The Social and Biological Influences on Gender

[Debater Slayer]

Lately, I have been reading more about the subject of the biological and social influences on gender identity and gendered expressions. I'm currently of the belief that gender is not entirely a social construct but also not entirely determined by biology. There is evidence suggesting a biological component to gender expressions, and if gender were purely a social construct, it seems to me that we would not, for example, expect to see children identifying as another gender despite social conditioning and even repressive measures pressuring them not to.

However, there is also evidence indicating that a lot of gender expressions are socially influenced rather than biologically inherent. The variation of gender roles and expressions across many cultures is a clear example of this. It is not a coincidence that the majority of Islamic countries generally have different expectations and notions about what constitutes "masculinity" or "femininity" than their non-Islamic counterparts. Furthermore, there is ample scientific evidence that social norms and upbringing influence an individual's psychology, and this is not limited to gender norms.

What I'm interested to know is how much of gender expression is social and how much is innate or biological. In other words, if two men, two women, and two non-binary people were each picked from Saudi Arabia and Sweden and then we observed the differences in their gender expressions, how similar would they be to their current selves if they had grown up in a different society? What percentage of gender expressions, if we could even quantify such a thing, are social versus biological, and vice versa?

 

[wellwisher]

The best way to tell that gender bending is a social construct is the way the Left approaches the subject. If if was innate, it would not require the forced conditioning of young children in school, with their parents kept in the dark. That is classic brain washing; starting with impressionable minors. The goal is a long term self fulfilling prophesy.

Innate behavior does not need a cheering section, nor does it need conditioning, forced conformity in schools, with punishment for the those who have a different attitude or innate behavior. This conditioning is based on old Communist style reconditioning camps, to enforce a social construct that is not organic; artificial and hard for all to swallow.

If anyone was a natural athlete, musician, artist, student, etc., one would gravitate to these things at a young age without anyone saying anything. It would come easy and feel natural. One would not need a village to support your choice. You would be you and do it anyway. Once it take a village; peer pressure, assume social construction.

One can have a child who prefers and naturally gravitates to the the violin. However, their parents want them to be a star athlete. The parents cannot just leave them be, since they will gravitate to the violin. They but will need to apply a carrot and stick conditioning routine, to spice up the path of athletics, and discourage the violin. They may even put them into the care of coaches and extra sports camps so they are surrounded by an athletic culture, composed of natural and forced conformity. The child will feel the pressure to please theirs parent and the helpful adults, to get along in terms of the adult dreams for the child. The child may even get good at sports. But this was never innate or natural, but was a social construction projection.

Gender conversion stands out as a social construct since it requires a lot of artificial additives; drugs and surgery, which by the nature of artificial, shows it is not natural. Natural has all that it needs up front, at birth.Heterosexual does not need any extra drugs or surgery. How can you even say both are natural?

This is not to say a male cannot be more feminine and/or female more masculine, while still being heterosexual. The former is connected to the brain's operating system and which level of firmware your ego gravitates. However, once you have to add or take away; use artificial additives, you detour from natural and enter the free market where fantasy comes alive and con artists sell used cars as new.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The best way to tell that gender bending is a social construct is the way the Left approaches the subject.

I would appreciate it if all responses were backed up by scientific or medical evidence and reasonable elucidation instead of political points.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lately, I have been reading more about the subject of the biological and social influences on gender identity and gendered expressions. I'm currently of the belief that gender is not entirely a social construct but also not entirely determined by biology. There is evidence suggesting a biological component to gender expressions, and if gender were purely a social construct, it seems to me that we would not, for example, expect to see children identifying as another gender despite social conditioning and even repressive measures pressuring them not to.

However, there is also evidence indicating that a lot of gender expressions are socially influenced rather than biologically inherent. The variation of gender roles and expressions across many cultures is a clear example of this. It is not a coincidence that the majority of Islamic countries generally have different expectations and notions about what constitutes "masculinity" or "femininity" than their non-Islamic counterparts. Furthermore, there is ample scientific evidence that social norms and upbringing influence an individual's psychology, and this is not limited to gender norms.

What I'm interested to know is how much of gender expression is social and how much is innate or biological. In other words, if two men, two women, and two non-binary people were each picked from Saudi Arabia and Sweden and then we observed the differences in their gender expressions, how similar would they be to their current selves if they had grown up in a different society? What percentage of gender expressions, if we could even quantify such a thing, are social versus biological, and vice versa?

I will try to answer.
The problem is that female to male itself is a continuum of "white" to "different shades of grey" to "black" when it comes to behavior.
So where you as you draw the line for male/female/non-binary might be what? Well, nature or nurture?

I think, I get what you are getting at and that is to find the natural state of things so we don't oppress people. Is that it?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I will try to answer.
The problem is that female to male itself is a continuum of "white" to "different shades of grey" to "black" when it comes to behavior.
So where you as you draw the line for male/female/non-binary might be what? Well, nature or nurture?

I think, I get what you are getting at and that is to find the natural state of things so we don't oppress people. Is that it?

Oppression has nothing to do with my question. I believe people should be treated with respect and afforded full legal and social rights whether gender has a biological component or not. Even if it does, I believe people shouldn't be forced to act a certain way or have gendered expectations imposed on them without regard for their own choices and goals.

My question is meant as an exploration of the topic because there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut scientific consensus on how much of gender is rooted in biology and how much is rooted in social and cultural norms. I find the question complex and interesting, hence this thread.

 

[VoidCat]

Well I was hoping someone else would bring this up cuz I don't remember the guy's name i think it was David something but guess I will have to. I read a book back in highschool I'd have to see if I could find it based on a true story of a guy who had a botched circumcision as a kid and he was raised as a girl as a result. They even performed genital surgery thinking gender was a social construct. But as the kid grew he insisted his identity was a boy and that suggests gender is somewhat based in biology.

 

[VoidCat]

David Reimer that's the guys name. Book I read was this one

https://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0061120561

Tho the book used a different name not David to protect his privacy at the time I guess back then he didn't want to know the story was about him so the writers respected that I later learned the guys real name.

Edit: either i remember wrong or I read an earlier copy before the story was well known. Later copies do seem to include his name

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oppression has nothing to do with my question. I believe people should be treated with respect and afforded full legal and social rights whether gender has a biological component or not. Even if it does, I believe people shouldn't be forced to act a certain way or have gendered expectations imposed on them without regard for their own choices and goals.

My question is meant as an exploration of the topic because there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut scientific consensus on how much of gender is rooted in biology and how much is rooted in social and cultural norms. I find the question complex and interesting, hence this thread.

Okay. Here is my problem. I was taught to get at the question differently.
Not what is biology and what is culture?
But what in the toolbox of medicine to soft psychology helps the individual?

But with that out of the way, I doubt there is a clear cut answer, because we still don't know exactly how nature and nurture work in a brain.
What I mean is this: How do we know if how a brain works is a case of nature or nurture, because nurture also changes brains as far as we can tell.

So I think it is in a limited sense self-referring as how we understand nature and nurture. Not that we can't find limited clear example of one or another, but there is a muddled field in middle, as far as I can tell

 

[Brickjectivity]

What I'm interested to know is how much of gender expression is social and how much is innate or biological.

I think this is not yet known. A serious and statistically strong study on sexuality only recently began with Masters & Johnson who published in the 1960's. Masters & Johnson were criticized for their books, because many thought them to be indecent. They studied orgasm and human sexual response. That doesn't even begin to address your questions, but I am just pointing it out to show that there isn't a very good answer, yet. Psychology begins in the 20th century. Before this century there is lot more mystical and superstitious teaching about psychology. In the 19th century phrenology is popular, and they are just learning about hypnotism. Crazy people are locked up with criminals. Nobody sees a way to actually understand and treat psychological issues.

It takes time to gather data, and it is expensive. There are also badly done studies. Its also not popular, sometimes. Time will pas before your question is answered.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would like to see the scientific evidence, that the Left has, so we can discuss that. I have yet to see any.

You have to state your standard for science, evidence and see.
I won't do it, if we can't agree on some standard.

I will give an example. Can you accept that I can't work, though you can't see it, if you look at my body?
If you say no, it ends there.