Is_Gender_About_What_Children_‘Are’_or_About_What_They_‘Do’_

Is gender about what children ‘are’ or about what they ‘do’' To begin to answer this question, it is important to define “gender”, which involves describing the difference between the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’: Sex, relates to a person’s anatomy and focuses on reproductive difference. That is, being male, female or intersex (a person who has both male and female reproductive organs). Whereas, gender relates more to what it means to society and the individual to be a woman/girl or man/boy. It adds to a person’s sense of identity and may be altered by society, time, place or culture. To further develop the answer, it is necessary to outline some of the conflicting theories and debates regarding childhood and gender and then discuss in greater detail the beliefs of a Scientific and Social Constructionist approach in relation to this question. Then it will be possible to summarise the main points and draw a conclusion. There are vast theories and debates about gender and childhood, with some people believing gender is wholly socially constructed - sometimes going one step further to suggest both sex and gender are socially constructed. Others argue it is a simple matter of nature and nurture – whereby sex is produced by natural biological occurrence and gender is produced by ones nurturing. Few argue the differences between female and male is almost solely biological. A scientific approach to childhood and gender relies strongly on medical evidence and observing the way nature and nurture affects our gender. The basis of which is established by the fact that our sex is determined whilst in the womb. Biology informs us that when a child is conceived, a sperm cell from a man is fused together with an ovum cell from a woman to create one unique cell. Inside this cell is a nucleus which usually contains 46 chromosomes: 23 from the man’s sperm cell which join up with 23 from the woman’s ovum cell, making 23 pairs of chromosomes. Most of these paired chromosomes have similar shapes, except pair 23, which forms the shape of either an XX or an XY pair and determines our ‘sex’. Generally, if chromosome 23 is an XX pair the foetus will develop into a girl and if it is XY pair the foetus will develop into a boy - it is the man’s sperm cell that determines the sex of a child, since women’s ova only produce X chromosomes, but men’s sperm have almost equal amounts of X or Y chromosomes. This medical knowledge shows clear differences in female and male biology, which is furthered by foetal hormonal difference - hormones also influence the growth of the human reproductive system. Most foetuses reproductive system is the same until six weeks gestation and has both male and female ducts, at which time the presence or absence of certain hormones determines how the reproductive system will develop. A male foetus starts producing Androgens which activate the growth of the male reproductive system and MIS which starts the deterioration of the female reproductive system. A female foetus does not produce these hormones, which enables the female reproductive system to further develop. Some foetuses have a defective gene which results in the child being ‘intersex’, an example of this being 5-Alpha-Reductase Deficiency Syndrome. There are also clear differences between girl’s and boy’s hormones during puberty. Boys usually produce many more androgens and girls usually produce many more oestrogens. These clear biological differences between girls and boys may underpin any suggestion that, gender is about what children ‘are’ rather than what they ‘do’. However, taking this view would assume a person’s gender is fundamentally assigned by their sex and would ignore the many other external factors that contribute to gender assignment. Some people believe there are further biological differences between females and males, in the form of varying brain activity. The Neurologist Sally Shaywitz (1995) used a Magnetic Resonance Imager on men and women, whilst they answered a variety of questions. She found the men in her experiment used only the left side of their brain when dealing with language questions, whereas the women used both the left and right side of their brain. These brain activity differences may partially explain why girls have historically excelled in English Language and boys in Mathematics. However, a social constructionist would argue the reason for differences in English and Mathematics results does not have a biological cause, but rather, is due to an individuals and societal expectations of how girls and boys should perform in each subject, in accordance with their gender. These expectations can also determine how individuals are treated, which in turn may cause a push in one direction as opposed to the other – that is, English or Mathematics. In addition, if research such as Shaywitz et al had informed an applied approach to education, then teachers themselves may have been encouraging girls to concentrate more on English and boys on Mathematics. Further supporting evidence for the Social Constructionist view comes from more recent examination results, which show the disparity between girls and boys results in English and Mathematics is greatly decreasing and in some instances, girls are actually performing better than boys in Mathematics. This implies social and cultural expectations are of greater importance than biological difference in regards to a child’s intellect. Wilkinson (1994) and Francis (1998) agree and believe that the change in academic results of girls and boys is associated with changing educational processes. Francis (1998) also believes academic success is associated with the positioning of girls and boys in different discourses and over the past three decades educational discourses have changed significantly. This has given opportunity to discursive positioning, which has enabled girls to outshine boys. Most Social Scientists agree that gender cannot be explored comprehensively, by simply concentrating on biological difference – it is therefore, essential to also take account of the external factors that influence gender assignment. This agreement can establish a starting point to suggest; gender is about what children ‘do’ rather than what they ‘are’. Most children are surrounded by other people, objects, symbols, knowledge and language that influence gender assignment. Considering this, Development Psychologists believe children learn gender and gender roles through their nurturing – which will differ from child to child, dependant on culture, society, time and place. There are also various ways in which children learn to behave or think like a ‘girl’ or a ‘boy’. This may be through observing and imitating what they see to be acceptable behaviours according to gender. For example, in the United Kingdom it is apparent how children’s everyday lives are clearly gendered by looking in any toyshop. Most girls and boys toys imitate traditional stereotypical gendered roles. Fagot (1978) believed children learn gender by means of positive and negative reinforcement. Whereby, a child may be rewarded with attention, smiles and affection for behaving in the way society and care givers feel is acceptable for their gender and consequently, repeat the behaviour. Or they may be punished by reprimand, being ignored or scowls for behaving in a way society feel is inappropriate for their gender and consequently, less likely to repeat the behaviour. Learning how to behave either feminine or masculine is also evident in Video 1, Band 5, “Children’s Bedrooms”. Brian’s bedroom is blue and contains many action figures and some guns. This may indicate to Brian that it is acceptable for boys to play rough – also the acquisition of these toys is a clear reward for playing in this gender appropriate way. In contrast, Karen’s bedroom is pink and contains dolls, with clothes and hairbrushes. This indicates to Karen that appropriate feminine behaviour is to care for and nurture. Karen may also be given additional dolls to add to her collection, which positively reinforces this feminine behaviour. Scientific research also suggests children learn gender through developing their own identities and a sense of their position within society. Stainton Rogers explains this as: “Studies of children’s developing social understanding draw attention to children’s growing capacity to make sense of gender as an aspect of their social and cultural world”. (Stainton Rogers, 2003, p. 197) Most scientific research on gender considers the biological aspect of what children ‘are’ in terms of their sex and includes elements of how sex can be seen to interact with nurture to shape a child’s gender. By considering nature and gender difference in a scientific way, suggests gender is about what children ‘are’ - since gender has limited opportunity for change. However, as discussed - if gender is acquired through learning, surely it can be relearnt in other ways – giving it more freedom for change' Social Constructionists disagree with the belief that gender is a product of nature and nurture. Rather, they believe it is “produced by human meaning-making”. (Stainton Rogers, 2003, p. 198) and the level of importance society attaches to gender that gives power to differences between sexes. They debate, gender is socially constructed which supports the suggestion that gender is about what children ‘do’ as opposed to what they ‘are’ Judith Butler (1993) believes it is gender that produces sex and not sex that produces gender. That is, sex begins to have insignificant value, due to it being overpowered by gender – gender is given such power, by people primarily defining themselves as ‘female’ or ‘male’ and then sometimes, unconsciously making sense of their world in relation to their gender. With this view Butler continued to further extremes and suggested: “If gender is the social construction of sex, and if there is no access to this “sex” except by means of its construction, then it appears not only that sex is absorbed by gender, but that “sex” becomes something like a fiction’” (Butler, 1993, p. 5, in Stainton Rogers, 2003, p.203) Butler also believes gender matters so much to society, that people are not able to choose whether they have a gender or not - they are positioned throughout the world, as ‘gendered subjects’. Lloyd and Duveen (1990) conducted an experiment to ascertain how much gender ‘matters’. It involved dressing girl babies in blue clothes and boy babies in pink clothes and omitting to inform the adult participants of the baby’s sex. The adults appeared to assume the babies in pink were girls and blue were boys and proceeded to treat them differently in accordance with their assumed ‘sex’. The colours appeared to signify the baby’s gender over other factors such as behaviour and significantly changed the traditional ways the girls and boys are treated. This suggests that gender affects how a child is treated and nurtured and therefore, it is what we ‘do’ to children, rather than what they ’are’. Susan Donaldson James (2011) researched a case of intersex and discussed how biological and social constructs of gender had affected the life of particular person who is intersex. He was brought up as a girl after having supposed corrective surgery. However, he struggled with the gender he was assigned, which suggests gender should not be determined by biology alone, but rather by how a person identifies themselves and behaves within society. “While being born with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency is a biological fact, its effects are cultural and social. They depend upon the person’s social and cultural location and circumstances” (Stainton Rogers, 2003, p. 202) This, again suggests gender is about what children ‘do’. Finally, it is evident that a child’s gender can be influenced by their biologically given ‘sex’, but more importantly by historical, social, psychological and cultural factors. None of these influences should be considered independent causes of gender assignment, but rather as part of the broader picture. This leads me to conclude: Gender is fundamentally what children ‘do’, with a limited element of what they ‘are'.