Nature versus nurture is a colloquial phrase for scientific debate about the degree of influence of biological as well as environmental factors in human behavior. With respect to gender, the debate focuses on the relative importance of genetics, anatomy as well as physiology (nature), compared with the physical environment, socialization, and social structure (aging) in the production of difference gender (or the emergence of gender differences)
Discussion
Evidence for genetic influences on human behavior is often indirect. It is intended to be so because the natural breeding experiments are rare, and deliberate breeding experiments in genetics research interests, obviously, would be intolerable in most societies. However, it throws some light on the links between genes as well as behavior in the study of twins (Bateson 2004).
Even the most cursory glance to humanity reflects the great importance of each person's experience, education and culture. Look at the striking variation among humans in the language, food habits, marriage customs, practices, child care, clothing, religion, architecture, art, and much more. No one can seriously doubt the remarkable human capacity for learning and learning experience of others. Similarly, nutrition has a huge effect on human characteristics. (Ridley 2003)
The argument, then, among scholars and advocates caring nature is not the nature of gender identity or gender, but the extent of human influence on its successful acquisition. To nurture the proponents, the apparent failure of the deliberate efforts of sex reassignment does not indicate the innateness of gender, but the possibility that gender socialization program was flawed or incomplete. (Broderick 2005)
Proponents of a broad perspective to grow, however, completely reject the idea that there is a "good" outcome of the development of gender identity because, for them, sex itself is a socially and historically variable production cultural. From this perspective, the dichotomy ...