The biosocial approach considers an interaction between biological and social factors. For example Money et al proposed that after a biological male or female is born, and labelled as such, gender identity is shaped through social influence. If labelled male they are treated by society in a masculine way, if female treated in a feminising way. Overall, it is suggested that environmental and social factors can override biological sex at birth.
It is proposed that if intersex individuals were mislabelled at birth that child would take on the labelled gender as long as this occurred before the age of 3. For example if a biological female was labelled and treated as a boy, they would label themselves as a boy regardless of biological sex. Therefore the label an individual is given at birth is the most important element, as the theory suggests they will assume that gender identity.
Wood et al proposed that the biological differences between males and females cause psychological differences to develop as they are brought up in that respective gender role. This leads to gender role assignment e.g. men are stronger therefore viewed as the hunter and women give birth therefore suited to child care. Therefore supporting the biosocial approach as the respective gender roles are supported by biological differences throughout life.
Money et al's theory has been criticised with evidence from the case study of David Reimer, who after having his penis removed in a botched circumcision, was unsuccessfully raise as a girl. David became deeply depressed and when told the truth reverted back to his biological male gender. This study suggests biological factors override psychological ones. However, this is a single case study and we cannot generalise findings and assume everyone would behave the same. Other confounding variables, such as his identical twin brother, may have shaped his gender development. Therefore the extent to which biological and social factors influence gender development is not entirely clear.
Imperato-McGinley's study of the Batista family reported four biologically male children, born with AIS, being raised as female due to their external genitalia appearing female. During puberty when testosterone release increased, this caused their male genitalia to appear. All the children accepted this change without difficulty, weakening the biosocial approach as findings suggest biological factors override social ones. It is also argued this change was readily accepted as the 'girls' never truly identified with the female role and were expecting to become male, as AIS had been seen in relatives. Providing further support for a biological approach.
Both Money and Imperato-McGinley's studies highlight that the biosocial approach is unable to explain each individuals' gender development. With these studies often it was overriding factors that had appeared to be the main influence. However, the biosocial approach highlights that nature and nurture likely interact, biological sex causes physical differences, which then lead to psychological difference based on they way they are treated in their gender role. But, this is not supported by all . Those of radical social constructivism reject the biosocial approach believing biology in itself is a social construct.
Research has led to real world application of helping towards gender equality. The evolutionary approach is seen as a force against this suggesting sex differences are innate and cannot be changed through altering social context. Whereas if a social approach is taken this suggest that social roles can be changed leading to changes in psychological differences between men and women and greater equality.
The biosocial approach may provide an 'answer' to the nature nurture debate as both are considered in this explanation. However, research may prove one factor overrides another for example social factors are due to our biology and how others perceive us, therefore may take on an overriding role. Also within the studies of David Reimer and the Batista family biology clearly played a strong role with gender identity, therefore weakens a biosocial approach and suggests biology ultimately plays an overriding role.
No comments:
Post a Comment