Nature vs Nurture

Sarah Newton 17/12/15

Nature vs Nurture: Comparisons of the Biological Explanation and the Social Constructionist Explanation.

There are two main explanations for the development of gender in the nature verses nurture debate, the biological approach and the social constructionist approach.

The biological explanation of gender considers chromosomes, androgens and the effects that these have in creating the sex of a person and often this is then used to determine the gender of the person (Udry 2000).

 The social constructionist theory disputes this and suggests that gender is enforced through societal roles. The characteristics which are learnt through socialisation are then reinforced by performing the appropriate behaviour (Punch, S., Harden, J., Marsh, I., Harding, J. and Keating, M. 2013). This incorporates the theory that gender reinforcement maintains the patriarchal discourse which retains the inequality between males and females.  

One study of the biological theory looks at stages in which the androgens, which are male hormones, are released during development both pre-natal and post-natal. In a study on rhesus monkeys, when the mother was exposed to high levels of androgens during the second trimester of the pregnancy the baby developed stronger masculine characteristics (Udry, 2000). The study of humans in relation to exposure to androgens has also been documented, as cited in Servin, A., Nordenström, A., Larsson, A. and Bohlin, G. (2003), by observing girls who have congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a genetic disorder, who are exposed to unusually high levels of androgens. The studies show interest is greater towards male orientated toys and activities in girls who suffer this disorder. Studies in this area suggest gender development is situated in the brain and determined by the levels of androgens the foetus is exposed to (Hines, M. 2004)

This aspect of research into the biological explanation of gender looks at transgender studies. In these studies there is ‘evidence of subcortical gray matter masculinisation in the right putamen’ (Saraswat, A. MD. Weinand, D. J. MD, BA, BS. Safer, D. J. MD. 2015), in female to male transgender individuals. In contrast, male to female transgender individuals, reports show feminised cortical thickness. These studies were recorded on transgender individuals who had received no hormone treatment (pp 3). Haralambos and Holborn, (2008), discuss how hormone levels are closely related to the nervous system this can affect behaviour, personality and emotions (pp 96). These theories support the ideas from Saraswat, A. MD. Weinand, D. J. MD, BA, BS. Safer, D. J. MD. (2015), who suggest through the transgender studies gender is determined biologically.

In researching the biological theory it is interesting to examine the case of John/Joan, an eight month old baby who suffered a medical accident during a routine circumcision. The penis was burnt so severely it did not recover, this resulted in the penis being removed and the boy being raised and socialised as a girl. Dr John Money was the doctor who suggested this course of action. (Stryker, S. Whittle S. 2006) (pp 184-187). However this theory did not have the desired effects. At the age of 14 according to Colapinto, J. (no date) although the boy had received female socialisation from being a baby he constantly displayed masculine traits and at the age of fourteen was re-christened as a boy, David as he was now known is quoted to have said:-

 ‘…triumphing over the array of forces that had conspired, for the first time in fourteen years of his life, to convince him that he was someone other than the person he felt himself inwardly to be’ (Colapinto, J. no date. Preface).

This is in total opposition to the theory raised by Dr John Money who is quoted to have said:-

‘If a child underwent surgery and started socialisation as a gender different from the one originally assigned at birth, he or she could develop normally, adapt perfectly well to the new gender.’ (Stryker, S. Whittle, S. 2006. Pp184).

Another explanation of the John/Joan case is offered by Hauseman, B. L. (2000). The socialisation process could have had the opposite effect to that which was desired causing the child to repudiate the femininity that had been seemingly forced upon him.  There would also be apparent benefits of dominance and status in being male displayed through his father:-

‘…You treat your wife well. You put a roof over your family’s head. You are a good father…’ (pp 126).

These theories indicate that it is the patriarchal society that sets the standard for the approved characteristics and as Teslenko, T. (2004) describes, gender is an ideology set to maintain the patriarchal paradigm and quotes:-

‘Gender bias is central for the balance of power relations within the patriarchal social order’. (pp 35).

Punch, S., Harden, J., Marsh, I., Harding, J. and Keating, M. (2013) describes how maintaining these hegemonic views of masculine and feminine reinforces the inequality between the sexes (pp 223).

In defence of the biological explanation regarding hormonal influences as cited in Aspects of gender identity development: Searching for an explanation in the brain - applied psychology OPUS - NYU Steinhardt, (no date) the stages in which the hormones organise and develop the brain into a specific gender occur during pre-natal development at thirty-four weeks, then again at forty-one weeks and the last influential exposure is at three months old. This would suggest that the brain had already established a set gender by the time ‘David’ had the operation (no pp number).

Social constructionists theorise that regardless of the physical and biological form of a man or woman, it is societal and cultural influence that determines the attributes assigned to differentiate between the gender of an individual (Haralambos. Holborn 2013) (pp 101). This explanation is mirrored by Simone De Beauvoir, cited in Fallaize. E. (1998), she suggests that the biological explanation is only a determination of male and female sex. Gender is culturally constructed to interpret the expectations of what a woman is and what a man is (pp 30-31). A quote from Simone De Beauvoir from her book ‘The Second Sex’ presents gender as acting the role rather than being the role:-

‘One is not born, but rather becomes a woman’ (Evans, R. 1998) (pp 81).

Judith Butler as cited in Butler, J. (1999) believes that:-

‘The view of gender is manufactured through a sustained set of acts, posited through the gendered stylisation of the body’ (pp 8).

The biological and social construction theories offer relevant and interesting explanations as to gender development. Research and studies indicate that influences from both explanations need to be taken into consideration when entering into the nature verses nurture debate.