: Threat or opportunity? Vet Rec. 2016;178(16):391-393
2. Shepherd AJ, Pikel L. Employment of Female and Male Graduates of US Veterinary Medical Colleges. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2013;243(8):1122-1126.
3. Freestone K, Remnant J, Gummery E. Gender discrimination of veterinary students and its impact on career aspiration: A mixed methods approach. Vet Rec Open. 2022;9(1)
4. Morello SL, Genovese J, Pankowski A, et al. Occupational segregation by gender in veterinary specialties: Who we are choosing, or who is choosing us. Vet Surg. 2021;50(6):1191-1200
5. Morello SL, Colopy SA, Bruckner K, et al. Demographics, measures of professional achievement, and gender differences for diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2015. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2019;255(11):1270-1282
6. Morello SL, Nelson L, Fubini SL. Gender differences in research collaborations and academic advancement among veterinary medical college faculty. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2023;261(8):1-9
7. Giuffrida MA, Steffey MA, Balsa IM, et al. Gender differences in academic rank among faculty surgeons at US veterinary schools in 2019. Vet Surg. 2020;49(5):852-859
8. Liu X, Dunlop R, Allavena R, et al. Women representation and gender equality in different academic levels in veterinary science. Vet Sci. 2021;8(8):159
9. Vezeau N, Kemelmakher H, Silva Seixas J, et al. Characterizing Global Gender Representation in Veterinary Executive Leadership. J Vet Med Educ. 2025;52(1):132-138
10. Lewiss RE, Silver JK, Bernstein CA, et al. Is Academic Medicine Making Mid-Career Women Physicians Invisible? J Womens Health. 2020;29(2):187-192
11. Andersson ER, Hagberg CE, Hägg S. Gender Bias Impacts Top-Merited Candidates. Front Res Metr Anal. 2021;6: 594424
12. Schmaling KB, Gallo SA. Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023;8(1):2
13. Klein R, Julian KA, Snyder ED, et al. Gender Bias in Resident Assessment in Graduate Medical Education: Review of the Literature. J Gen Int Med. 2019;34:712–719.
14. Schizas D, Papapanou M, Routsi E, et al. Career barriers for women in surgery. Surgeon 2022; 20:275–283
15. Myers SP, Dasari M, Brown JB, et al. Effects of Gender Bias and Stereotypes in Surgical Training: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(7):552–560
16. Phillips NA, Tannan SC, Kalliainen LK. Understanding and Overcoming Implicit Gender Bias in Plastic Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(5):1111–1116
17. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, et al. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(41):16474–16479
18. Feldman H, Blackmon S, Lawton JS, Antonoff MB. Dear sirs, your bias is showing: Implicit bias in letters of recommendation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023;165: 398–400