The Nurture/Nature Argument Of Dr. Money

Money had not been completely successful in trying to prove his theory of gender neutrality due to biased reports and outcome of David Reimer. Dr. Money obsessed over the possibility to show gender neutrality a possibility to test his theory. This study took place long before anyone can fully understand the outcome of changing a child's gender at a young age and with new transgender surgeries and being uncomfortable for the lack of gender appendages, the ignorance of the outcome of the child's botched circumcision and forced gender reassignment without knowledge of the long term effect lead to unknown affects to the child. Looking at the time period that this events had occurred the many ethical violations had been seen from the parents and the Psychologist seeing that the innocent child had been forced to have a sex change and later reinforced gender traits without letting the child know was a complete violation to his rights.

The documentary Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis depicts the tragic experience of a young boy and the psychologist who attempts to “treat” him after an unfortunate accident. In a time of little knowledge of sexual variation Dr. John Money proposed the theory that a boy could be raised as a girl, but after years of failed attempts this theory would be shattered. This story began when twins Bruce and Bryan went in to the hospital to have a routine circumcision operation at 7 months of age. On the 27th of April 1966 Bruce was the first of the two twins to be operated on, but the procedure would not go as planned. The boy’s parents were soon informed that their son’s penis had been fully burned off in a nontraditional attempt to burn the foreskin away from the penis. In a position of great confusion the Reimers became hopeful in light of such tragedy as they later became aware of the work of Dr. John Money, a man who was becoming a pioneer in the field of sex change surgery. In meeting with this man the Reimers were informed that their baby boy could live a normal life as a girl.

The nurture side of the debate states gender is essentially a product of socialisation. It is dependent on environmental experiences. Family upbringing and society’s expectation would therefore play an important role in gender. This would then mean that most boys learn to behave masculine and girls learn to behave a feminine way. The nurture argument can explain why some people, adopt the gender role not expected of their sex. In theory, a feminine boy would have had some experiences that had led him to acquire a different gender role from most boys. If gender roles are nurtured, it also explains why an individual’s gender may change over time as

Within the psychology world, the theory of nature vs. nurture has always been a hot topic. When applied to the matter of gender identification, solid proof as to whether nature is what makes people feel like a boy or girl from early on or if nurturing from parents/caregivers is what is responsible. David Reimer started out as psychologies poster boy for proving theories correct, but this status was short-lived. By the end of this discussion, the reader should have a clear understanding of the topic as well as the case in which it is based on.

In her article “Sex Differences Are Not Hardwired,” Lesley Rogers claims that although genes do play a role when it comes to sex differences it is not the only factor that effects gender and it is impossible to not include interactive explanations when describing sex differences. The first topic is genetic determinist explanations for sex differences. In this section, Rogers discusses how popular media sources have now become involved in the conversation of genetic explanations for sex differences in behavior. The main message being spread throughout media is “genes cause behavior” and that it is “hardwired” in our brains at birth to be a certain way (28). Rogers emphasizes that this is not the case and that it’s more complexed, but this information

After watching the video and reading the chapter about David Reimer, I concluded that early on in his life, the environment he was raised in had more to do with his gender than his genetics did. His parents raised him as a girl, and he learned to act like a girl from the beginning of his childhood. David’s parents and his psychologists’ had a huge role in developing, and persuading him into liking female things and becoming a girl. He was definitely a product of his environment in his early childhood years. However, as time went on he felt more and more that something was not right. By the time he reached adolescences, he knew he was meant to be a boy. Genetics had eventually taken over and he was destined to become what he was born to be, a boy. The power of DNA had taken over, and no matter how strong the environment, I believe that nature trumps nurture because genetics contributes to the preconceived tendencies that an individual has.

Blum challenges the widespread idea that sees the society as the decisive factor in determining human behavior, and in understanding gender differences. The author points out how nature plays a crucial role by leveraging on her experience as a parent of two boys by describing males as biologically more aggressive than females. Also, to support her position, Blum mentions a study of testosterone in the Caribbean, which found that genders might be later discovered to be different from the gender at birth—as the result of a genetic defect. I believe that we are shaped by both, nature and nurture. However, the “brainwashing” one undergoes at the hands of family and society plays the lion’s share particularly in those most susceptible to suggestion—how

After listening to the podcast of Hidden Brain podcast, “The Edge of Gender: Nature, Nurture, And Our Evolving Debates About Gender” (October 9, 2017) I realized that biologically we are different because of our chromosomes and genes but even thought that makes us biologically different there shouldn’t be issues on whom we decide to be. A quote from Hidden Brain states, “girls are exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb. And what we see when they are born is, they will gravitate towards male-typical toys, and this is even if their parents give them more praise for playing with female-typical toys” To true this is a key point biologically, but that doesn’t mean that it’s all-true because as we grow up we are influenced from

Sharon Begley bring to light that many of the studies claiming sex differences within the human brain have been falsified. Many of these types of studies depict things that separate people of different genders into stereotypical depictions of gender roles. Gender roles and expectations can have negative impacts on parenting and growth development. The point that I found both interesting and important is how adults treat and or classify infants before the infant has self-recognition of their own gender identity. It never truly occurred to me that adults are mostly responsible with how children perceive their own gender. Beginning with gender conformity, I found the results regarding doll preference to trucks very interesting. Children have been

1) Use the example of feral children to construct an argument in the nature versus nurture debate.

The nurture side of the argument states that gender is essentially a product of socialization. It is dependent on environmental experiences. Family upbringing and society’s expectations would therefore play a key role in a person’s gender. This would mean, of course that most boys learn to behave in a masculine way and mot girls learn to behave in feminine ways.

Gender coding is not a natural or biological characteristic. People are born with different physical and biological characteristics, but make sense of their gender roles through cultural influences. “Stereotypes are amazingly powerful, and we may not realize the degree to which our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are shaped by them” (Silverman, Rader, 2010). Boys and girls are labeled as masculine or feminine, which is considered the “norm” for society. Children are not born masculine or feminine, they learn these roles from parents, peers, media, and even religion. Concepts of gender identity are sometimes placed on children even before their birth, such as with the selection of paint colors for the nursery.” Children begin to form concepts of gender beginning around the age of 2, and most children know if they are a boy or girl by age of 3” (Martin & Ruble, 2004). From an early age, children are encouraged to identify with gender coding. Gender is formed at birth, but self-identification as being male or female is imbedded into their minds by parents and society. A child learns to understand their gender role and their identity by what is taught and expressed to them by others. Yet as a child grows, gender coding can cause cultural confusion, and insecurity issues throughout the course of their life.

For more than a century, researchers and psychologists, such as Sir Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and many others, have been trying to understand how people are transformed by their environment. Researchers have mainly argued whether it is in fact our environment or rather genetics, our biological pre-wiring, which has influenced human behavior. This concept ultimately facilitated what is now known as the Nature versus Nurture debate. The Nature aspect states that human behavior is predetermined by our inherited genes or is the product of our innate behavior. The Nurture side of the disagreement postulates that human behavior stems from acquired attributes through individual learning and experiences. Correspondingly, the Object Relations Theory in psychoanalytic psychology supports the position that a person’s natural environment (i.e. family, peers, acquaintances, society) forms human development. The Object Relations theory stresses that it is the relationships between people, more specially family, often between mother and child, that crafts the human psyche.

On the other side of the spectrum, others may agree that gender roles and stereotypes are purely biological. One might say that a child grows up without a father or mother figure still ends up learning specific gender roles. It is nearly impossible to have a child unscathed

As evident from the generalized patterns found in differences in behaviour and outlook observed between the sexes, it may be tempting, as has been done in the past, to conclude that gender is an unavoidable aspect of human existence as determined purely from one 's genes. Indeed, human physiology is subject to sexual dimorphism; statistically significant differences in brain size and rate of maturation of specific substructures in the brain exist between males and females (Giedd, Castellanos, Rajapakese, Vaituzis, & Rapoport, 1997), yet these physical differences fail to explain how individuals form their concept of their own gender, and why they tend to conform to their perceived gender roles as defined by the society in which they live, when these roles are ever-changing. Thus, it is important to differentiate between the physical and nonphysical traits, and how the labels of femininity and masculinity should not confuse the two aspects. As defined by Unger (1979), “sex” would be used to refer to the biological differences in males and females, while “gender” describes socioculturally determined, nonphysiological traits which are arbitrarily designated as being appropriate for either females or males. With more recent awareness and interest in matters of gender nonconformity and individual gender identity, new research now explains how these concepts of gender are shaped by social influences (Perry