Is it nature or is it nurture? Our biological sex at birth is determined by our chromosomes and is usually – though not always – visible through primary and (after puberty) secondary physical sex characteristics. Yet individuals do not exist in a vacuum, they are raised in societies.
Throughout our lives, powerful cultural and social influences are at work on our psychology and behaviour, and we are all under enormous pressures to confirm to social expectations of sex and gender. So, how much is nature and how much is nurture?
Studies have shown that, following the birth of a daughter, parents estimate the height of the newborn to be smaller than the estimates made by the parents of boys. It’s true that adult women are smaller on average than men, but this doesn’t apply for newborns. It’s pure projection based on gender stereotyping on the part of the parents. From birth, parents also have very different ideas about how their little boys and girls should grow up.
A lot of research has been done into the phenomena of “stereotype threat” and the impact on boys’ and girls’ performance during, for example, mathematics tests. To be clear: there are no biological differences in the ability of boys and girls when it comes to maths. However, the more girls have internalised their parents’ expectations, the worse they do in maths tests.
What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from Hermann arguing that men and women are just different and, therefore, it would be better to accept these differences (and even foster them for the benefit of society). Is he right? Or is that just an excuse to reinforce the social construction of gender roles?
To get a reaction, we spoke to German Green MEP Hannah Neumann. What would she say?
For another perspective, we also spoke to Jens van Tricht, the founder and director of Emancipator and author of “Why Feminism is Good For Men”
No, sorry, Hermann. I can agree that men and women are different, but Hermann and me are also different, and men between themselves are very different, and women between themselves are also very different. This is proven by the research reports that we get about the differences between men and women. Actually, they all state something like: we’re talking about the differences between men and women, but if we look closely there’s actually more overlap between men and women than there is difference between men and women, and the differences among men and among women are bigger than the differences between the groups. So, we should beware not to homogenise men and women as opposites and then overlooking the differences and the changeability of men and women themselves.
This discussion of biology and nature vs nurture always comes up, and I think it should not be too difficult to see how much proof there is of the differences we make as a society in how we raise children and in how we have arranged social, political, and economic orders. If we stop all that and leave nature to itself, then maybe we get a view of what differences there would be originally. John Stuart Mill wrote something centuries ago like: it is impossible to speak about the nature of women as long as we have not seen women or been able to observe women in their natural state of being. And this world is far from a natural state of being, this world is full of creation, construction, cultural influences, institutions and norms and values that have nothing to do with biological roots. That maybe claim those, but they don’t dare to let events happen themselves because they need, apparently, to put them into rules and structures and regulations and norms…
Next up, we had a comment from Monica saying that we have to start confronting gender stereotypes in the toy shops and clothing stores if we want to achieve equality between men and women. Is she right?
How would Jens van Tricht respond?
I think there is a risk in trying to solve the problems that adults have created by changing youth. We need to work on all levels. There is a growing insight, globally also, that we need to work in what is sometimes called the ‘socio-economic model’. We need to work on individual change, relational change, community change, organisational change, systemic change, and institutional change.
So, I do agree we need to work on that. I do agree that it’s important to start there. But I wouldn’t get into prioritising one starting point over another, because we need to do it all. So, I embrace all the initiatives that work on different dimensions of this patriarchal, unequal gender system…
Would gender differences exist if we treated everyone the same from birth? How much is nature and how much is nurture? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
47 comments Post a commentcomment
Yes, they would.
we don’t have enough data but, i would like to believe that yes.
Dismantle and dump the “traditional” nuclear family and yes, we could
When I look at myself and at my sister we are both women but completely different in our interests and our personality. But my brother and I share so many hobbies and (have been told) to be very similar in character. Point is, I completely agree that there are many differences between genders (for whatever reason) but not all people of the same gender are the same!
I think gender differences would be so much less pronounced if we treated people the same! So much of the way we behave or what we like is influenced by our surroundings, especially our family and friends… I mean these days we already start gender stereotyping before a baby is even born, with all these gender-reveal parties and gendered toys… it doesnt make any sense! many boys like cars and many girls like dolls, but many boys also like dolls and girls also like cars… just let people be!
yes it will exist because we are different gender
Gender and Sex are completely different things. Gender is socially constructed.
female gender and male gender …is there any third gender..please enlighten me
sex: male-female, gender: feminine-masculine
hahahahaha and the difference is
biology vs social construct.
I don’t want to offend you, but the question is stupid. For anyone who has heard a little bit about human anatomy and physiology, it is absolutely clear that there are differences between the TWO genders . How do you plan to erase these differences? Want to play the role of GOD?
Sonya Gineva I disagree, there are differences between (multiple) sexes that are physiological and anatomical. The differences between genders are socioculturally constructed and that means that society is reproducing constructed norms of which body (read sex) is capable of doing what!
the social differences between genders are constricted BECAUSE there are biological differences.
Having a vagina means I have to wear a dress? Meh, I think that argument is historically shaped – by hegemonic discourses.
no, but having a vagina will make more difficult to develop some tasks. And that as been proved over and over again. The male and female genetic is very different. Yes, men and women can do any task but some are easier for men and others for women.
Such as?
physical tasks, for example.
yes, I understood. Which ones?
Do you all play dumb on purpose or you really are indeed? The average man is stronger, taller, and generally more capable of performing physical tasks than the average woman, and that’s just one example of the differences between a man and a woman. Why can’t you just accept that when it comes strictly to biology, a woman and a man ARE NOT THE SAME!
don’t you know what are physical tasks? Really?!?
the average man is more capable of doing heavy physical work that the average woman SUCH AS (since you’re ignoring the obvious) lifting heavy loads. Does this really need more explanation? Are you acting that dumb?
clearly totally gagging for some mansplaining;-) If you then also could explain to me, how that then requires different social roles, some paid, some unpaid (mainly those associated with women), and then also why women are paid 20% less on average in Europe for the same task, and also how, in the age of machines and ai, physical power is even relevant. Thanks:-)
Well, I use machines for that, are you still lifting things (poor you;-)
oh for example when working in a cafeteria and you have to move some heavy wooden tables you’ll go out and bring your Clark machine to do the work right? Because using a machine to lift everything in your life is totally realistic.
judging by your pointless comments, there’s absolutely no connection between you and any type of intelligence. I’m not planning to continue this conversation. Wish you a good day.
If you say so;-) Byebye
Pointless question when the majority of the commentators don’t have any idea about what is sex and what is gender!
Yes.
Sure, let’s start with evening out the incarceration rate, the workplace injury rate, the suicide rate, the family courts, the retirement age, university graduation rate, the age of death, and let’s start charging women who yell at their husbands with gender violence.
I won’t hold my breath.
Born. We are different and complementary
nah, men and women don’t need each other to be completed.
I don t agree. Read Platon
I read Platon. There isn’t any clear metaphysics of gender there, anywhere. Unless you can provide exact quotes (with reference to the original pages) that back up your comment, I suggest YOU to read Plato.
men and women were united before. But The God’s split them in two part. Since this time each man an woman is looking for his half…. This is obviously our nature what does not mean that I accept exceptions
Also men and men and women and women. Idiot
Its obviously a bit of both. USE COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!
Gender roles, which we learn, are completely different than our biological differences — which we are born with.
wrong. Gender roles are not just learned. There are biological influences too. That is why there is a “nature-nurture debate”!
That there are biological differences which influence our tendency to one or the other role, in addition to the enormous social constructs imposed is probably true, as my twin brother and I noted at an early age. We tended to phrase it rather simply, e.g., “Why should I support a wife and family, and she not a husband and family?” We were certainly very aware of the differences, and sometimes we talked about them.
So why is gender referred for extrapolating biological sex differences (on average) to newborns without a role? “It’s true that adult women are smaller on average than men, but this doesn’t apply for newborns. It’s pure projection based on gender stereotyping on the part of the parents.”
We are animals, mammals to be specific. In most animals, females are larger than males, but in most mammals, males are larger than females. How? Biology: Pituitary gland: hormones. HGH, testosterone… Of course, if we were insects, or some other animal species we females would be bigger!
People are different, males are different from females.
Somewhat in between.
“It’s true that adult women are smaller on average than men, but this doesn’t apply for newborns. It’s pure projection based on gender stereotyping on the part of the parents.” So if it is a newborn baby without a role how come you are adressing it as a gender stereotyping and not sex stereotyping? Further more the difference is innate characteristic of a sex (on average of course), how come you adress is as a gender-related thing and not sex-related thing?
We are animals, mammals to be specific. In most animals, females are larger than males, but in most mammals, males are larger than females. How? Biology: Pituitary gland: hormones. HGH, testosterone… Of course, if we were insects, or some other animal species we females would be bigger!
So why extrapolation based on biology is referred to as gender steretyping (and not sex stereotyping)? It is not connected to role or cultural expectation or anything that relates to gender.