The gender* gap isn’t just about hiring women; it’s also about the consideration of women (and other groups) when making key workplace decisions; the majority of research and resulting decisions have been traditionally determined with only the male phenotype considered. This includes decisions that may be irritating in the workplace (e.g., height norms, temperature settings, or clothing design); but also includes decisions that may be life-threatening (e.g., car crash safety measures, biometric alerts, or egress/ingress handrails). Traditionally, it has been believed that biological differences in women prevent them from working in male-dominated fields. However, the reality is that decisions were made, based on biological data that excluded women’s information, leading to work design and organization that discriminates against women. When measuring aspects of men and women, you typically find a normal distribution of data for each sex, with the male average being statistically, significantly different from the female average. To put this in perspective, consider height variability. On average women are shorter than men and the mean height for women will be significantly lower than the mean height for men; although some women are taller than men. Traditionally data sets used for workplace decision making (e.g., shelf height) have excluded the female data set. Importantly, previous research has shown that when workplaces redesign to incorporate both male and female datasets, the workplace becomes safer for both sexes and in many cases efficiency and productivity are improved. Biological differences exist in: body size, muscle strength, aerobic capacity, metabolism, immune function, etc. In addition, psychological characteristics of the individual, as well as the psychosocial environment, can also act as either causative, confounding, or effect modifying factors and may also have gender specific differences.