Does Nature Determine A Child’s Gender, Or Is It The Environment That Is Responsible For It?

Introduction

“ What I’m … have become now, wasn’t then… when born. I have been rendered into this other!” (Zam)

The notion of nature and nurture are considered classical opposites of each other. They, at times, complement each other as well. An individual is born by nature, and it is nature that has decided about the birth of an individual, whereas nurture helps individuals to learn so that they can become something, for instance, civilized (Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. 2004).

Masculine and Feminine are the two sexes between which the world is segregated in terms of species. The word sex is often confused with the word gender; however, both have different meanings (Chou, 2011). Sex deals with the biological, physical and anatomical areas of human life, whereas gender encompasses more of social and cultural differences between males and females. Further, society plays a pivotal role in designing the role of both males and females so that a differentiation can be made between the two in order to maintain a social order within a society (Campbell, A. 2012). According to Simone De Beauvoir, an individual is not born a woman. It becomes a woman. Thus, the statement clearly manifests that gender is an outcome of culture and society.

There are beliefs in a society that are adhered to in order to maintain social order. Society plays a significant role in defining the roles of gender. Sam Killermann elaborates that there are three components on which gender can be classified. These include gender expression, gender identity and biological sex. Moreover, gender identity and gender expression are always based on societal values (Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. 1989). These are shaped by the society. It is the society that determines and approves the right behavior that an individual is allowed to demonstrate in order to be a part of the society. This essay shall discuss both perspectives about the gender debate that either gender is determined by nature or it is the environment that is responsible for it.

There are a variety of areas that fall in the realm of this debate and are mostly considered as taboos. Those who support the idea that gender is influenced by nature, such as biological scientists and genetics, argue that everything is predetermined about the gender and sexuality of a person. On the other hand, psychologists and evolutionary theorists believe that there are certain stereotypical and environmental influences that are responsible for the differences in gender (Daly, M., & Wilson, M. 1983).

Discussion

One of the most fluid concepts that has been studied in the past and in different cultures is gender. Most cultures and societies have always restrained gender into two binaries that include males and females; however, mainstream societies as well have introduced other concepts of gender in the late 1970s. A clear distinction has always been made within societies regarding what would be the characteristics that cause a man and woman to fall under a specific category and to identify themselves as males or females. Further, the physical characteristics of the males and females also support the claim made by those who believe in the theory that the differences are created by natural processes. Sexual characteristics are based on sexual dimorphism, which is the reason there is a strong belief that gender differences are based on nature.

The role of stereotyping cannot be ignored in this regard. It causes both males and females to be different at cognitive level as well. It means that the situations and the tasks they approach also differ in the way they are perceived and executed. Further, research studies also suggest that the behavioral patterns are the outcome of human brain, they may also be because of the hormonal secretion as Moir (2001) found that the recognition in the female babies who were four years old were more as compared to the male babies. Moreover, it is also found that the brain of the males tends to be 10% larger as compared to the females; however, when the body-to-weight ratio is applied, the female brain turns out to be greater.

Sex Differences In Mind:

The differences between the average minds of males and females are interesting. These differences must be realized and recognized so that they can lead to mutual respect between the two genders. These differences are subtle and are related to the relative proportion of the different drives that are present in the typical male and female mind. Such sort of debate regarding the role of biology, even while considering the role that culture plays in the lives of individuals and acknowledging the importance it has in the lives of individuals, was not possible in the 1960s and 1970s. Those people who investigated the role of biology have been accused that they have defended essentialism in a way that has caused to inculcate between the sexes perpetuated inequalities There was no such climate where the scientists could have asked questions regarding the mechanisms of nature. In the contemporary world, the nature and nurture debate has set the pendulum in the middle, and those who feel a deep concern regarding ending the inequality and oppression from society can talk freely about the biological differences that are found between the minds of an average male and a female (Hilliard, L. J., & Liben, L. S. 2010).

Further, the differences in the minds studied in the field of sex require that the proceedings be made in a way that is sensitive to the history of conflict and that must look for the evidence so that the facts cannot be overstated in opposite to what the actual scenario is. One important point of consideration is that the data does not consider individuals as a whole but the merits of individuals, as these merits vary from person to person. It is because of the fact that it is not necessary that an individual is typical for his/her sex.

Systemizing And Empathizing:

The process of identifying the emotions of another person and thoughts and responding to them with a proper emotion is known as ‘Empathizing’. It allows individuals to predict the behavior of a person and helps them to care about the feelings of another person. On the other hand the concept of systemizing means the drive that helps individuals to analyze the variables in a system so that the underlying rules could have been derived from the behavior. The drive to construct systems also comes under the category of systemizing. After predicting the behavior of an individual in a system, they can further be controlled in an appropriate manner. According to Baron-Cohen et al. (2002), in a comparative analysis, it is found that males tend to systemize spontaneously to a greater degree as compared to females.

The Main Brain Types:

The brains of the males and females are defined by two key dimensions, which are systemizing and empathizing. Those individuals who have a certain psychological profile may be categorized as talented and systemizers; however, they are also ‘mind-blind’ at the same time (Baron-Cohen, 1995). Research studies suggest that the female brains are good at empathizing, whereas the male brains are good at systemizing. The characteristics that led to this conclusion are multifarious. The preferences and choices individuals make play an important role in deciding the category in which they fall (Eagly, 2012).

Culture And Biology:

The boys strongly prefer to watch videos of cars than to watch a film that shows the human face, etc., at the age of one. This is an example of a predictable mechanical system. The preferences demonstrated by the girls are opposite to these. The eye contact demonstrated by the girls is more as compared to the boys at the age of 1. Research studies suggest that even at this stage of age, these differences may be present due to the factor of socialization. However, the evidence that exists for the differential socialization that contributes to sex differences does not tend to be sufficient information. Research studies done by Connellan and Colleagues show that among babies who are one year old, the boys look longer at the mechanical mobile -that contains a system of predictable law of motion as compared to the face of a person that is nearly impossible to systemize- as compared to the girls. The girl of one-year-old shows an opposite profile. Thus, after seeing this scenario, the conclusion raises the possibility that culture and socialization may partly determine the development of a brain, and it depends on whether it is with a stronger interest in systems or a female brain that has a strong interest in empathy. On the other hand, biology may also partly determine this.

Cultural Education; A Nurturing:

The culture is related to cultivation in terms of etymologically, while the term ‘nurture’ is related to nurse and nourishing as well. The people who have strong connections with the religion find themselves better in such nurture (i.e., culture) and absent from nature. This scenario is affirmed by the saying ‘Train a child in the way in which he should go”.

The second order of intentionality is required in order to obtain cultural education. By first order intentionality, it means having a commitment to bring change in the behavior of an actor, and this phenomenon is widespread in the world of animals. On the other hand, second-order intentionality is determined as finding out the intent that can change the mind and also the behavior of the individual as well. Such type of ability is not found in the animals. Although they can be taught to socialize by taming, they cannot be nurtured in a true sense. Further, the concept of nurture is transferable from mind to mind, in the form of parent to child, teacher to pupil etc. However, a cumulative transmissible culture is not possible to attain. Language plays an important role in this context, it comes naturally to human beings however what is learned that can be culturally transmitted, with the help of specific language. Also, the content that is learned in childhood education is also known as the non-genetic culture (Hines, M. 1982).

According to the religious people both nature and nurture are self-explanatory up to the divine preferences. They tend to believe that there is some sort of supernatural, immanent thing in nature. In the contemporary world where the biological and the other human sciences such as philosophy and many others, there is much effort that the culture could have been naturalized, and an equal amount of resistance could have been given to such a reduction. The socio-biologist holds that there are various principal determinants of culture, and survival is only possible for those people and cultures that can manage to place genes in the next generation.

Culture has remained one of the major determinants, and the information that is present in nature travels on genes intergenerationally. The information in culture travels neutrally as the individuals get the education into transmissible cultures. The determinants that gauge the behavior of the plants and the animals are never political, economic, anthropological, technological, ethical, religious etc.

Moreover, a deliberate modification that is made within nature tends to separate the humans in their cultures from nature increasingly so high in technology cultures. Since the human genome is being decoded, people are now standing at a point where they can rebuild even their own genetic culture (Fine, D. 2010).

The Dualism Of Nature And Culture:

There is a dual inheritance system that all human beings live in, which includes nature and nurture. It is the intellectual and social heritage of the generations that have been in the past, those that lived out in the present, and those that transformed and tended to transmit to the next generation. Cultures, in particular the present cultures, tend to change more rapidly in recent times whereas the genes of an individual hardly change in thousands of years. Thus, the slow-paced genes can in no way find pace with the fast-paced cultures and face certain challenges (Lott, 1985).

A mind that is relatively pliable and educated is more of an adaptive advantageous position as compared to a mind that is with instinctive routines. The complexity of the mind is so huge that the number of neurons and their possible connections can result in a myriad of cultural options. Thus, in this way, it exceeds the number of gene codes, so it is possible for the genes to specify all the connections amicably. These genes of an individual create an organism whose behavior results from education beyond direct genetic control. The more knowledge is inserted, the genome selected will be in the position where it could be instructed maximally by a tradition that is increasingly knowledgeable. It reflects that consistent and continual learning firstly requires a stable intellect, and further, due to the consistent approach of this for a long period of time in the nuclear families, it results in the usually large brain babies (Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. 2009).

Critics view that nature and culture dualism is not a desirable legacy. They criticize the ‘versus’ in the title and claim that by incorporating this word in the title, the framing of connection is done wrongly. They believe that nature is the milieu of culture, and they also suppose that the exodus of culture from nature is the reason for the present environmental crisis. The culture is built within nature, and it is tied to biological connections as well.

Research studies suggest that cultural nurturing reinforces natural genetic dispositions. They further suggest that the answer to the question of whether the individuals have the necessary enzymes to digest the fresh milk will determine their pastoral practices, whereas the differences between the Druids of ancient Britain and the Maoists who belong to modern China are non-genetic and are found peculiar to the cultures where they have been originated even though the biological nature of the Druids and the Chinese have many things in common (Abelson, R. P. 1985).

To sum up, human beings (and other animals) are part of the world only in evolutionary, biological and ecological senses, which is the composition of nature. And the other hand, homo-sapiens seek wisdom by means of culture, that is, nurture. Thus, nature determines the behavioral outcomes of human behavior.

References

Baksh, M. Nature vs. Nurture and the Gender Divide.

Moir, A., & Moir, B. (2001). Why men don’t iron: the fascinating and unalterable differences between men and women. Citadel Press.

Lott, B. (1985). The potential enrichment of social/personality psychology through feminist research and vice versa. American Psychologist, 40, 155–164. doi:10.1037/0003- 066X.40.2.155

Baron‐Cohen, S., Campbell, R., Karmiloff‐Smith, A., Grant, J. and Walker, J., 1995. Are children with autism blind to the mentalistic significance of the eyes?. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(4), pp.379-398.

Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.129 Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164

Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. (2004). The heroism of women and men. American Psychologist, 59, 163–178. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.3.163 Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81–95. doi:10.1037/h0025583

Campbell, A. (2012). The study of sex differences: Feminism and biology. Zeitschrift für Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 220, 137–143. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000105 Carothers, B. J., & Reis, H. T. (2013). Men and women are from Earth: Examining the latent structure of gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 385–407. doi:10.1037/a0030437

Chou, K.-H., Cheng, Y., Chen, I.-Y., Lin, C.-P., & Chu, W.-C. (2011). Sex-linked white matter microstructure of the social and analytic brain. NeuroImage, 54, 725–733. doi:10.1016/j .neuroimage.2010.07.010

Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55. doi:10.1300/J056v02n01_04

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution and behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research. American Psychologist, 67, 211–230. doi:10.1037/ a0027260

Fine, D. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York, NY: Norton.

Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity.

Hilliard, L. J., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children’s gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Development, 81, 1787–1798. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01510.x

Hines, M. (1982). Prenatal gonadal hormones and sex differences in human behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 56– 80. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.56