Similarly Hoyenga and Hoyenga (1993) state that both genes and the environment work together to determine gender. An example of this is Udry’s (2000) study of girl’s exposure to prenatal androgens (male sex hormones) in the womb and how this affected the girl’s socialisation into femininity after birth. Udry (2000) found that girls who were exposed to the male sex hormones in the womb were less accepting to feminine attitudes even though their parents enforced femininity on them later in life. Furthermore, the girls who were not exposed to the prenatal androgens were more accepting to feminine attitudes which their parents enforced on them later on in life. He emphasises the argument that sex hormones are the primary conditioning of our gender
…show more content…
Nevertheless Urdry’s (2000) research is criticised by Ross (2012) who claims that Urdry’s biosocial model of gender focuses too much on biological factors such as the primary conditioning of gender (prenatal …show more content…
Stanley (2002) claims that qualities which make up a person’s masculine or feminine gender are biologically determined. Therefore, gender identity is innate and not learned. In this case socialisation would be ineffective in determining gender as gender is already innately determined. For example, a parent may try to teach their son to be more passive and less boisterous but if the boy still acts boisterous and aggressive then the parents have failed to condition the behaviour. In this case therefore, the boy’s innate quality cannot be altered by environmental factors. However, Davies (2003) contradicts Stanley (2002) and states that gender is structured by institutions in society such as parents and the education system. Davis (2003) enforces how gender is not an intrinsic property of an individual rather; it is the product of social forces which condition an individual’s social action. This is best explained in the social learning theory as it addresses how parental influences and institutional influences affect the social construction of
Nevertheless Urdry’s (2000) research is criticised by Ross (2012) who claims that Urdry’s biosocial model of gender focuses too much on biological factors such as the primary conditioning of gender (prenatal …show more content…
Stanley (2002) claims that qualities which make up a person’s masculine or feminine gender are biologically determined. Therefore, gender identity is innate and not learned. In this case socialisation would be ineffective in determining gender as gender is already innately determined. For example, a parent may try to teach their son to be more passive and less boisterous but if the boy still acts boisterous and aggressive then the parents have failed to condition the behaviour. In this case therefore, the boy’s innate quality cannot be altered by environmental factors. However, Davies (2003) contradicts Stanley (2002) and states that gender is structured by institutions in society such as parents and the education system. Davis (2003) enforces how gender is not an intrinsic property of an individual rather; it is the product of social forces which condition an individual’s social action. This is best explained in the social learning theory as it addresses how parental influences and institutional influences affect the social construction of