Discuss the Biosocial approach.

(8+16) This is not one of my strongest essays, so you might want to include more. (Sorry)

AO1

The biosocial explanation of gender was advanced by Money and Ehrhardt, who proposed that once a biological male or female is born, social labeling and differential treatment of boys and girls interact with biological factors to steer development. This theory was an attempt to integrate the influences of nature and nurture. Essentially they argued that
it is sex of rearing that is the pivotal point in gender development. Biology is likely to determine sex of rearing as a baby is sexed at birth and everything else follows from that. However, as we have seen, some individuals are intersexes and may be mistyped at birth. Money and Ehrhardt predicted that, if a genetic male is mislabeled as a girl and treated as a girl before the age of three, he would acquire the gender identity of a girl. Thus the key to gender development, according to Money and Ehrhardt, is the label that a person is given.

AO2

Early research did support this hypothesis. Goldwyn cites the case of Mrs DW, who had androgen insensitivity syndrome, but was brought up as a woman. When informed that she was biologically male, she felt that she was a woman and elected to remain that way. This shows that social factors strongly influence our gender identity; more so perhaps, than our biology. This therefore supports Money’s hypothesis that social factors determine gender identity. This however, is a case study. Although it provides rich, detailed data, it is essentially a sample of one, so the results cannot be extrapolated elsewhere.

AO2

However the case of David Reimer contests this theory. David Reimer was raised as a girl following a surgical accident in which his penis was damaged.  Unlike Mrs DW, David was uncomfortable in his assigned gender role, and always felt he was a boy. This contradicts Money’s contention that social influences can overcome biology. David’s case was of particular interest as it was the first to uncover the problems of a child born developmentally normal but reassigned to another sex. Although it is only a single case, it lends strong support to the view that biology takes precedence over socialisation. This experiment also had high validity due to its scientific nature. 

AO2

Further research that contest this theory comes from McGinley et al who also reported a case study, this time on a family from the Dominican Republic. Four of the sons appeared to be biologically female at birth and were raised as girls. However, by adolescence, they developed male genitals and began to look like adult males. In spite of the fact that they had been reared as girls, they seemed to adjust well to the male role. This also dispute’s Money’s assertion, as biology once again prevailed over social factors. Nevertheless, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions as the male role in that culture is more respected than the female. This may mean that their acceptance of a changed gender identity was influenced by social factors as well as biological ones.

IDA

This theory however can be praised as it sees gender related behaviour as flexible rather than fixed making it Compatibilist being that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, which offers opportunities to create and develop aspects of the self which may be otherwise constrained by traditional ideas of masculinity and femininity.

IDA

The biosocial theory also combines both biological (nature) and social (nurture) influences on gender development. Combining the approaches provides a more holistic explanation than a reductionist one.