by David Roberson

Created on: September 01, 2008

In its phrasing, the question of whether biology or society has a stronger influence on the development of gender identity seems to be arguable. It does not fail on the assumption that either is the sole determinant of gender identity. In asking which is stronger, the implication is that any other determinant of gender identity is not part of the debate. Unfortunately, these same limitations promote the idea that these two positions are the only positions worthy of debate, and thus consideration. In that very construction, it becomes fairly evident that society plays the stronger role in defining behavior in terms of gender, imposing the division with little regard to the true determinants of identity - the manner in which individuals define themselves based not only upon an understanding of their own thoughts and feelings but also in the context of the language and culture in which they must express themselves.

The debate between nature and nurture is relatively blind to the struggle we all face in trying to define ourselves based on both who and what we are, especially in those instances where an individual experiences a conflict between who and what they understand themselves to be. Thus, a meaningful conclusion is not liable to be drawn from a debate on the influence of society vs. biology on the development of our gender identity. The debate itself does, however, introduce several essential considerations on each side. On the side of biology, there are the arguments of genetic inheritance and predisposition, hormonal developmental influences on genetic expression of anatomic and neurological sex, and cognitive function. On the side of society, there are the influences of behavioral reinforcement, the effects of abuse or neglect, and neurolinguistic programming.

To determine if biology has a stronger influence, it is first necessary to decide how significant we consider the foundations of genetics on the development of the mind itself to be. The problem here is the lack of a clear understanding of the relationship between genetics and neurology; we have to ask how much genetic predisposition defines us, and how universal that genetic predisposition is. Observation of other biological processes in human development tend to suggest that many of the traits we manifest are manifested in response to stimulation; what we do determines what we become most proficient at doing. In this sense, biology provides us with the capacity to think and act and so the question

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>