Nature, Nurture or Both? Part II: Gender in Terms of Nature

Sociology and Psychology

Photograph: John Lau

It is important not to lose sight of the sheer influence gender roles have on us as people and a society. The ‘boys in blue, girls in pink’ adage might seem like a universal constant, but we often fail to realise that: until the late 19th century, blue was a boy’s colour and pink a girl’s. At ‘gender reveal parties’ (ecstatic celebrations in the name of unveiling a fetus’ genitalia), these superficial stereotypes become all the more evident: if it's a boy, then toy cars, plastic guns, or superhero-related merchandise are often gifted; if it’s a girl, then that would mean frilly dresses, Barbie dolls, or other ‘girly’ paraphernalia. Needless to say, these associations probably have much more to do with social constructions. Even before we are born, various social expectations and gender norms are foisted upon us –– all of it based purely on our sex.

Being so entrenched in gender-normative expectations from day one can bring about severely adverse consequences. Comparative studies show that infants are cognisant of such gender roles by the time they reach the age of two or three and rigorously adhere to them by the age of five. Of course, this is not inherently bad; however, it can give rise to many undesirable side effects. Recent surveys indicate that girls possess the same level of self-confidence as boys up until it plummets at the age of twelve. This phenomenon in girls reaches an all-time low at fourteen, when boys are twenty-seven percent more confident than them. As the authors of the study noted, ‘at an early age, parents and teachers frequently encourage and reward girls’ people-pleasing, perfectionistic behaviour without understanding the consequences.’

Men are not exempt from these ramifications either: in fact, they are three-to-four times more likely than women to commit suicide, even though women have higher rates of diagnosed depression. The downside of having to present a polished, macho, confident front at all times, it seems, is that men and boys are never taught to feel comfortable expressing their feelings –– or, by extension, seeking help when they need it, which further exacerbates the problem. Again, it all circles back to socialisation: how boys are told they don’t, or shouldn’t, cry, thereby making it clear to them that being vulnerable is equivalent to being weak.

Great pressure is placed on outliers who do not conform to any of these constricting gender norms. This manifests itself most clearly in the cases of the unnecessary medical procedures that are sometimes performed on perfectly healthy intersex babies to make them align more clearly with a certain gender. Although some adults go on largely unhindered by the surgery, the Human Rights Watch stated that there are usually no real dangers being posed to an intersex person’s health when such procedures take place and that their supposed benefits remain unproven. As Ruth, an intersex woman who went through such procedures in childhood and struggled with PTSD as a result, puts it, ‘the way I was treated was never about me — it was about my doctor and my parents and everyone feeling uncomfortable with how my body was… but I want to be like how nature made me.’

Proponents of gender socialisation believe that there are four major factors to this side of our identities: family, education, peer groups, and mass media. We have already seen that biology and sociology are interconnected and overlapping in nature on matters of gender; in this case, it is plausible to state that gender identity is fluid, malleable, and thoroughly influenced by condition and circumstance.

The renowned, if controversial, American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler first coined the concept of gender performativity in 1990, which takes the fairly radical stance that gender is an identity presented or ‘performed’ through the daily verbal and non-verbal actions we choose to take. She later elaborated: “we act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman… so to say gender is performative is to say that nobody really is a gender from the start.” In her view, biology has nothing to do with gender. While this theory, like all others, ought to be taken with a grain of salt (given the other aforementioned biological factors that may also contribute to gender), the idea that gender identity is the culmination of our conscious actions and decisions throughout life is unorthodox, debatable, and compelling.

This writer views gender as a complex, ever-shifting lattice-work of nature and nurture, and believes that socialisation is something that interacts with our biological inclinations towards a certain identity. While genetics set the stage, socialisation shapes the play and our characters. Instead of seeing nature and nurture as entirely separate in the nuanced world of gender identity, perhaps we ought to consider understanding them to be mutually inextricable, complementary, and constantly in motion. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, it is long past time that we all acknowledged and validated the colourful variety of gender identities that brighten up the world today as we know it.