two perspectives on the psychology of sex and gender. What can these perspectives tell us about what it is to be a man or woman?

The topic of sex and gender is one of the most challenging and important one in psychology since the inception of psychology as a discipline. It not only illustrates the diverse approaches within the field, it also emphasizes the political and ideological implications that arise from explanations of differences between the sexes and the different theoretical connotations by choosing either the terms ‘sex’ or ‘gender’. ‘Sex’ commonly refers to biologically being male or female and sexual intercourse, and ‘gender’ refers to differences in behaviours, relationships and practices between the sexes.
This essay will evaluate the biological and the social constructionist perspective of sex and gender, and critically appraise the perspectives’ approach and contribution to the topic and towards an answer to the question about ‘what is it to be a man or a woman’.
The conclusion will be that each of the perspectives provides valuable insight on the psychology of sex and gender, but non can provide a full explanation, each co-existing and enriching our understanding of this topic from its own angle. Only by adding the psyche, the inner unique meanings of an individual, to the biological and social explanation, they can be combined to complementary and by that giving as a clue about what it is to be a man or a woman.

The biological perspective on sex and gender is concerned about what effect biological processes have on behavioural differences between men and woman, and what influence behaviour has on the biological processes in return. There are three different methods of determining the sexes.
· by extremities, which is the most popular method (98%) to ‘sex’ children after birth
· by hormones, which determine the external appearance of sex organs, behavioural patterns and structure of some brain regions by balancing the male hormone testosterone and female hormones oestrogen and progesterone
· by genes, where usually one pair of the 23 is used to direct the sex of the person typically consistent of an X and a Y for men and two X for women, also producing the hormones
Despite the various ‘anomalies’ in these three methods like reduced enzyme to produce testosterone resulting in boys having visible sex organs that look most like those of females, androgen insensitivity syndrome or Klinefelter’s syndrome suggests that the biological perspective can demonstrate sex differences in genetic make-up, hormones and brain regions. However, these ‘anomalies’ or separate effects do show the complexity and interplay of genes, hormones and the effect on sexed bodies. Biologists developed the hypothesis that there are differences in the parts of brain that are involved in the processing of different tasks in which men or women seem to excel. While experiments with rats, treated with the opposite sex hormone showed corresponding behavioural change, it is much harder not to say ambiguous, to describe sexual dimorphism (visible differences in a part of the body between males and females) in human animals like the different brain structure in the rats due to the opposite sex-type hormone, not least due to the limited reliability and limitations of the research methods. Also in the field of biological factors in behavioural and cognitive gender differences there is no real evidence that genes and sex hormones alone make the difference between becoming male and female as a follow-up study of the famous study by Money and Erhardt (1972) and the large-scale meta-analysis of one hundred studies by Hyde (1990) revealed. However, there is evidence that the left and right hemisphere specializes in different cognitive functions attributed to girls, left side for language, and boys, right side for visuo-spatial and mathematical functioning. The fact that differences in certain brain regions appear only after a certain age suggests that experience is interacting with hormones over time and proves that biological differences between the sexes are not only due to biological factors, it rather proves interaction between other biological processes and the physical and cultural environment.
While the biological perspective takes on a natural science approach on sex and gender e.g. by conducting experiments, social constructionist take an approach guided by hermeneutic principles (the interpretation of meaning) e.g. by observation technique and discourse analyses of interview material. This perspective approaches the essay question by examining how knowledge about sex and gender has been constructed and how it influences people within their own particular historical and social context. A powerful example are the consequences for a new born baby in being ‘sexed’ as a boy or a girl at birth for his or her entire life and it is by these consequences, behaviours, rules, roles and expectations which she or he becomes a man or a woman. This cultural lens through which these behaviours and practices are filtered overlays gene selection and hormonal influences in shaping human sexual behaviour and by that showing the perspectives’ strength of taking into account the historical and cultural situation of human beings through meaning-making and communication of intensions, for explaining gender differences. Social constructionist argue, that an individual’s behaviour cannot be directly explained by their biological, reproductive sex status alone and is partly achieved by a process known as Social Identity Theory SIT (Henri Tajfel, 1978) by which people come to identify with particular groups and separate themselves from others as gender is one of the most important and powerful of social categories. Evidence for that claim would be the many forms and interpretations, gender roles can take in different cultures and during a life span of an individual. One of the most important factors in identity building is language and discourse, playing a central role in constructing identity as illustrated by Cooper and Kaye (2003). The example of the school as a powerful place in providing highly differentiated discourses about gender-appropriated positions and behaviours for girls and boys, incorporated in every aspect of life, provides valuable insight in that ‘mechanism’. Other than the biological perspective, which claims that gender differences in academic subject achievement and occupational choice are due to brain lateralization like visuo-spatial abilities, sense of smell and other skills, social constructionist suggest that these differences are due to the design of the curriculum, the specific aims of learning and education, the organization of the schools and the regulated interaction, producing and sustaining particular forms of masculinity and femininity. An explanation for certain gendered behaviours at school e.g. the harassment of female teachers in primary and secondary school is provided by social constructionists through the fact that most teachers at these levels are female and that boys fail to identify with the source of authority and that rebellion or rejection of authority becomes in this way a from of masculine identification. Experiencing power in relation to women is one way in which boys’ masculinity is produced and sustained in schools. Also the tendency to see academic achievement as linked to femininity is explained by social constructionists through the girl’s increasing academic success. On the bases of these examples, social constructionist provide valuable explanation that bodies and brains may become gendered over a lifetime of use where as the biological perspective offers a rather ambiguous explanation through brain lateralization. However, the failure to explain the origins of these gender differences is a weakness of social constructionism.
A big challenge and difficulty about comparing these two perspectives is the different questions they pose on the research topic and by that, giving different insight into it. Whereas the biological perspective poses the question about what effect biological processes like physiological, cellular, biochemical or molecular have on behavioural differences between men and women, social constructionist examine how knowledge about sex and gender has been constructed within particular historical and social contexts.
Also the different principles of scientific and hermeneutic they are based on, seeking empirical evidence to provide direct proof versus interpretation of meaning, result most likely in coexistence and in some part complementary to explain how the different influences interact to produce the specific behavioural differences of men and women.
The biological perspective does not tell us much about what it is to be a man or woman. There is very little explanation through establishing sex differences at birth, brain lateralization which attributes different cognitive functions to men or women and through the fact of reproduction. There is neither insight through human experience nor an explanation of the psychology of sex and gender. By taking into account the environment and everyday life of the individual as suggested by the social constructionists, the examples in how gender differences are constructed e.g. by social significance attributed to physical change like e.g. the experience of a girls menarche, we can start to anticipate what it is, to be a man or a woman.

Neither of the two perspectives can give us a full explanation of the different behaviours, the experiences or development of men and women. Neither the biological perspective, by focusing on the biological processes, nor the social constructionist approach, by examining how knowledge about sex and gender has been constructed within particular historical and social contexts. It is more then just combining hormonal change and social meaning. Only by including the dimension of psyche as shown by the example of ovulation where the biological factor of an early period and the social meaning of an early period combined with the psyche of a girl, the inner meaning of body, gender and sexuality result in a unique meaning to her, to begin to tell us what it is to be a man or a woman.
(1597 words)

References
Cooper, T. and Kaye, H., (2003) Language and meaning, in Cooper, T. and Roth, I., (eds), (2003), Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, Open University.

Hollway, W., Cooper, T., Johnston, A. and Stevens, R., (2003) The psychology of sex and gender, in Cooper, T. and Roth, I., (eds), (2003), Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, Open University.

Hyde, J. (1990) ‘How large are cognitive differences? A meta-analysis using w2 and d’, in Nielson, J.M. (ed.) Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences, Boulder, CO, Westview, in Cooper, T. and Roth, I., (eds), (2003), Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, Open University.

Money, J. and Erhardt, A. (1972) Man and Woman: Boy and Girl, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, in Cooper, T. and Roth, I., (eds), (2003), Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, Open University.

Tajfel, H., (1978) Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, London, Academic Press, in Miell, D, Phoenix, A., Thomas, K., (eds), (2002), Mapping Psychology 1, Milton Keynes, Open University.