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, London’s 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, today’s 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 other’s 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 father’s 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, “There’s 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 there’s 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 one’s ‘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 McFadden’s 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 boy’s 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 Storm’s story may help to make the world a more progressive place. One of the couple’s 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 Storm’s 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 Gaps—and

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. Crew’s 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>.

Posted byAriel Schloesser