Biosocial Theory of Gender

The argument

Biosocial gender theory is positioned as a synthesis rather than as a third rival to the nature and nurture accounts, and its structure is what makes it support the conclusion that gender is determined by both. It begins by accepting suggestions made in biochemical gender theory. Hormones, on that account, play a role in shaping personality, influencing temperament and disposition in ways that are biological in origin and operate before any social instruction takes place. Biosocial theory does not dispute this. It takes the biochemical contribution as real and incorporates it rather than arguing against it. What it adds is the claim that this contribution is not sufficient on its own. Socialization plays a large role in the construction of gender: the expectations placed on a child, the behaviours encouraged or discouraged, the models made available, and the categories a culture supplies for understanding oneself. These operate from birth onward and vary between societies in ways that biology does not. The two elements combine rather than compete. A biological disposition does not arrive in a vacuum; it is interpreted, amplified, or suppressed by a social environment that already has views about what it means. Gender, on this account, is what results from that interaction, which is why neither factor alone is adequate to explain it. The theory does, however, weight the elements differently. Socialization is the dominant role in shaping gender within bio-social gender theory, so the biological contribution is understood as a starting input rather than as the determining one. Because the theory holds that hormonal influence and social construction both operate, with socialization dominant, proponents conclude that gender is determined by both nature and nurture.

Context

Biosocial Theory was created by Money and Earhardt in 1972, suggesting that gender roles are not entirely innate, nor are they exclusively a result of socialization.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The counter argument is to refute the biological impact implicit within biosocial theory, and to argue the role of biology is so minimal in molding gender, that for all pragmatic purposes it can be regarded as inconsequential. Therefore any behavioral differences among genders are classed as socially constructed. In refutation of existing contradictory scientific evidence, it is argued that to remove existing cultural and societal programming during academic research is very difficult, and existing efforts have unsuccessfully removed such bias.

Rejecting the premises

Measuring the specific impact both biological and societal factors play on gender is unfeasible due to the inability to accurately separate societal factors during development.