- Heterosexual people of the opposite sex are attracted (male female relations).
- Homosexual where people of the same sex are attracted to one another (male male or gay and female female or lesbian)
- Bisexual where male and female are attracted to either gender.
The three preferences described above are by no means exclusive, people can freely identify themselves in a number of different ways such as , , , and more.
The Nature v Nurture debate:
The Biological approach of gender development is that sex and gender are inter related. Since sex is biologically determined by genetics the approach believes the same is true of gender. When a new foetus is formed, as part of its genetic make-up, it has two sex chromosomes which decide whether it will be male or female. The biological approach also argues that these chromosomes decide whether the individual will grow up to be masculine or feminine. The sex chromosome pair associated with females is XX, while the sex chromosome pair associated with males is XY. Although it is very unusual some babies may be born with atypical (abnormal) sex chromosomes, some baby boys have an extra X chromosome (XXY) these boys grow up to have more feminine traits as well as more female looking bodies. This lends weight to the biological argument that chromosomes have a major effect on gender. Up to about six weeks into a pregnancy the male and female foetus look the same, their gonads (sexual organs) are no different, and around the sixth week the sex chromosomes begin to have an effect on the development of the gonads. The Y chromosome release’s testosterone a hormone in the male foetus which makes the gonads develop into testes. Meanwhile, without testosterone a female foetus’ gonads will automatically turn into ovaries. Even within the womb, the testes and ovaries begin to produce different levels of sex hormones which affect gender development. Testes produce high levels of testosterone and is said to affect the brain and behaviour of the child after it is born, testosterone is thought to make boys more aggressive and to give them superior mathematical skills. Meanwhile, the ovaries produce high levels of oestrogen which is thought to make girls more sensitive and to give them superior verbal skills. The effects of hormones on gender-related behaviour can be seen in cases where individuals are injected with substances that affect hormone levels, some female athletes have injected themselves with steroids to try and improve their sporting performance resulting in an increase level of testosterone and as a consequence they often report feeling more aggressive. Similarly, men undergoing sex change operations, use drugs to raise their oestrogen levels. There is evidence that this improves their verbal ability on tests. However, they actually do worse on tests of visual spatial ability. The Biological approach believes that human behaviour is instinctive, and these instincts have developed to help us to survive and reproduce. The biological approach at first seems quite straightforward, you either born as a boy or girl. However, 1 in 500 people are born with external genitals that don’t match their sex chromosomes (XX for females, XY for males). Looking at a baby’s genitals is not a guarantee of their sex and in some rare cases, boys with a hormone deficiency may have “female” genitals until puberty, when sufficient testosterone is produced, the penis grows and the testes drop outside the body.
A case which evidenced this in favour of the biological approach was the study of the Batista family by Imperato-McGinley et al (1974) in the Dominican Republic. Four of the ten children in the family were born daughters with normal female body shape and function, yet at age twelve, due to a flood of testosterone which in turn produces dihydrotestosterone (DHT) their vaginas healed over, two testicles descended and they grew full size penises. Thirty seven children from the Dominican Republic have experienced this change, and the mutant gene that causes this change can be traced back to common ancestor. This mutant gene only shows when carried by both parents. The transformed boys’ ability to adopt a male gender identity and gender role suggests that their testosterone had pre-programmed masculinity into their brains. The role of socialisation in the development of sex roles of appeared to be overridden by biological factors and researchers concluded that biology was important.
In the 1950’s a prominent psychologist Dr. John Money introduced his theory of gender neutrality, where for the first two years after birth a child is gender neutral or has no fixed gender. He argued that gender identity is learned rather than ingrained in our genetics. The idea was that the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences, implying that if a child were altered so as to superficially resemble the opposite sex and was raised as one of its members, he would be happy with that sexual identity. Interestingly in 1966 Dr. Money was presented with the case of David Reimer ‘the boy without a penis’. On August 22nd 1965 Janet Reimer gave birth to two healthy twin boys Brian and Bruce. At 7 months old they both went along to the local hospital for a routine circumcision. As a result of a malfunction of electrical equipment which the doctor was using, Bruce's entire penis was burnt off, leaving the family devastated. Several months later Janet Reimer watched a debate on television about sex change operations which featured Dr. John Money, who was taking part in the debate on sex change operations on transsexuals. Janet Reimer thought this was the answer to her son's problem and wrote to Dr Money who immediately responded and invited the family to Baltimore, Maryland. Dr Money being a highly intelligent and respected psychologist advised that the Reimer’s should bring their son up as a girl. So when Bruce was 18 months old he was castrated, called Brenda and treated as a girl. Dr Money's argument is that if parents choose the sex of their children, then the way they brought them up would determine their gender. This process has to occur before the 'gender gate', which is before a child is two years of age. Up until this point Dr Money had never put his controversial theory into practise. He now had the perfect opportunity with the Reimer’s identical twins, where one could be raised as a girl.
Dr .Money assured the parents that Brenda would become a girl and would conform to the gender she had been brought up as, he also instructed the parents what to tell friends and family, as well as the other twin brother, about the situation. Dr. Money met with the twins regularly but most often Brenda, to assess how well the experiment was going and to make her feel more comfortable and to try and reassure her she was normal. At age 4, Brenda was said to be neater than her brother, which Dr. Money considered a sign of potential future success, due to her feminine toys, hair, clothes and style of upbringing. The children began to copy the image of their same-sex parent with Brenda wanting dolls to play with whereas her brother wanted cars.
However, later Brenda was considered by everyone who knew her to be a tomboy who liked to play with her brother’s toys and enjoyed aggressive play. She reported feeling different and her teachers said she was generally more masculine than feminine. Brenda was even seen urinating standing up. Either Dr. Money did not know or he chose to ignore this evidence. Brenda consistently refused to have further surgery which Dr. Money insisted she had, at the age of 15 was having severe emotional and behavioural problems, even threatening her parents that she would commit suicide if they made her see Dr. Money again. Her parents then decided that she should be told the truth about who she was and Brenda finally knew she had been born a boy. From this point onwards Brenda became known as David and lived as a male. After Dr. Money published his findings and reported that you could successfully raise a boy as a girl, David and his family appeared in a documentary where they put forward their views on what happened. David and his brother Brian reported that Money had used unethical practices to encourage the development of their different gender identities, including taking photos of them naked in different sexual positions. This could never be proven as 2 years worth of the study’s notes on the twins were never released by Dr. Money. This study was extremely controversial for a number of reasons as it was suggested that Dr. Money in fact knew Brenda was never happy as a girl, but lied for the purpose of his study. But as he only studied the case for nine years, it cannot be said for sure, as it’s possible this was unclear at that age. Dr. Money was still convinced that gender identity was practical but raised the time span from the initial 2 years after birth to 3 or 4 years, where gender reassignment could be easily carried out. However many argue that Dr. Moneys study again showed that nature or biology influences our gender identity. A follow up study on David Reimer by Milton Diamond (1982) concluded that people’s biology largely determines their gender and criticised Dr. Money’s early study as being misleading as Brenda (David) was never happy as a girl.
Further evidence to support the biological view is a condition known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) which can affect males and females, causing heightened levels of male hormones. Berenbaum and Hines, 1992 found genetic females XX with the condition are often described as tomboys, have higher levels of aggression than other girls, prefer male toys and show superior ability in spatial tasks. However, studies of aggression in girls with CAH have so far produced inconsistent results. Hines (2004) reports a number of studies comparing aggression levels between CAH girls, CAH males and controls using various measures of aggression. Some of these studies show significant effects while others show no differences. Most CAH research involves small samples and lab studies with animals tend to show that testosterone does lead to increased aggression.
The social constructionist view of gender dismisses the idea that genes are responsible for the way that we think and behave. Instead there is the belief that our 'gender' is shaped by our societal environment. From the moment someone is born people conform to the gender stereotypes, particularly the parents. A classic example would be the conception that girls wear pink and boys wear blue. From this other people will start to treat that individual according to the 'norms'. Baby girls are almost always handled with great care whereas baby boys are often handled in a much more physical manner such as throwing and catching them. Toys that are bought for the child also differ according to the sex of the child. Girls are bought dolls and teddy bears and boys are bought toy cars and action men figures. If a boy was to start playing with a doll, the chances are someone would remove the toy and say to the child that it is a girl's toy. If they then picked up a toy car there would be words of appraisal. This form of learning is known as conditioning. From then on others reinforce this shaping such as teachers, peers and the media. This supports the view that gender is socially constructed.
Anne Oakley (1974) outlines how socialisation in modern industrial societies shapes the behaviour of girls and boys from an early age. Basing her work on the findings of Ruth Hartley, Oakley discussed four main ways in which socialization into gender roles takes place. The child’s self concept is affected by manipulation where for example mothers tend to pay more attention to girl’s hair and to dress them in feminine clothes. Differences are achieved through canalization, involving the direction of boys and girls towards different objects. This is particularly obvious in the provision of toys which encourage girls to rehearse their expected adult roles as mothers and housewives. Girls are given dolls, soft toys and miniature domestic objects and appliances to play with. Boys, on the other hand, are given toys which encourage more practical, logical and aggressive behaviour, for example bricks and guns. Another aspect of socialization is the use of verbal appellations, such as ‘You’re a naughty boy’, or ‘That’s a good girl’. This leads young children to identify with their gender and to imitate adults of the same gender. Male and female children are exposed to different activities. For example, girls are particularly encouraged to become involved with domestic tasks. In addition, numerous studies have documented how stereotypes of masculinity and femininity are further reinforced throughout childhood, and indeed adult life. The media have been particularly strongly attacked by feminists for tending to portray men and women in their traditional social roles.
Margret Mead investigated tribes in Papua New Guinea for two years, her main aim was to see if there were cultural variations in gender related behaviour i.e. differences in the roles men and women play in the society they are in. While there Mead did pioneering work on gender consciousness. She sought to discover to what extent temperamental differences between the sexes were culturally determined rather than innate. She described her findings in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) and explored the subject more deeply in the next decade with Male and Female (1949).
Mead found a different pattern of male and female behaviour in each of the cultures she studied, all different from gender role expectations in the United States at that time. She found among the Arapesh a temperament for both males and females that was gentle, responsive, and cooperative. Among the Mundugumor both males and females were violent and aggressive, seeking power and position. For the Tchambuli male and female temperaments were distinct from each other, the woman being more dominant, impersonal, and managerial and the male less responsible and more emotionally dependent. Mead concluded that gender roles are cultural, they are learned from the environment and that different cultures valued different behaviours or traits and is therefore not a product of nature (biology). However the study was criticised for being too involved, Mead lived with the tribes & this meant she risked being subjective rather than objective. Gender roles are not universal across different societies, they are a product of the culture and therefore a good argument on the nurture side of the debate.
The social constructionist view does need to be seriously considered as it makes some important arguments, the role socialisation plays in gender role development is massive with not only primary socialisation but all the processes involved in socialisation. The media has also helped the social constructionist argument by the way males and females are portrayed be it magazines, tv shows or advertising as they are specific to each sex. On the other hand biology cannot be ruled out to as it too plays an important role in the development of one’s gender.
A study to support the fact that gender is a result of both genes and environment is that of a true hermaphrodite known as Mr. Blackwell by Goldwyn (1979). A hermaphrodite is a condition in which half of a person’s cells are XX and half XY. Blackwell is described as a handsome and rather shy 18 yr old boy. Although he had a small vaginal opening he also had penis, he was taken to be a boy and brought up as such. But when he was 14yrs he developed breasts and was sent to hospital to discover why this had happened. It was found that he had an active ovary on one side of his body and an active testicle on the other. Gross (1987) suggested that in fact he could well be said to have a female brain for his hormone system was enough to take him through the whole female cycle and ovulate every month. Nevertheless, he expressed his wish to remain male and so his female parts were removed. His upbringing as a male seems to have been a major influence on gender development. This case then underlines the strength of nurture, since his upbringing as a boy influenced his gender identity as a male, overriding his female bio chemistry. Also the surgeon who had carried out the operation on Mr Blackwell, and on 25 other similar cases noted that all these people had no doubt about their gender, which was always in line to how they were raised either male or female. It therefore seems that biology alone cannot determine gender development.
References:
Money J (1975) Ablatio penis: normal male infant sex-reassigned as a girl, and David Reimer’s subsequent testimony. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.smartpsych.co.uk/biological-studies. [Last Accessed 28 February 2013].
Sex and Temperament. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/mead/field-sepik.html. [Last Accessed 28 February 2013].
Ferrante, J, (2012). '10. Gender'. In: Ferrante, J (ed), Sociology a Global Perspective. 8th ed. Mason, OH/US: Cengage Learning, Inc. pp.244-271.
(2011). What is Sexuality. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.lgf.org.uk/Get-support/Coming-Out-support/what-is-sexuality-/. [Last Accessed 12 February 2013].