Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Race, Gender, and

Sexuality: Biological or
Social?
A look at the social constructs of race, gender, and sexuality, in terms of biological and
genetic science, and the way these constructs can affect modern society.

Social Constructionism versus Biological Determinism in Gender


Difference: What's It About?
There are in fact real and measureable differences between women and men as
groups in things like emotions, empathy, spatial ability, physical activity level, violence, and
interests that are documented at a very young age. Sociobiologists have also documented
many differences across species. The question is, are these differences determined by
biology, or are they socially constructed?
In order to answer this question, I wish to first define the terms biological
determinism and social constructionism. Biological determinism is exactly that: the belief
that biology determines such characteristics as behavior, ability, likes, dislikes, etc. Biological
determinism is the theory behind the phrase: boys will be boys. This phrase is associated
with boyish behavioral characteristics, which we can all easily identify, that are believed to
be essential and natural in boys.
Social constructionism, on the other hand, is the theory that social identifiers, like race
and gender, among others, are created by society rather than biology. Many argue that social
constructionism is a much stronger force in shaping behavior and other social characteristics.
Though social constructionists do have differing opinions on the influence of society or biology
over male/female characteristics, a popular opinion is that though there are some innate
biological differences between men and women, society is overwhelmingly more influential in
the long term.
One of the ways we can see how society creates differences between men and women
is the way we are socialized at birth. Research has been done that suggests that although
there are small differences between men and women, the way parents interact with their
babies and children can exacerbate those differences (Eliot 2009). It may make sense to say
that because there are such common traits associated with men and women that are true for
many people, that biology must be the answer as to why these differences exist. However,
correlation does not imply causation. Just because girls tend to have certain traits and boys
tend to have certain traits does not prove that these differences are based in biology.
It is also important to note that although some differences have been found between
baby boys and girls, it is hard to understand what these differences even mean. For example,
boys do on average have larger heads than girls, but it is unclear how or if brain size actually
has any real effect on intelligence and mental ability (Eliot 2009). Some differences that
researchers who also believe in social constructionism have found to be accurate include:
size, Apgar score, and neurological maturity (Eliot 2009).
When discussing biology versus social constructionist theories on differences between
men and women, it is incredibly important to examine the methodology used in many of
these research studies. For example, one study produced results that argued that girls are
innately more people oriented than boys. The study had extremely flawed methodology. In
order to come their conclusion, researchers had newborn babies interact with a human face
as well as a colorful mobile toy. The boy babies were recorded as having spent more time
staring at the mobile than the human face, while the girl babies were recorded as being more
receptive to the human face spending more time on the human than on the mobile (Eliot
2009). The problem with this study is that the analyst interacting with and providing visual
stimulation for the babies was not blind to the baby's sex. It is a well known fact that when
people know the sex of a baby, they interact with it very differently. People are often more
animated with girl babies than they are with boy babies. Therefore, it is not a stretch to
suggest that the human who participated in the study as a visual stimulant may have acted
differently based on the sex of the baby, which could effect the outcomes of the study. If the
researcher knew that the baby they were holding was a girl or a boy, it is likely that they
would act differently and thus the data cannot be conclusive and suggest innate differences
between baby boys and girls. The amount of time the baby boys and baby girls spent looking
at either visual stimulant could very well be shaped by society due the ways in which people
interact differently with babies based upon their sex. This study shows how important it is to
be careful when attributing biological origin to something that is in fact very much influenced
by society.
When researchers critically examine commonly held characteristics that are often
believed to be based in biology, often times we can easily see the ways in which society has a
direct influence in these outcomes. One example of this is a study assessing the ways in
which parents perceive their childrens physical ability differently based on whether or not
their child is a boy or a girl. Researchers asked parents to estimate the level of slope their
eleven-month-old babies could successfully descend. Results did not show any real difference
in the athletic ability of the two sexes; the interesting result was in the ways in which parents
estimated their childs ability to descend the slope. Mothers of baby girls under estimated
their ability by an average of nine degrees. Mothers who had baby boys only underestimated
their babys ability by an average of one degree (Eliot 2009). Lise Eliot, an author who applies
a social constructionist approach, uses this study as an example of the ways preconceived
notions about varying abilities between the sexes alters the expectations we have for our
children.
This expectation has real repercussions. If parents believe their daughters to be less
physically capable than their sons are, than they are less likely to enroll girls in athletic
extracurricular activities. This widens the gap between athletic ability, but it is not based upon
a biological athleticism boys possess. Rather, it reflects the ways in which boys are
encouraged to pursue athletics based off of the commonly held belief that boys are innately
more athletic and enjoy athletics more. Once again, it is easy to see the numbers of boys
involved in sports and argue that boys are innately drawn to athletics more. When we
consider the possibility that society may have some influence over who pursues athletics, we
are able to see the ways in which these differences are based more in society than pure
biology. This does not extend merely to athletics, but has large implications for how we
normalize dangerous behaviors, like violence or aggression, based on gendered expectations
that are wrongly perceived to be biological.
Even real and physical differences can be attributed to more social constructionist
theories when we operate outside of the strict framework of absolute biological determinism.
For example, a measurable difference between men and women is that the ratio of gray to
white matter is larger in women than in men (Spanier and Horowitz 2011). Initially used as
evidence of biological sex differences being absolutely hard wired, researchers have found
that experience and behavior can actually change the structure of the brain. It is extremely
critical that whether we are scientists or readers of science, we are cautious about how we
make conclusions and whether or not we are considering all possible causes before doing so.
Sociobiology as a field has come under a lot of legitimate scrutiny for its methodology.
Many critics of sociobiology take issue with the fact that sociobiologists draw a lot of their
conclusions from nonhuman animal behavior using human ideas of relationships and apply
them to animal interactions. In the continued quest to find a gene for monogamy, we can see
more examples of flawed science in the search for biological origins of highly politicized and
gendered institutions. For example, in Angela Willey and Sara Giordanos piece, Why Do
Voles Fall in Love?: Sexual Dimorphism in Monogamy Research, the authors utilize a
feminist lens to critique the ways in which sociobiologists make claims about the naturalness
of human behavior via flawed methodology in nonhuman animal studies. In this particular
study, researchers used arbitrary definitions of monogamy (whether male voles spent more
time with a previously bonded female vole or a newly introduced female vole) to argue that
voles are in fact monogamous (Willey and Giordano 2011). The first obvious critique of this
study was the researchers' definition of monogamy. The researchers used nearness of the
male vole to the female vole to define monogamy. They even used language like husband
and wife to describe the relationships between voles, which is terminology that can really
only be attributed to humans, as marriage itself is a social construction.
The researchers that conducted this study applied their human understanding of
monogamy to draw conclusions about animal relationships. After they (through flawed
methodology) concluded that voles do in fact have a biological imperative for monogamy, the
researchers were able to send a very strong message about difference. Scientists are often
given a high level of legitimacy, and many people are unlikely to question scientific
conclusions. However, these scientists used flawed methodology to make conclusions about
the ways in which animals are determined to act, which in turn implicates our thoughts about
how human behavior is natural and biologically determined.
When we apply a critical lens to the conversation about difference, we see that social
constructionism, rather than biological determinism, is a more solid cause for many
differences between men and women than pure biology. It is important that we utilize an
understanding of social constructionism to question scientific conclusions about difference,
though it is just as likely that the conversation is not dichotomous; it is very possible that
biology and social constructionism both play a hand in the development of behavior. It is just
a matter of how much, and at what period of time.

Written by Marisa B.

Eliot, Lise. "Under the Pink or Blue Blankie." In Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences
Grow Into Troublesome Gaps -- And What We Can Do About It, by Lise Eliot, 55-102.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009.

Spanier, Bonnie. "Looking for Difference." In Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural
Politics of Contemporary Science and Medicine. Ed. Jessica Horowitz, 43-67. New Brunswick:
Rutgers UP, 2011.

Willey, Angela. "Why Do Voles Fall in Love?: Sexual Dimorphism in Monogamy


Research." In Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary
Science

Biological Determinism v. Social Constructivism

Social Constructionism Dominates Biological Determinism

There are real and measurable differences between women and men as groups in things like
emotion, empathy, spatial ability (or speed in processing spatial problems), physical activity level,
violence, and interests. These differences begin when children are young, and sociobiologists
have documented many differences across species, which is to say, up and down the
evolutionary ladder. Are these differences determined by biology, or are they socially
constructed?
Gender labeling begins the second an infant exits the womb and enters into this world of gender
stereotypes. The first thing that is determined for a baby is whether it has a penis or vagina (and
this is ignoring what happens when it is an intersex baby, which is a whole complicated issue by
itself). The labeling does not simply end at penis or vagina and male or female. What the sex of
the baby is determined to be is usually automatically related to what its gender should be, and
what kind of things it should be doing in association to the stereotypes of this gender.

In December of 2011 The New York Times published an article titled Should the World of Toys Be
Gender-Free? written by Peggy Orenstein. The article says that Hamleys, Londons version of
F.A.O. Schwartz, got rid of its pink girl and blue boy sections in favor of a gender-neutral store
with red and white signage. The store, which had previously been organized by floors dedicated
to Barbies and action figures, is now organized by the type of toy and interests. In addition to
this, Lego has also come out with a collection called the Friends collection which features pastel
colored blocks aimed at girls. After months of anthropological research, Lego has discovered that
the sexes play differently. Orenstein writes, In order to be gender-fair, todays executives insist,
they have to be gender-specific. Though studies have revealed the importance in the difference
in toy choice in young children, according to Lise Eliot the pre-school age is the age when the
brain is the most malleable and most open to influence on the abilities and roles that traditionally
go with sex. Research tells us that there is a reason why girls will choose dolls (because they
favor role play) and boys will choose blocks (because they favor building). Where, then, did we
get the idea of colors and styles of clothing belonging to one gender or the other? Perhaps the
dressing of infant girls in pink and boys in blue is not what we should be doing after all. Even
when we try to avoid the gender stereotype, others still move it along strongly. For example,
when my sister was a baby my parents went the route of dressing her in yellow, which is
supposed to be a gender neutral color. Many people assumed she was a boy, and when told
otherwise reprimanded my parents and told them that they should be dressing her in pink and in
dresses. What are we telling our children when their views oppose the views of normative
society? I myself identify as female and have always hated the color pink. For most of my
childhood I also despised dresses and things that were considered to be stereotypically female.
By my dislike of things that society tells me should go along with being female, what does that
mean for me? The message I and others in this position receive is that we are not considered
normal. This is not something I believe should be enforced when a child is young and
impressionable. Maybe we should take a hint from Riley, the star of a viral Youtube video in
which she is seen in front of many boxes of pink dolls wondering why girls and boys cannot play
with each others toys.

The panic that comes with a person not adhering to his or her gender stereotype is still
something that shocks and amazes me. While reading an article on intersex babies by Katrina
Karkazis, I noted how she mentions the panic of parents and doctors alike when they see that a
child is intersex and the rush to put them into surgery and have them fixed. There are situations
like this all over the place every single day. I have experienced this in my own life, as well. Back
in high school I cut my hair pretty short. Short hair is something society views as unfeminine, and
if a girl wishes to have short hair then she must be more masculine and therefore a lesbian. I got
called a lesbian more times than I can remember. Because I did not fit the stereotype of a
female, it had to mean that I was something else (not to mention the fact that they were using
lesbian as an insult, which is something that enraged me). This all reminds me of an episode I
watched of the television show What Would You Do, in which John Quinones sets up situations
in real life to gage how people react. This particular episode took place in a toy store. It featured
a father and son shopping and the son either wanting a dress or a doll. The reaction of the
surrounding people astounded me. Other parents would go up to the father and ask him why he
would allow that and tell him that it was not right for a boy to be acting in such way. My jaw
dropped as I saw other parents point this little boy in the direction of the masculine toys behind
his fathers back, their faces proud like they were doing their civic duty by pointing this boy in the
right gender stereotyped direction. There was what was referred to as a pink scare when a J.
Crew advertisement surfaced featuring a little boy with pink painted toe nails. In an article about
the situation Melanie Klein writes, Theres nothing natural about gender. Gender is a social
construct reflecting cultural dictates within a specific historical context and those gendered
prescriptions change as the culture changes. She posts a photo of what looks like a little girl:
long hair, white dress, Mary Janes. But theres a catch: the photo is actually a young Franklin
Delano Roosevelt in 1884, before colors were assigned to gender. In fact, when colors were first
assigned to gender, it was the opposite of what we know now. Pink, a color close to red, was
equated with strength and masculinity. Light blue was a natural sign of femininity, and according
to Orenstein equated with imitations of the Virgin Mary, constancy, and faithfulness. As Klein
writes on the subject, Given that history, it becomes clear that color codes are arbitrary, socially
constructed and have no bearing or impact on ones natural gender or sexual identity. Since the
colors are now reversed, there is no scientific evidence to say why a certain color would belong
to one gender. There exists a whole blog called Pink is for Boys that is devoted to people going
against these color and gender stereotypes.

In analyzing male/female differences, these scientists peer through the prism


of everyday culture, using the colors so separated to highlight their questions,
design their experiments, and interpret their results. More often than not their
hidden agendas, non-conscious and thus unarticulated, bear strong
resemblances to broader social agendas.
-Anne Fausto-Sterling, Gender, Race, and Nation

Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz have an entire chapter in the book Gender and the
Science of Difference dedicated to the argument of biological determinism vs. social
constructionism. They write that many theories of biological determinism help to further gay
rights, by arguing that being homosexual is natural. They reference Anne Fausto-Sterling and
her work in her book Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men, in which she
looks into research claims about difference in brain lateralization and math ability. She found that
many of these claims were proved to be wrong or inadequate scientifically because of either
contradictory evidence, insufficient evidence, or abandonment of theories (45). In looking at the
work of researcher Dennis McFadden, Spanier and Horowitz discover that research is flawed
because it focuses too closely on differences between men and women and not on variance in
individual human behaviors across a population. They reach the conclusion that McFaddens
research is not accountable and that there is no just argument for biological determinism yet.
Lise Eliot, author of Pink Brain Blue Brain provides more information to support social
constructionism. She writes,Sure enough, when scientists look closely and study large numbers
of newborns, they have been able to document a few significant differences between infant boys
and girls. But generally speaking, the differences are few and far between, nothing like what we
see later in childhood (55).

In the chapter entitled Under the Pink or Blue Blankie, Eliot explains what is known about
similarities and differences in boys and girls bodies, brains, skills, and maturation in the first year
of life. She explains how some of the differences are present at birth, while others turn up later
on in life. Eliot writes about how infants are influenced by how parents do not treat boy and girl
babies the same way. The only difference at birth between boys and girls is that boys tend to be
larger. They are heavier and longer and typically have a larger head circumference. It has been
proven true that girls develop and mature faster than boys due to their skeletal system being a
few weeks farther along than a boys at birth. Much of the research done in an attempt to
differentiate the sexes is weak, according to Eliot. Things like sensory difference, motor skills,
language, and social and emotional difference and the research performed within each category
have presented feeble arguments about differences between boys and girls.

What would happen if a child was raised without gender? Research on this subject is still
underway as we look at Storm, a genderless baby from Toronto. Parents Kathy Witterick and
David Stocker made the decision to not tell anyone the sex of their baby and it has since made
headline news. Of course there is resistance and outcry by other parents. Kathy and David
believe that a person should have the freedom to choose his or her gender, and that Storms
story may help to make the world a more progressive place. One of the couples other children, a
six year old named Jazz, is not quite a conformer of gender stereotypes himself. As a boy he
loves pink and wearing dresses, and has been teased for it. This helped influence the decision to
keep Storms sex a secret. This is a family that chooses to challenge gender norms that they feel
society imposes.

In the end, many of the differences between boys and girls that we believed to be biologically
determined are in fact socially constructed. Within the research and experiments, scientists bring
their own socially constructed views and opinions with them, whether they mean to use them or
not. The truth is that there is simply not enough evidence to document scientifically measurable
differences between the sexes. Until we discover more, we will keep reinforcing our gendered
stereotypes and hope our children turn out to be what society considers normal.

Works Cited
Eliot, Lise. Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gapsand

What We Can Do about It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009. Print.

Fisher, Jill A. Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary Science
and Medicine. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2011. Print.

Klein, Melanie. "J. Crews Toenail-Painting Ad Causes Pink Scare." Ms. Blog. 13 Apr. 2011.
Web. <http://msmagazine.com>.

Orenstein, Peggy. "Should the World of Toys Be Gender-Free?" The New York Times. 29 Dec.
2011. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com>.

Poisson, Jayme. "The 'genderless Baby' Who Caused a Storm of Controversy in 2011."Toronto
News:. 26 Dec. 2011. Web. <http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1105515--the-genderless-baby-
who-caused-a-storm-of-controversy-in-2011?bn=1>.

Вам также может понравиться