Sexual dimorphism and occupational risk assessment: Issues and Paradoxes

Since 2016, Article L.4121-3-1 of the French Labour Code has required that occupational risks be assessed taking into account their differentiated effects according to sex. This requirement responds to growing evidence that current prevention frameworks, historically calibrated on male reference models, may inadequately protect an increasingly feminised workforce. Between 2001 and 2019, workplace accidents decreased by 27 % among men but increased by 41.6 % among women - a divergence partly attributable to rising female employment rates and the feminisation of sectors with diffuse but persistent hazards, though also indicative of structural gaps in risk assessment. This paper synthesises the scientific literature on sex-based biological differences (toxicokinetic, immunological, anthropometric) and gendered exposure patterns relevant to occupational health, then analyses the practical, organisational, and ethical challenges of implementing sex-differentiated prevention. The analysis reveals a paradox: while documented vulnerabilities justify differentiated attention, systematic categorical application risks reinforcing stereotypes, diverting resources from source elimination, and weakening universal protection. A proportionate framework is proposed, prioritising hazard elimination, targeting differentiation to empirically documented high-impact situations, and embedding sex-sensitive assessment within - rather than parallel to - universal prevention.

Keywords: Sexual dimorphism, occupational risk assessment, gender, toxicokinetics, occupational exposure limits, prevention hierarchy.