The Bruce Reimer Case on the Nature vs Nurture Debate - Essay Example

?Running head: THEORIES OF GENDER DEVELOPMENT Theories of gender development Insert Insert Insert 09 November Theories of Gender Development: The Bruce Reimer Case on the Nature vs. Nurture Debate Introduction For decades, several major theories have been put forward to explain gender development, including psychoanalytic theories, cognitive developmental theory, gender schema theory, biological theories, and social psychological theories. Most theories of development centre on the early years of development or focus on adults (Eagly, 2004). Through development from childhood to adulthood, gender roles become part of who we are and have a relatively powerful effect on how we behave, think, and act. By the age of 3 years, most children identify themselves as boys or girls and can classify others as being of same sex or the other sex (Golombok & Fivush, 1994). Once they identify their sex, children begin to learn and show sex-appropriate behaviors. How people from childhood to adult acquire different gender roles can be explained by three broad theories: social role theory, cognitive developmental theory, and biological development theories. Social Role Theory Parents’ expectations on how their child behaves have much influence on a child’s gender identity. This theory emphasizes the influence of social and cognitive processes on how we interpret, organize, and use information (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2010). Hence, mothers, fathers, friends, peers, and society are expected to respond to and reward different behaviors in boys than in girls. Under this differential treatment, boys learn different gender roles from girls. For example, the stereotypical roles for males include being dominant, controlling, and independent, while gender roles for females include being sensitive, nurturing, and concerned (Chrisler & McCreary, 2010, p.20). Based on this theory, these gender differences originate largely because mothers and fathers respond to and reward different behaviors in girls than in boys. Studies have revealed that parents are more likely to encourage dependence in girls, reward boys for conforming to traditional play activities, and reward girls for doing traditional household chores. Thus, parents influence the children to match traditional boy-girl gender roles. The only major shortcoming of social role theory is that it focuses too much on rewarding and discouraging behavior, while putting little emphasis on biological and cognitive influences. Cognitive developmental theory During childhood, a child learns that there are rules about what boys and girls can do or not do. This childhood experience forms the basis of cognitive development theory. According to this theory, as children develop mental skills and interact with their environment, they learn one set of rules for male behaviors and another set of rules for female behaviors (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2010). Therefore, children actively process information that results in their learning gender rules that stipulate which behaviors are correct for girls and wrong for girls, and vice versa. Thus, children form mental images (gender schemas) about how they should act. For example, the convectional gender schema for being a girl includes engaging in rough and tumble play and sports, and initiating conversations; the convectional gender schema for being a girl includes playing with dolls, expressing emotions, listening, and being dependent (Chrisler & McCreary, 2010). The cognitive development theory lays much emphasis on the child being an active participant in learning a male or female set of rules and schemas while it does not take much consideration on social and biological aspects of development (Eckes & Trautner, 2000, p. 93). Hence, this participation predicts how the sexes will develop different gender roles. Biological development theories According to these theories, during the development of the fetus from two cells to human baby, hormones influence the developing structures of parts of the brain, central nervous system, and reproductive organs. These structures normally develop along different lines according to whether the fetus is XX or XY chromosomes, and as a result of the fetal hormonal environment. Supporters of this argument maintain that once sex differences are established in the fetus, they are irreversible and shape the future gender roles and identity. They propose that the established physical differences cause male and female humans to have different sensitivities and propensities throughout life, since the patterns that are established before birth account for later differences at puberty and throughout maturity (Devor, 1989). Other supporters soften their position by arguing that there is very little sex hormone production in either males or females past the first few months of life, hence the childhood gender development is the result of the effects of largely prenatal hormonal influences, overlaid with many years of postnatal socialization experiences. Over the years, there have been various controversies among the scholars when biological sex and social cognitive gender labeling conflict. The next part of this paper will evaluate Bruce Reimer case to highlight how these controversies may arise and shape various scholar perspectives on gender development. Bruce Reimer case Male and female behaviors is mostly very different, hence we tend to question the role of biology and socialization in these differences. Studies have shown that children begin to prefer sex-typed toys between the ages of 12 and 18 months; while at the same age, children are unable to match sex-typed toys with male or female faces or voices, suggesting that they have not yet been socialized to think of toys either as masculine or feminine (Freberg, 2009). These findings are a clear pointer to the notion that at least part of the preference we see in toy selection in boys and girls may originate in biology. Further insight on the nature and nurture of human sexuality comes from the famous case of Bruce Reimer. In 1965, during a routine circumcision of Bruce and his twin brother, Bruce’s penis was severely damaged to the extent that doctors and experts such as John Money advised that Bruce should be raised as a girl. Eventually Bruce’s genitals were altered and he began life as girl ‘Brenda’. To socialize him as a girl, the family changed her hairstyle, dressed in frilly blouses, dresses, purchased for her feminine toys for her to play with, and taught her feminine behaviors such as sitting to urinate (Shaffer, 2009). By age of 5 years, Brenda was described by Money as being very different from his genetically identical brother, highlighting that she knew she was girl and acquitted to feminine gender roles (Freberg, 2009). Had the case been rested at this stage, assigned sex and gender-role socialization would have seemed to overcome biological predispositions. Later, follow-up by Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundson found out that Bruce case had a different ending. According to new information, Brenda reported that from the beginning that she was never comfortable with feminine toys and clothing, she preferred her brother’s playthings and loved to take things apart to see how they worked (Shaffer, 2009). Brenda remembers suspecting he was a boy as early as second grade. By age of 14 years after two years of female hormone, he refused to continue living as a girl. It was when his parents revealed to him about his medical history, upon which he immediately chose male hormone therapy and surgery. Eventually, he emerged as a handsome man now named David, who dated girls , married at age 25, adopting his wife’s children, and was happy about his reclaimed identity as a man (Shaffer, 2009). These new findings could be used to neutralize the notion that early gender-role socialization is all that matters and essentially show that biology too counts. Thus, Bruce Reimer story suggest that our biological sex may influence our ultimate sense of being a man or a woman more strongly than how we are raised. Conclusion In this study, various major theories of gender role development have been discussed including how they variously emphasize societal factors, cognitive factors and a combination of cognitive and interpersonal factors. Overall this study has revealed that these theories are not mutually exclusive and overlap somewhat. Based on Bruce Case and a study that was carried on 18 biologically males in the Dominican Republic who had a genetic condition (TFS syndrome) that made them insensitive prenatal to the effects of male hormones, it is quite clear that our biology predisposes us to develop as males or females. The first three years of life are a sensitive period, but not critical enough for establishing gender identity, while neither biology nor social labeling can fully account for gender-role development (Shaffer, 2009). Hence, social and cognitive explanations and biological factors are all important aspects of our gender development. Reference list Golombok, S & Fivush, R 1994, Gender Development, Cambridge University Press, New York. Chrisler, JC & McCreary, DR 2010, Handbook of gender research in psychology, Volume 2, Springer, New York. Devor, H 1989, Gender blending: confronting the limits of duality, Indiana University Press, Indiana. Eagly, AH 2004, The psychology of gender, 2nd edition, Guilford Press, New York. Eckes, T & Trautner, HM 2000, The developmental social psychology of gender, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey. Freberg, L A 2009, Discovering Biological Psychology, second edition, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA. Plotnik, R & Kouyoumdjian, H 2010, Introduction to psychology, 9th edition, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA. Shaffer, DR 2009, Social and Personality Development, 6th edition, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA. Read More