Causation, Correlation, and the Dance Between Them

Previously, on This Gender–Tango Saga…

In the first part of this little rabbit hole, we looked at how Tango has (thankfully) moved on from the days when your gender automatically decided your role. Back then, it was simple: man = leader, woman = follower. No questions asked. Today, that rulebook is gone, and we get to choose.

And yet… the numbers still lean the same way. More men are leading. More women are following.

So here’s where we left off: if we stripped away tradition, societal pressure, all the “you should” and “you must,” and this pattern still showed up… would that be a bad thing? What would that mean?

Let’s poke at that idea a bit.

What if there is another explanation?

Let me throw a few more correlations at you, observed in scientific studies, based on averages, not individuals:

• Men, on average, are taller than women.
• Men tend to score slightly higher in spatial awareness and mental rotation.
• Women tend to score higher in verbal fluency and emotional expression.
• Men are, on average, more risk-taking.
• Women are, on average, more cautious and risk-averse.
• Men tend to systemise more, understand structures, rules and frameworks.
• Women score higher on empathy and emotional state reading.
• Men often use more direct, task-oriented communication.
• Women more often use indirect, relational communication.

Now, to be absolutely clear: This does not mean that all men are spatially gifted or emotionally clueless, or that all women are emotionally attuned and afraid of risk. These are population-level trends, not prescriptions. Also, we need to understand that all these traits are not binary but more like ranges. So even between the same gender, there are still variations.

Also, here is a tricky caveat: noticing these averages doesn’t mean gender is the direct cause of the traits and, therefore, of role selection too. It’s tempting to imagine a neat equation of gender → traits → role, but reality is messier. Traits are shaped by a mix of biology, culture, upbringing, and opportunity. Gender can be part of the picture, but it’s never the whole story. So when we talk about correlations, we’re describing tendencies, not proving causation. The caveat is in mistaking “often goes together” for “is caused by”.

Still, these tendencies often correlate with real-world patterns. More men in the military. More women in teaching and care professions. Not because the other path is closed, but because there are tendencies.

For most of them, we seem to acknowledge and accept these correlations. We don’t try to force an equal number of women and men into the army or into care professions to break a correlation. Yes. We try to remove obstacles that are gender biased for one or the other gender to enter one or the other role. We try to make sure, for example, that women can enter the army and are not excluded just because they are women. But this doesn’t mean we try to equalise numbers. Just ensure equal opportunities should you choose that path. But for many, that path is not an option at all because they just don’t like it! It doesn’t fit their character! Because in many cases, those traits that correlate with gender fit some roles better than others.

So what about Tango?
What if being in a gender and having some of those traits leads you to like one or the other role more?
Is it bad to acknowledge these correlations? Why?
Is it condemned to say that men are usually leading and women are usually following? Why?
Why should acknowledging and accepting a correlation mean that I am supporting abandoned traditions or patriarchal structures?

The correlation alone is not a problem.
It’s just a fact.
Facts are never bad or good. It is we who see them as such.
Facts are something to be observed, analysed, understood and explained.

The pattern itself is not a bad thing. We shouldn’t be fighting it. Instead, what we should be fighting is all unfair and oppressive causes that might lead to that pattern. And in this, I think we have come a long way already. Today, almost nobody will frown upon or judge women or men dancing amongst themselves. Almost nobody will judge people dancing in the opposite gender’s role. On the contrary, double role dancers are often regarded as higher level! Learning both roles from scratch is a practice which spreads widely and fast. We haven’t totally erased all oppressive causes… but we definitely made significant progress.

But still we need to accept… that even if we totally erase all the oppressive causes… we might still not erase the correlation.
We might completely erase the causation… but not the correlation!
We might still see more men leading and more women following and…

THAT IS OK!

Why is it OK?

In Tango, we’re constantly told to “find your Tango”. To let the dance express the real you. Not a copy of someone else’s style. Not a cookie-cutter pattern.

But here’s the paradox: if your personality has been shaped (in part) by your gender, and if your personality aligns better with one role than the other, then maybe choosing that role isn’t limiting. Maybe it’s just… honest.

If you have to contort yourself, suppress key traits, or constantly override your natural tendencies to “balance the gender-role equation”, how much of your real self are you bringing into the dance?

Now, of course, some people are natural role-switchers. They blend traits easily. They’re emotionally attuned and system-oriented. They’re spatially gifted and deeply empathetic. We love those people. We should all strive to be like them, or at least hang out with them in milongas, so we look cooler by association.

But for most of us? We have strengths and weaknesses. We have a centre of gravity. And that is why it is OK to lean and prefer one role. Because our Tango role should reflect that gravitational centre, rather than rebel against it.

Invitation vs Obligation

This isn’t an argument against exploration.

By all means, try both roles. Switch. Flip. Experiment. Some of the most meaningful growth happens when we step outside what feels natural. But it should be an invitation, not an expectation. We should celebrate the people who bridge the roles. And we should just as much respect the ones who say, honestly:

“I’ve tried both, but I feel more myself in this one.”
Or, “This role feels like home… I simply don’t feel the pull to dance the other.”

That’s not regression.
That’s authenticity.

Trying to eliminate the correlation between gender and role completely might sound noble. But it could also become its own kind of pressure, asking people to bring into the dance something they don’t feel, or something they’re not.

And at that point… who exactly is benefiting?

Tonight’s Goodnight Tango

Tonight’s Goodnight Tango comes from the soul… just like your dance should.

So how about you? Does the role you dance align with your strengths and weaknesses? Does it reflect your gravitational centre or rebel against it?

Comment below or join the discussion in the community

Need to talk privately? Contact me personally.

Or… just spread the word!