Androgyny

Ever wondered why some people seem comfortable displaying both traditionally 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits? Androgyny might be the answer – it's when someone shows a balanced mix of characteristics regardless of their biological sex.

Bem's Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) was a groundbreaking tool that measured this. It's a self-report questionnaire with 60 traits (20 masculine, 20 feminine, 20 neutral) where people rate themselves on a 7-point scale. Bem argued that androgynous individuals are actually better off because they can adapt to different social situations more easily.

The practical applications are brilliant – it suggests we don't need to be trapped by rigid gender roles. This has positive impacts in education and employment, encouraging kids to develop both assertiveness and empathy. However, there's a catch: the BSRI was developed using Western ideas of gender traits, so it might not apply across all cultures where gender norms differ significantly.

Key Point: Androgyny might lead to better psychological well-being, but this benefit isn't necessarily universal across all cultures.

Atypical Chromosome Patterns

Sometimes biology throws us a curveball with atypical sex chromosome patterns – deviations from the standard XX or XY configuration that can really help us understand gender development.

Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY) affects biological males, occurring in about 1 in 750 births. These individuals might have reduced body hair, enlarged breast tissue, underdeveloped testes, and sometimes face language difficulties or mild learning disabilities. Turner's syndrome (X0) affects females who are missing an X chromosome, resulting in short stature, webbed necks, lack of menstrual cycles, and struggles with spatial awareness.

These conditions provide brilliant evidence for biological influences on gender. By studying people with these syndromes, researchers can isolate the effects of specific chromosomes on gender-related traits. However, not everyone with these conditions shows typical symptoms – many live completely normal lives with proper support.

Reality Check: These syndromes are quite rare, so findings might not reflect broader patterns in gender development and could be skewed by factors like healthcare access.

Gender Schema Theory

Your brain is basically building filing cabinets for gender information from age 2 or 3, according to Gender Schema Theory. Martin and Halverson reckon children develop gender schemas – mental structures that organise everything they know about gender.

Kids actively hunt for gender-consistent information, paying loads of attention to behaviour that seems right for their sex while ignoring or misremembering stuff that doesn't fit. They develop detailed 'in-group' schemas about their own gender whilst keeping 'out-group' information pretty basic.

The evidence is pretty solid – when Martin and Halverson showed children pictures of people doing gender-inconsistent activities (like a boy knitting), kids remembered these as gender-consistent instead. However, the theory doesn't fully explain why some children raised in non-stereotypical environments still develop traditional gender roles.

Think About It: Schema theory might be too focused on cognition and doesn't account enough for individual differences or biological predispositions.

Social Learning Theory

Bandura's Social Learning Theory suggests gender is basically learned through watching, copying, and getting rewarded. Children observe same-sex role models (parents, teachers) and imitate gender-typical behaviour that gets them praise or attention.

The mediational processes (attention, retention, reproduction, motivation) determine whether a behaviour gets copied. It's all about environmental influence rather than innate biological factors, which makes it pretty flexible in explaining cultural variations and changing gender norms.

Perry and Bussey found solid support – children did imitate same-sex role models engaging in gender-typical behaviours. But there's a problem: kids often show gender preferences before they've had much exposure to gendered modelling, suggesting something innate might be going on.

The theory also struggles with consistency – children often behave in gender-typical ways even without direct reinforcement or obvious role models. This points to internal cognitive structures like schemas also guiding behaviour.

Bottom Line: Social Learning Theory explains a lot but probably needs combining with other approaches for the full picture.

Atypical Gender Development

When someone's gender identity doesn't match their biological sex, it's called atypical gender development. The DSM-5 classifies severe distress from this as gender dysphoria, though this medical approach is quite controversial.

Biological explanations point to genetics, brain structure, and prenatal hormones. Zhou found differences in the BSTC (bed nucleus of stria terminalis) – the BSTC in brains of trans individuals was similar in size to cisgender people of their identified gender, not their birth sex.

Social explanations suggest early life experiences might contribute, like close relationships with opposite-sex parents or faulty gender schemas. However, this research by Rekers and Morey has been heavily criticised for pathologising trans identities and blaming parents.

The cause-and-effect issue is tricky – brain differences might be a consequence of dysphoria or hormone treatment rather than the cause. Plus, the approach of medicalising trans identities lacks strong empirical support and risks reinforcing stigma.

Important: This area of research is socially sensitive and we need to be careful not to pathologise different gender identities.

Culture and Media Influence

Culture and media are massive players in shaping gender roles by providing models of 'appropriate' behaviour that children observe and copy. Gender expectations vary loads between cultures – some societies expect women to take domestic roles while others have more fluid gender boundaries.

Media representations (TV, films, books, adverts) often reinforce traditional stereotypes – males as independent and assertive, females as emotional and passive. According to social learning theory, these representations get rewarded and repeated through vicarious reinforcement.

Bussey and Bandura found kids as young as 4 reported feeling bad when doing gender-inappropriate behaviour and imitated gender-stereotypical media behaviour. However, Mead's cross-cultural studies showed gender roles differ massively across tribes, though Freeman later argued her analysis was flawed.

The best approach seems to be interactionist – combining biological components (like boys being more physically aggressive due to testosterone) with cultural learning provides a much more complete understanding of gender role development.

Key Insight: An interactionist approach combining nature and nurture gives us the most complete picture of how gender roles develop.

Chromosomes and Hormones

Your biological sex starts with chromosomes – XX for females, XY for males. The SRY gene on the Y chromosome kicks off male development by triggering testes formation and testosterone production, which influences typically 'male' behaviours.

Hormones play crucial roles throughout life. Testosterone is linked to aggression and spatial ability, oestrogen to emotional sensitivity and reproductive functions, while oxytocin (the 'love hormone') promotes bonding and gets released during childbirth, breastfeeding, and sex.

Van Goozen found solid evidence – violent male criminals had higher testosterone levels than non-violent offenders. Plus, transgender individuals receiving hormone therapy showed behavioural changes matching their hormone levels.

However, there's the classic correlation vs causation problem – high testosterone might result from aggressive behaviour rather than cause it. The approach is also quite reductionist, reducing complex behaviours to just hormones and genes while ignoring environmental factors like parenting and culture.

Reality Check: While hormones clearly influence behaviour, an interactionist approach considering both biology and environment gives a better account of gender development.

Kohlberg's Cognitive Theory

Kohlberg built on Piaget's ideas about cognitive development, arguing that kids' understanding of gender progresses through three clear stages as their thinking becomes more advanced.

Gender identity $2-3 years$ – children recognise themselves and others as male or female but think gender can change. Gender stability (4 years) – they understand gender is consistent over time but still judge based on appearances. Gender constancy (6 years) – they finally realise gender is fixed across time and situations, then actively seek same-gender role models.

Slaby and Frey provided solid support – children who'd achieved gender constancy paid more attention to same-sex role models on screen. However, Martin and Little found children under 4 already showed strong gender stereotypes, suggesting gendered thinking emerges before constancy.

The theory also assumes all children pass through stages in the same order regardless of cultural context, but cross-cultural studies show variation in gender role development. This suggests socialisation might interact with cognition more than Kohlberg thought.

Think About It: While cognitive development clearly matters, gender behaviour might start earlier than Kohlberg suggested.

Psychodynamic Theory

Freud's psychodynamic theory claims gender development happens during the phallic stage $3-6 years$ of psychosexual development. For boys, the Oedipus complex involves unconscious sexual desire for mum and jealousy of dad, leading to castration anxiety that gets resolved by identifying with dad.

For girls, the Electra complex involves penis envy and attraction to dad, resolved by identifying with mum. Successful resolution supposedly leads to secure gender identity and adoption of same-sex behaviours.

The theory lacks scientific validity because Freud's concepts (unconscious desires, castration anxiety) are basically untestable. Most evidence comes from case studies like Little Hans, which can't be generalised and lack objectivity.

It's also pretty sexist – feminist psychologists like Karen Horney rejected the idea of penis envy as reflecting Freud's male-dominated culture. Plus, children raised in single-parent or same-sex households often develop typical gender identities, which completely undermines the theory.

Verdict: Freud's theory is largely outdated and lacks scientific support, though it was historically influential in psychology.

Sex and Gender

Understanding the difference between sex and gender is absolutely crucial. Sex refers to your biological status (male or female), determined by chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive anatomy. Gender is psychological and cultural – the roles, behaviours, and attributes society considers appropriate for men and women.

The key difference? Sex is generally innate and fixed, whilst gender is learned and can change. This distinction is vital for understanding conditions like gender dysphoria, where someone's gender identity differs from their biological sex.

Distinguishing sex from gender allows for greater inclusivity, especially in understanding transgender and non-binary individuals. It moves us away from biological determinism towards recognising the flexibility of gender roles. However, it's not completely separate – hormones like testosterone and oestrogen do influence behaviours commonly associated with traditional social roles.

Mead's cross-cultural studies in Papua New Guinea showed gender roles varied massively between tribes, suggesting gender is socially constructed rather than universal. Though Freeman later contested these conclusions, arguing the study was flawed.

Key Takeaway: While sex and gender are distinct concepts, the most complete understanding comes from considering how biological and social factors interact.