Race, Gender, and Sexuality: Biological or Social?: 2012

Welcome

Difference across groups is measured and quantified in many ways, and applies to all aspects of life and all disciplines. From the womb to the workplace, from academics to politics, differences between races, genders, and sexualities have been marked and integrated into the social consciousness. But where do these differences come from? Are they fixed natural or genetic inevitabilities, or are there environmental factors at work?

The following pages will explore that age old nature vs. nurture debate across a range of fields and topics. So, are differences between groups biological or social?

Just read on, or click below to explore a specific topic:
1. Social Constructionism versus Biological Determinism in Gender Difference: What's It About?
2. Hormones, Brain Structures, and Society within the Work Environment
3. IQ and SAT Test Scores Across Race and Gender
4. To What Extent Should Parents Have Access to Prenatal Genetic Testing?
5. Sexuality and Genetics as a Political Movement

Social Constructionism versus Biological Determinism in Gender Difference: What's It About?

There are in fact real and measureable differences between women and men as groups in things like emotions, empathy, spatial ability, physical activity level, violence, and interests that are documented at a very young age. Sociobiologists have also documented many differences across species. The question is, are these differences determined by biology, or are they socially constructed?

In order to answer this question, I wish to first define the terms “biological determinism” and “social constructionism.” Biological determinism is exactly that: the belief that biology determines such characteristics as behavior, ability, likes, dislikes, etc. Biological determinism is the theory behind the phrase: “boys will be boys.” This phrase is associated with “boyish” behavioral characteristics, which we can all easily identify, that are believed to be essential and natural in boys.

Social constructionism, on the other hand, is the theory that social identifiers, like race and gender, among others, are created by society rather than biology. Many argue that social constructionism is a much stronger force in shaping behavior and other social characteristics. Though social constructionists do have differing opinions on the influence of society or biology over male/female characteristics, a popular opinion is that though there are some innate biological differences between men and women, society is overwhelmingly more influential in the long term.

One of the ways we can see how society creates differences between men and women is the way we are socialized at birth. Research has been done that suggests that although there are small differences between men and women, the way parents interact with their babies and children can exacerbate those differences (Eliot 2009). It may make sense to say that because there are such common traits associated with men and women that are true for many people, that biology must be the answer as to why these differences exist. However, correlation does not imply causation. Just because girls tend to have certain traits and boys tend to have certain traits does not prove that these differences are based in biology.

It is also important to note that although some differences have been found between baby boys and girls, it is hard to understand what these differences even mean. For example, boys do on average have larger heads than girls, but it is unclear how or if brain size actually has any real effect on intelligence and mental ability (Eliot 2009). Some differences that researchers who also believe in social constructionism have found to be accurate include: size, Apgar score, and neurological maturity (Eliot 2009).

When discussing biology versus social constructionist theories on differences between men and women, it is incredibly important to examine the methodology used in many of these research studies. For example, one study produced results that argued that girls are innately more people oriented than boys. The study had extremely flawed methodology. In order to come their conclusion, researchers had newborn babies interact with a human face as well as a colorful mobile toy. The boy babies were recorded as having spent more time staring at the mobile than the human face, while the girl babies were recorded as being more receptive to the human face spending more time on the human than on the mobile (Eliot 2009). The problem with this study is that the analyst interacting with and providing visual stimulation for the babies was not blind to the baby's sex. It is a well known fact that when people know the sex of a baby, they interact with it very differently. People are often more animated with girl babies than they are with boy babies. Therefore, it is not a stretch to suggest that the human who participated in the study as a visual stimulant may have acted differently based on the sex of the baby, which could effect the outcomes of the study. If the researcher knew that the baby they were holding was a girl or a boy, it is likely that they would act differently and thus the data cannot be conclusive and suggest innate differences between baby boys and girls. The amount of time the baby boys and baby girls spent looking at either visual stimulant could very well be shaped by society due the ways in which people interact differently with babies based upon their sex. This study shows how important it is to be careful when attributing biological origin to something that is in fact very much influenced by society.

When researchers critically examine commonly held characteristics that are often believed to be based in biology, often times we can easily see the ways in which society has a direct influence in these outcomes. One example of this is a study assessing the ways in which parents perceive their children’s physical ability differently based on whether or not their child is a boy or a girl. Researchers asked parents to estimate the level of slope their eleven-month-old babies could successfully descend. Results did not show any real difference in the athletic ability of the two sexes; the interesting result was in the ways in which parents estimated their child’s ability to descend the slope. Mothers of baby girls under estimated their ability by an average of nine degrees. Mothers who had baby boys only underestimated their baby’s ability by an average of one degree (Eliot 2009). Lise Eliot, an author who applies a social constructionist approach, uses this study as an example of the ways preconceived notions about varying abilities between the sexes alters the expectations we have for our children.

This expectation has real repercussions. If parents believe their daughters to be less physically capable than their sons are, than they are less likely to enroll girls in athletic extracurricular activities. This widens the gap between athletic ability, but it is not based upon a biological athleticism boys possess. Rather, it reflects the ways in which boys are encouraged to pursue athletics based off of the commonly held belief that boys are innately more athletic and enjoy athletics more. Once again, it is easy to see the numbers of boys involved in sports and argue that boys are innately drawn to athletics more. When we consider the possibility that society may have some influence over who pursues athletics, we are able to see the ways in which these differences are based more in society than pure biology. This does not extend merely to athletics, but has large implications for how we normalize dangerous behaviors, like violence or aggression, based on gendered expectations that are wrongly perceived to be biological.

Even real and physical differences can be attributed to more social constructionist theories when we operate outside of the strict framework of absolute biological determinism. For example, a measurable difference between men and women is that the ratio of gray to white matter is larger in women than in men (Spanier and Horowitz 2011). Initially used as evidence of biological sex differences being absolutely hard wired, researchers have found that experience and behavior can actually change the structure of the brain. It is extremely critical that whether we are scientists or readers of science, we are cautious about how we make conclusions and whether or not we are considering all possible causes before doing so.

Sociobiology as a field has come under a lot of legitimate scrutiny for its methodology. Many critics of sociobiology take issue with the fact that sociobiologists draw a lot of their conclusions from nonhuman animal behavior using human ideas of relationships and apply them to animal interactions. In the continued quest to find a gene for monogamy, we can see more examples of flawed science in the search for biological origins of highly politicized and gendered institutions. For example, in Angela Willey and Sara Giordano’s piece, “’Why Do Voles Fall in Love?’: Sexual Dimorphism in Monogamy Research”, the authors utilize a feminist lens to critique the ways in which sociobiologists make claims about the naturalness of human behavior via flawed methodology in nonhuman animal studies. In this particular study, researchers used arbitrary definitions of monogamy (whether male voles spent more time with a previously bonded female vole or a newly introduced female vole) to argue that voles are in fact monogamous (Willey and Giordano 2011). The first obvious critique of this study was the researchers' definition of monogamy. The researchers used nearness of the male vole to the female vole to define monogamy. They even used language like “husband” and “wife” to describe the relationships between voles, which is terminology that can really only be attributed to humans, as marriage itself is a social construction.

The researchers that conducted this study applied their human understanding of monogamy to draw conclusions about animal relationships. After they (through flawed methodology) concluded that voles do in fact have a biological imperative for monogamy, the researchers were able to send a very strong message about difference. Scientists are often given a high level of legitimacy, and many people are unlikely to question scientific conclusions. However, these scientists used flawed methodology to make conclusions about the ways in which animals are determined to act, which in turn implicates our thoughts about how human behavior is natural and biologically determined.

When we apply a critical lens to the conversation about difference, we see that social constructionism, rather than biological determinism, is a more solid cause for many differences between men and women than pure biology. It is important that we utilize an understanding of social constructionism to question scientific conclusions about difference, though it is just as likely that the conversation is not dichotomous; it is very possible that biology and social constructionism both play a hand in the development of behavior. It is just a matter of how much, and at what period of time.

Written by Marisa B.

Eliot, Lise. "Under the Pink or Blue Blankie." In Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps -- And What We Can Do About It, by Lise Eliot, 55-102. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009.

Spanier, Bonnie. "Looking for Difference." In Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary Science and Medicine. Ed. Jessica Horowitz, 43-67. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 2011.

Willey, Angela. "’Why Do Voles Fall in Love?’: Sexual Dimorphism in Monogamy Research." In Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary Science

Hormones and Brain Structures Within the Work Environment of Society

Are women equal when in comparison to men? Do men have an advantage when it comes to social thought, careers, and societal standing? Are women inhibited by their hormones and brain structures? Through research and understanding there is a possible explanation that may or may not lead to an answer. Dependent upon how one feels regarding present information, the questions asked can be answered in various ways. Biological factors come into play in addition to environmental and social factors; together an individual becomes one within society. Through not only physical research and evidence, but through experiences of various women, one can come to a conclusion on whether the discussed topic has a specific response intended upon society as a whole.

As Hillary Clinton endeavored with her valor in running for the presidency against the current President Obama, some members of society reacted in a demeaning manner. Some could not accept the fact that she is of female gender- even though she had many enriching positions throughout her life and was tremendously qualified for the presidency. As noted in the Denver University Law Review: “Many women believed that they had to work harder than their male counterparts to earn respect... These women performed their identities at work as efficient, hard workers because of the fear that colleagues would not take them seriously if they viewed them first as mothers and wives and second as professionals” (McGinley, 716). It seems as though women are forced into acting a certain way around the work force in order to succeed. Women like Hillary Clinton and others in high authoritative positions are required to have a façade at all times in order to reach towards equality, or at least this was noted as what many happen to abide by. According to this, a woman is looked down upon for the fact of just being a woman- if this is really true what can a woman do to overcome this? It happens to be a societal concept that women are weaker in comparison to men; only society can choose equality, as society and one’s environment make the rules in which all follow.

Anne Faustro-Sterling continues this argument by studying the biological debate. In her work it is noted that, “at the broadest political level, writers such as Berman and Goldberg raise questions about the competency of any and all females to work successfully in positions of leadership, while for women working in other types of jobs, the question is, should they receive less pay or more restricted job opportunities simply because they menstruate or experience menopause?” (Sterling, 91). It is absurd and illogical to think that women are incapable of doing something as well as men, but still particular people think in this way. According to the above quote, women are seen as only able to take on certain roles through society because of their biological status. What does it mean for a woman to have a period- is it any different from a man having a severe headache, disturbing or interrupting his work? As a professional one must put those instances aside, leading to the impression that this circumstance would not matter or come into play.

In the YouTube video, “Do Women Earn Less than Men”, Professor Steven Horowitz of St. Lawrence University introduces the idea of women versus men within the working environment. Four major ideas are presented to why women make only seventy-five cents to every dollar that men will make. These ideas include- education, work expectations, part time or full time work, and if the job is interrupted by children. This video announces and explains the concept that, “the difference between men and women’s pay is not a result of labor market discrimination, but of the choices that men and women make before or after they are in the labor market” (Horwitz). This professor certainly says things as he believes they are, but could there be deeper meaning within his analysis? While women choose to take on certain jobs, is it truly their choice or the influence of society? Choosing what one will do in the future is rather different when it is a man choosing versus a woman choosing. Most men will not take time off of work to care for a newborn. Society has placed this extra job upon a woman because she has already been caring for the child in the womb. The responsibility could go to either, yet women are known to be responsible in this area because society has places this pressure upon them; either by choosing a not so demanding career, or taking time off from a demanding career. This by no means has to do with the one’s brain size and intelligence, but by the effect of biology onto society- making society an active member in choosing what types of jobs will fit each gender best.

By further analyzing research and data; one may see that brain size was once a vital factor. As we now know the evidence once valid, no longer holds true. In the past, thinkers noted that, “opponents of higher education for women also claimed that females were less intelligent than males, an assertion based partly on brain size itself but also on the overall size difference between men and women… (because) their average size remains so much smaller, so that the sum total of food converted into thought by women can never equal the sum total of food converted into thought by men. It follows therefore, that men will always think more than women” (Sterling, 92). In the past, women were seen as less in every aspect of life due to size. It is true that women’s bodies not only tend to be smaller but brain size and skull size go along with the smaller aspect as well. In the past this was not surprisingly held with upmost regard, as the thinkers of that time were known to only speak the truth. This idea reiterates the point that society will go along with whatever ideas are popular and known- the concept of social norm, that society will follow what others follow because it is most commonly followed (Breckler, 310). Regardless of what was thought of, it would be followed based upon the rules of society. No one wants to go against society; thus following upon what is said. Now that scientists have become more realistic, logical, and advanced within their studies- more concrete work has been introduced.

In chapter two of Jill A. Fischer’s book, “Gender and the Science of Difference”, Lesley J. Rogers gives her explanation on the fact that sex differences are not hardwired. She notes, “by contrast, interactive explanations take experience into account and consideration that during every stage of development contributors from experience, genes, and hormones interact in such complex ways that no one of these three sources influence makes an overriding contribution in determining the sex differences in behavior” (Fischer, 27). This statement goes to show that there is no proof, no validity that a woman’s biological information will influence her on factors such as behavior- which influences everything in one’s daily life. Based on previous work presented, women have been known to not have the proper behavior in the work setting and other settings included (McGinley, 718). This declaration proves the statement made by McGinley not valid, as behavior cannot be linked to either male, or female. There is no biological make up of behavior- behavior is learned through observation of others on a daily basis throughout one’s lifetime (Breckler). One does not know behavior until coming out of the womb. Babies all act with extremely similar characteristics, they are then distinguished as time goes on- when behaviors, thoughts, and ideas area formed. Thus verifying that the environment overcomes biology within each and every individual.

Women’s hormones and brain structures have no significance when it comes to one’s career. The body has influence but does not choose and force an individual to go into a certain career path. Women can do what they please, as there is no difference between a man and a woman, other than size. It is a fact of life that men tend to be larger in comparison to women (Breckler). In jobs that involve lifting, this may be an issue, but that is what machines are for- to help move materials from one location to another. According to “Working Women In America” by Sharlene Nagy, Hesse-Biber, and Gregg Lee Carter- women must have the possibility of doing as they please due to equality. While there are jobs known to females and those known to males, that does not mean that each gender must go into the most common jobs within that particular gender (mainstream jobs). The opportunity it there, it simply must be acted upon (Nagy, 179).

Throughout thus research it has become clear as to why it is not common for women to work certain jobs. It is not because of biology or because of choice, but because of society and the environment in which one inhabits. Society places pressure upon individuals and whether conscious or unconscious thought, it appears as though others follow the guidelines that society has arranged. Women are constantly gaining equality, social positions, career status, and societal standing. This will only continue and flourish as one’s environment permits and society accepts.

Written by Daniella Stern

Works Cited

Breckler, Steven J. Social Psychology ALIVE. CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006. Print.

Do Women Earn Less than Men? Perf. Prof. Steven Horwitz. YouTube. YouTube, 3Aug. 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2012.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow>.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "Hormonal Hurricanes: Menstruation, Menopause, And Female Behavior." 90-122. Web. 31 May 2012.

Fisher, Jill A. Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary Science and Medicine. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2011. Print.

McGinley, Ann C., "Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama: Performing Gender, Race, and Class on the Campaign Trail" (2009). Scholarly Works. Paper 171. http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/171

Nagy, Sharlene, Hesse -Biber, and Gregg Lee Carter. “Working Women In America.” 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Pree, 2005. Print. Split Dreams.

IQ and SAT Test Scores Across Race and Gender

Intro

Over the last few decades, the United States has developed a sort of fetish for standardized testing. Academic, professional and political institutions alike seek a way to measure qualifications and achievement across communities and groups. At least in the realm of intellectual performance, standardized tests have become the way to do this. Along with the advent of testing, though, comes the advent of test result interpretation, and with a battery of demographic information, there are many ways to see the data and quite a few conclusions being drawn.

In the aggregate, whites score higher on IQ tests than do African-Americans. On the math section of the SAT, the mean score for boys is higher than it is for girls. These differences in performance across race and gender show up again and again, but what do they mean? Are whites smarter than African-Americans or boys smarter than girls? Do these test scores reflect innate, fixed, biological differences or are they a product of something else? These are the questions I will seek to explore here.

What does IQ measure?

“IQ” is a term familiar to most but perhaps not clearly understood by many. The abbreviation stands for “Intelligence Quotient” and in casual conversation has come to signify how “smart” a person is, with a score like a glass ceiling: if you have a high IQ, it means you’re naturally smarter than most people; a low IQ means you are just incapable of some higher thinking. This interpretation of IQ can be very misleading and dangerous. What does IQ actually measure? The IQ test was designed to indicate not static natural intelligence, but rather current aptitude for academics, relative to one’s peers. Let me explore further some of the key ideas there.

First, “current”: IQ is emphatically not static. It does not claim to remark on what your mental abilities may have been in the past or indicate what you may be capable of in the future. IQ scores can and do change depending on family, school or work environments, and level or quality of schooling (see Ceci for further reading).

Second, “academics”: the most popular IQ test currently is the fifth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, or SBIS-V. The categories in this test are Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory (Machek). The flavor of the test is clear. It favors those who spent their childhoods playing with Lego bricks, memory games, and logic puzzles. Childhoods of writing fantasy stories, helping care for younger siblings, or hanging around the neighborhood do little to prepare a student for the SBIS-V, even though our culture highly esteems qualities like creativity, interpersonal relations, or so-called common sense or street smarts in adults (Shenk “The Truth”).

Finally, “relative”: the IQ test is not a fixed scale. In order to provide a measure of how you rate compared to your peers, scores are fitted to a bell curve with the average fixed at 100. Again, the test was originally designed to measure school aptitude, so students would be measured against others in their grade. While theoretically the range of aptitudes does not change much from peer group to peer group, one specific child’s placement on that range over time certainly might.

How do IQ scores compare by race?

As with most standardized tests, IQ tests include some demographic information. This has predictably led to an analysis of how self-reported races correlates with score. In the past few decades, there has been a real and not insubstantial difference in performance between races, reported as anywhere between 10 and 18 points (Rushton; Nisbett 86). Essentially, no one can argue that there is no IQ test score gap between blacks and whites.

That being said, consider a brief summary of the results from some more focused studies (all from Nisbett 91-95):

-- in a study of children born in post-WWII Germany fathered by American GIs, children of white GIs enjoy only a 0.5 point average score increase over children of black GIs

-- in a study of biracial children, those with white mothers and black fathers score 9 points better than those with black mothers and white fathers

-- in a study of adopted black and biracial children, the average score for those raised in white families was 13 points higher than for those raised in black families, yet within those two groups there was no notable difference between black and biracial scores

-- in a study of black, white, and biracial orphans raised in the same environment, blacks scored on average 5 points higher than whites, with biracial children in between

On the face of things the racial disparity in IQ scores is obvious, but when studies set race against environment, they seem to show that the score gap is much more a product of being raised and influenced by black parents than being born by them.

IQ: Biological or Social?

No one would argue that there is no biological component whatsoever to IQ. In fact, the heritability of IQ within a given population has been commonly pegged at around 70% (Nisbett 86). More recent studies, controlling for environment, continue to support the idea that intelligence is heritable (see Thompson, Motluk). What does heritability indicate? Not, notably, that 70% of displayed intelligence comes directly from genetics, or that only 30% can be affected by other factors. Instead, 70% heritability indicates that within a given population, 70% of the discrepancy in realized differences in intelligence can be traced back to genetic influence (Shenk “A Heritable Muddle”). So, while intelligence levels do seem to display an aspect of genetic origin, heritability only applies when environment is relatively controlled for, and it says nothing about potential for intellectual ability, just manifested variation.

And as for that heritable aspect of IQ? As Harvard University faculty Stephen Kosslyn points out, what they measure is “the kind of intelligence you need to do well in school, not what you need to do well in life” (quoted in Motluk).

As the studies above indicate, though, environment plays a key role in the realization of intellectual capability. This should seem obvious. Socio-economic status (SES) affects more than anyone might like to admit; in one study where children were transferred from a low SES environment to a higher one, their IQ test scores jumped by up to 16 points (Grasso). SES of course affects a myriad of factors, from whether or not a child eats breakfast every morning to whether the number of books in the house to the quality of schools available to the priorities and activities of parents. Social environment also plays a huge role. The atmosphere and values in the household, the values of caretakers, what they prioritize in raising their children, and socialization from peers will affect the child’s academic achievement vastly more than any collection of genes. In their chapter on parenting in the book Freakonomics, authors and economists Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt show that good predictors of a child’s future scholastic achievement are things like the level of education of the caretakers, the SES of the household, and the number of books in the house (170-171, 175-176). “Good genes” did not make the list.

What do standardized tests such as the SAT measure?

Standardized tests for specific academic content have become more and more widespread as a measure of grade or education level in America. Especially with the advent of political pushes such as the “No Child Left Behind” Act, schools are using standardized testing more and more to try and assess on a wide scale how well children are doing in school, and colleges use standardized testing as a way of comparing students from different schools and backgrounds. The most popular of these, the SAT, is taken by high school juniors and seniors across the country as they apply for college admission. So what does it measure?

First of all, it may be pertinent to note that the SAT is designed and administered by an independent non-profit organization, The College Board, with no official affiliations within any political or educational factions. The organization is involved in many programs for testing, advocacy, and research in education from middle school through college, but they do not coordinate the test with any specific curriculum or test design in schools.

The College Board website claims to test “the skills you’re learning in school: reading, writing and math.” So the SAT is broken into three sections: critical reading, which involves multiple choice questions testing short passage comprehension and sentence completion; writing, which involves an extemporaneous essay based on an open prompt and multiple choice questions testing grammar and vocabulary; and mathematics, which involves multiple choice questions on arithmetic, algebra, geometry, statistics, and probability (“About The SAT”).

That being said, as nearly any high school senior or college student will be able to tell you, the SAT is not a test you can just walk into and ace. Everything from wording of the questions to complicated scoring methods requires familiarizing yourself with the test beforehand, and this is an industry in itself: classes, test prep books, online materials, practice exams, and more are marketed (often times by The College Board itself) to prepare students to take the test which supposedly measures what they should already know.

It is finally worth noting that, according to Stanford University professor Claude Steele, the SAT measures only from 7 – 25% of what a student actually needs to excel at college (Steele). As with the IQ tests, the SATs measure a specific subsection of skills, and they do it in a very stylized way. This is not to say that they do not serve a purpose in providing one of the few standardized measures of scholastic capability, this is simply to caution that they overlook a lot of what makes a student successful, and what they do test is done in a way that heavily favors those with the resources to specifically prepare beforehand.

How do SAT scores compare by gender?

As with racial difference in IQ test results, gender difference in SAT test results—particularly on the math portion of the test—are well established, statistically significant, and enduring. In a study conducted by The College Board of 1985 SAT-Math scores, controlling for “socioeducational status”, it was found that females scored on average about 50 points (out of maximum 800) lower than males (Burton). Fast forward twenty-five years and things have improved, but not much. The data profile report released by The College Board for 2010 SAT-Math scores lists the average female score as 34 points lower than the average male score (“2010 College-Bound Seniors”). That data persists from year to year: males maintain a steady 30+ point lead over females on math scores.

Unfortunately, unlike studies done on IQ trying to separate racial biology from environment, it is very difficult to control for gender. While you can, crudely speaking, take a black child and put him with a white family and retest him to see if his scores seem to be affected by his environment or just by his race, gender socialization is so ingrained that there are very few ways to take a girl out of an environment where she is treated as female to see if it is biological or social. One of the few ways to attempt to do this is to look at single-sex education, which at least manages to remove gender bias from the classroom. In a 2009 study done in UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute, it was found that among independent high school students, the average SAT-Math score for females attending single-sex schools was 22 points higher than females attending coeducational schools (Sax).

SAT: Biological or Social?

Gender is hard to escape or ignore. A girl put among boys still gets treated like a girl, and of those few people who do transition between genders and can experience socialization from both angles, they cannot do so in such a way that reflects on SAT scores. That being said, the UCLA study does seem to show that removing gender difference from the classroom makes up for a substantial portion of the test score gap, indicating that the disparity is not biological but rather environmental in origin.

Another possible non-biological reason for the gap is the disparate numbers of students taking the SAT. In 2010 over 100,000 more girls took the SAT than boys (“2010 College-Bound Seniors”). Keep in mind that the SAT is not a random sampling of students, but rather is a self-selecting test for students who want to go on to college. We can therefore consider students taking the SAT to represent the most academically motivated or excelling students from the peer group each year. Theoretically, then, if significantly more females take the test, then, as researcher Janet Hyde put it, “the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group”, thereby lowering the mean score across the board for females (Hyde). In fact, a small 2002 study in Colorado and Illinois which required every single high school senior to take a similar test, the ACT, showed no significant gender gap at all, indicating that female sample size may indeed play a role in manufacturing the SAT score gap (Hyde).

Finally it is worth noting that, although this is hard to research and harder to quantify, gender bias undoubtedly exists. From childhood little girls are more likely to be given dolls than building blocks. Parents expect their daughters to have better verbal skills and their sons to have better analytical minds. The extant gender disparity in math and science fields certainly also plays a role in encouragement—girls are more likely to be comfortable in a field where they see an abundance of female role models, something much more prevalent in humanities and artistic fields than hard math or science. In January 2005, Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard University, famously attributed this dearth of women in such fields to an innate difference in ability, which got both him and Harvard quite a bit of press (see Fogg for further reading). As much as Summers was criticized for his comments, it also illustrates how pervasive and entrenched such a bias is. Everyone in America grows up in this climate. Even so, studies and researchers trying to control for the effects of gender bias as best they can do continuously turn up indications that performance on math tests is not linked to gender biology (to whatever extent there even is such a thing) at all.

In IQ tests and the SAT-Math alike, score gaps between races and genders do exist and do not seem to change. To call this an innate biological difference, though, is to dangerously oversimplify the effects of a plethora of factors. Studies delving deeper continuously indicate that intelligence is much more a product of environment than of innate fixed ability. The stereotypes remain, though, and are perpetuated by popular science and media, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy—one perhaps only broken by properly understanding the issues.

Written by Caroline Marsden.

Works Cited on IQ

Ceci, Stephen J. On Intelligence: A Bioecological Treatise on Intellectual Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.

Grasso, Fabian. “I.Q. – Genetics or Environment.” AllPsych Journal. AllPsych Online. 1 July 2002. Web. 29 April 2012. <http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html>

Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: Harper Perennial, 2009.

Machek, Greg. “Individually Administered Intelligence Tests.” Human Intelligence: Historical Influences, Current Controversies, Teaching Resources. Indiana University. 2003. Web. 26 April 2012. <http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/intelligenceTests.shtml>

Motluk, Alison. “IQ is Inherited, Suggests Twin Study.” NewScientist. 5 Nov. 2001. Web. 29 April 2012. <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html>

Nisbett, Richard E. “Race, Genetics, and IQ.” The Black-White Test Score Gap. Eds. Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1998. 86-102.

Rushton, J. Phillipe, and Arthur R. Jensen. “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11.2 (2005): 235-294. Web. 27 April 2012. <http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf>

Shenk, David. “A Heritable Muddle.” The Genius in All of Us. 15 June 2009. Web. 29 April 2012. <http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/2009/06/a-heritable-muddle.html>

Shenk, David. “The Truth About IQ.” The Atlantic. 28 July 2009. Web. 26 April 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/07/the-truth-about-iq/22260/>

Thompson, Paul M., et al. “Genetic Influences on Brain Structure.” Nature Neuroscience 4 (2001): 1253-1258. Web. 27 April 2012. <http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v4/n12/full/nn758.html>

Works Cited on the SAT

“2010 College-Bound Seniors: Total Group Profile Report.” CollegeBoard. The College Board. 2010. Web. 30 April 2012. <http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/2010-total-group-profile-report-cbs.pdf>

“About the SAT.” CollegeBoard. The College Board. n.d. Web. 30 April 2012. <http://sat.collegeboard.org/why-sat/topic/sat/sat-in-college-admissions>

Burton, Nancy W., et. al. “Sex Differences in SAT Scores.” College Board Report 1 Jan 1988. CollegeBoard. Web. 30 April 2012. <http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/RR%2088-9.PDF>

Fogg, Piper. “Harvard’s President Wonders Aloud About Women in Science and Math.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 28 Jan 2005. Web. 1 May 2012. <http://chronicle.com/article/Harvard-s-President-Wonders/21108>

Hyde, Janet S., et. al. “Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance: Supporting Online Material.” Science 320.494 (2008). Web. 30 April 2012. <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2008/07/23/321.5888.494.DC1/Hyde.SOM.pdf>

Sax, Linda J., et. al. “Women Graduates of Single-Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in their Characteristics and the Transition to College.” The Sudikoff Family Institute for Education & New Media. UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. March 2009. Web. 30 April 2012. <http://gseis.ucla.edu/sudikoff/archive/pdfs/genderstudies/Report_SingleSexEd_Sax.pdf>

Steele, Claude. “Secrets of the SAT: Interviews – Claude Steele.” PBS Frontline. PBS. n.d. Web. 30 April 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/steele.html>

To What Extent Should Parents Have Access to Prenatal Genetic Testing?

Prenatal genetic testing for parents to screen traits of their future offspring has without a doubt been on the rise with new innovations in medicine. The extent that parents should be given access to this privilege is certainly not black and white. However, the reason that new parents seek out this service in the first place is important when determining how widely available this new trend should be made. When thinking about this question, the line between screening for life threatening birth defects and eugenics immediately comes to mind. But where does the line get crossed? Of course, in order to better prepare future parents for a child with a life altering or threatening disease such as Tay-Sachs, downs syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc. prenatal genetic testing seems like a necessity. But what should the criteria be for undergoing this diagnosis? Eugenics or “designer babies” may not seem linked to screening for disease at first. However, it turns out that during Pre-Implementation Genetic Diagnosis, or checking the embryo for deficiencies before it is returned to the mother’s womb, certain physical alterations can be made to the fetus’ genes along the way. Because of this new trend, the line between traits stemming from the biological versus social is made even more complex.

First, we must not ignore the possible beneficial outcomes of prenatal genetic testing. Parents should have the option to be well suited for the birth of a child that may have enormous difficulty functioning on their own or have a limited life expectancy. Regardless of what decision the mother chooses, in terms of continuing with her pregnancy, reaching out for guidance on the subject, or preparing both mentally and economically for a child with disabilities, all seem more than reasonable. Imagine the heartbreak of setting up a nursery, saving up for a child’s schooling, or having dreams of watching your son or daughter get married only to realize that they have little chance of living past the age of one. In fact, advice about choice eugenics has actually become a large part of prenatal care given by doctors to better inform their patients (Hubbard and Newman). Since we have the science to prevent these hopes and dreams from getting crushed in the first place, many doctors and patients alike agree that we should be able to use it.

On the other hand, this idea of choice eugenics has its pitfalls and even a hidden agenda. Because prenatal genetic testing has become so widespread in the fertility for profit industry, some doctors have actually been sued for putting too much pressure on their patients to terminate or alter a pregnancy that may result in a child with genetic deficiencies (Hubbard and Newman). This also raises the question of the role of the doctor in situations like so--where does one’s doctor stand in the fine line between giving unbiased, helpful advice and pushing a mother to do something she doesn’t want to? Such decisions that parents are forced to confront brought on by testing can often be virtually impossible for a mother to be to make--“modern prenatal care treats pregnant women not as expectant mothers but as managers of fetal risk profiles” (Samerski 2007). Modern prenatal care, even without the eugenics aspect, puts more added pressure on the mother for an obvious reason: she can’t simply wait for the baby to be born and hope for the best. Even the rise of ultra sounds and check ups can put mothers in a state of “tentative pregnancy” (Samerski), because if prenatal tests do not have an income that indicates a perfectly healthy child, the expectant mother must now consider an abortion. Specifically, the mother is turned into even more of a liability because the mother’s own traits are used as a risk assessment factor. For instance, women over thirty five are labeled much more at risk of having a child with downs syndrome, and young women under eighteen are deemed at risk because of a predetermined lack of stability in the future child’s home life. Maybe the most important thing to consider is that prenatal testing can back expectant mothers into a corner, or a “one-way street”, because a positive test result for disease can only provide reasons for terminating the pregnancy (Samerski), not keeping it.

The idea of fertility as a commodity certainly cannot be ignored when speaking about the links between modern prenatal care, genetic screening, and eugenics. With so many products, foods, and services designed to help women’s bodies become more fertile, becoming pregnant in today’s society can leave a prospective mother’s wallet empty very easily. “The German maternity passport, a handheld pregnancy record capturing all medical data, lists fifty-two factors that immediately classify a pregnant woman of being at risk…the list is so broad and vague that roughly three out of four pregnancies are now diagnosed as being at risk” (Samerski, Schwarz and Shucking). Thus, a whopping seventy-five percent of women will most likely spend extra money trying to determine the possible outcome of their offspring because they are deemed in this “at-risk” category. This means that the prenatal care industry is already making money based on the anxiety of mothers that have no real, proven risks for failed pregnancies, without even touching upon the rise of designer babies. By playing on the innate fears and concerns of soon to be mothers, the business of giving birth yields an overwhelming profit all on its own.

Another large factor in the politics of the prenatal eugenics movement is cost. While pre-birth screening costs skyrocket, it seems as if lower socioeconomic class citizens are left out of the loop, as they already struggle with paying for routine check ups and ultrasounds. Thus, these super human designer babies are specific to mostly white, upper class families, which has dangerous implications for the future of society if this trend continues. Not only will class and race divides further separate, but racism toward minorities, especially those in inner cities with a lack of health care, will greatly worsen because of the new physical and intellectual prowess that the white upper class would emanate. Because of this, genetic counseling arises as a whole new technique of social engineering. “As genetic counseling exemplifies, prenatal decision making does not increase a woman’s autonomy, nor does it bring her closer to her desire: a healthy or at least “normal” child. Instead, “the pregnant woman is both disempowered and held responsible at the same time” (Samerski, Balsamo 1996, 110). Now, minority women feel even more disempowered when they do not have the same access to genetic modification and screening as upper class white women do.

As if pre-existing racism isn’t bad enough (i.e the “genocide” of black babies), using prenatal genetic testing as a gateway for eugenics would not only create unfair and often unattainable physical standards for future generations, but leave those who can’t afford access to this movement behind as well. Without some form of government regulation, the poor would not have any sort of access. Furthermore, even if regulations and restrictions were put in place towards the extent of eugenics used and the cost, the production of designer babies would most likely still be made available underground to those that could afford it. Thus, we are left with a society of “normal” minorities left to make due with their unmodified traits, and a new wave of these mostly Caucasian super humans. Now, of course this would be a problem of the far future, but it is crucial to prevent something like this from happening. With the goal of making the human race stronger and more intelligence, history could easily repeat itself if we are not aware of the risks involved with overly screening our babies for the fear that their genes might carry anything below perfection.

So, to what extent exactly should parents have access to this service? This question relates back to the tired and true debate of biological determinism versus social constructionism. The most serious issue with extensive prenatal genetic screening may be that people’s biology would stem from their social circumstances. If one’s parents have well paying jobs and are of higher socioeconomic status, desirable biological traits can essentially be bought and sold. Regardless of whether these physical attributes are added to the fetus for protection from diseases or eye color, where does it end? Health and aesthetics can often overlap, and these boundaries aren’t nearly as clear as they may seem. For example, a mother to be might go in for a procedure to protect her child against Tay-Sachs disease because the baby’s father is of Jewish descent, but with that same procedure she might also be tempted to modify traits that are not technically classified as a disease, such as obesity. Throughout any pregnancy, it is more important now than ever to develop a healthy skepticism when buying into curiosity about the outcome of the child’s physical traits. As long as the mother is reassured that her child’s life is not immediately threatened, and her own life is not at risk, a more natural approach is much more beneficial for society at large. After all, trying to control a society genetically worked out miserably the last time--if doctors and scientists keep history in mind they might just come to the conclusion that the human race is already getting more intelligent and physically able with time.

Written by Leigh Bentson

Works Cited

Hubbard, Ruth, and Stuart Newman. "Yuppie Eugenics." Z Magazine. March 2002: n. page. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.zcommunications.org/yuppie-eugenics-by-ruth-hubbard-and-stuart-newman>.

Samerski, Silja. "Genetic Counseling and the Fiction of Choice: Taught Self Determination as a new technique of Social Engineering ." Chicago Journals. 2009: n. page. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.

Sexuality and Genetics as a Political Movement

There has been a vast discourse on homosexuality in Western culture in the past three centuries, much of it discussing homosexuality as an act of sexual perversion and a disease or mental disorder. Even today, it is a politically controversial subject, and is still not an entirely socially acceptable lifestyle. There are undeniable socio-political implications in being a homosexual in the United States, and numerous injustices exist, even in a self-proclaimed “equal” state. The queer political movement has likely never been stronger than in the past few decades, but society will always have difficulty understanding the lifestyle if its origins in the body remain so unclear. Being such an intriguing topic of socio-political discourse, it has been subject to extensive scientific investigation, especially with the rise of genetic research and methodologies such as Sociobiology. The primary question has been: is sexual preference hard-wired in genetic make-up or is it the product of environmental influence? Because sexual identity is so interrelated with sex/gender identities, let’s first look at the innateness of gender in sex.

Undeniable physical differences exist between males and females, for instance differences in bone structure, reproductive organs, and amounts of hormones. But do these physical characteristics account for the existence of gender (which is the behavioral identity of “man” or “woman” that usually comes with the according sex)? There is no definite answer, and there is an ongoing effort to find it; however, there is evidence supporting both arguments. Simon Baron-Cohen, a scientist conducting gender research on infants, tested male and female newborns on their sociability (how the individuals reacted when presented with a human face and a mobile). He found that males looked at the mobile 10% more than females did, while females looked at the face only 3% more than males (Eliot, 72); Baron-Cohen concluded that the gender norms of girls having more empathy and boys having better spacial ability are so deeply encoded in biology that even infants exhibit signs of gender. The results of this experiment were enormously socially significant, despite the fact that they have not been replicated and other tests have given contradictory evidence (Eliot, 73). There have been identified errors in Baron-Cohen’s methods used to collect the data, including the collector’s awareness of the baby’s sex, to which she could have transposed pre-existing notions of gender. If the collector was already expecting a girl to gaze at her more, she may have unintentionally made more of an effort to meet the gaze of the infant (Eliot, 73). It seems that the research team went into the experiment expecting a specific answer according to social norms, and they collected and analyzed the data through that social lens; science is generally supposed to be unbiased, though this is not the only unbiased scientific research regarding the biology of gendered behavior.

Sociobiologists Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer studied the origins of rape, and how it is used as an evolutionary adaptation. Offensiveness of this piece aside, the analysis gave a relatively logical explanation of rape in an evolutionary sense, despite one significant flaw: a good portion of the argument was founded upon the idea that gender and sex are synonymous, and behaviors are encoded within sex. In order to follow the argument logically, one would have to completely accept that males are all “normal” males are aggressive hyper-sexuals (Thornhill, 8), all “normal” females are coy and monogamous by nature (Thornhill, 2), and sex is strictly used for procreational purposes. One look at the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s, and that foundation becomes obsolete. Many researchers, the above included, that work to prove the hard-wired behaviors in sexes are many times basing their research in socially accepted gender-norms, rather than truly natural behaviors. There is little significant evidence that the behaviors of males and females are hard-wired, though there is speculation--some look to the hypothalamus for sex-drive (Fausto-Sterling, 249). So if the behavioral differences between men and women (who are biologically defined only by differing sets of sex-chromosomes) are unlikely set in genetics, it seems equally unlikely that sexual preference is determined in genetics as well.

But there is, nevertheless, an argument over sexuality and biology, and some data collected to support the gender vs biology debate is also being used to explain sexuality. Dr. Simon LeVay studied the hypothalamus region of the brain in rhesus monkeys, convinced that this area is linked directly to sex drive and sexuality. After destroying 5 of the 11 male monkeys, his team found that these males presented typical female behaviors (presenting their behinds for other males to mount), which were extrapolated to represent homosexual behaviors (Fausto-Sterling, 248). In humans, there is a recognized size difference in the nuclei of the hypothalamus (known as the INAH-3) between male and female, and this difference apparently determines typical gendered behaviors. That is, assuming that mounting is a male behavior, and presenting oneself to be mounted is a female behavior. Either way, there is evidence that the hypothalamus region quite possibly affects at least the sexual behaviors of rhesus monkeys, though not necessarily their sexual preference. Now whether or not the same can be said for humans is a different story.

But what would be the implications of a system of sexual orientation being determined by the structure of the brain? Sexuality would no longer be considered conscious choice, at least for many people, and it is thought that homosexuals would be granted more political acceptance, seeing as it is illegal to discriminate against: race, sex, handi-caps, etc (all things that are generally determined by biology) (Fausto-Sterling, 254). But once classified as biological, who’s to say the scientific community won’t try to find a “cure”, via surgery, hormones, or prenatal testing? People have tried to “cure” homosexuality in the past, even as late as the 1950’s, using methods like electroshock therapy (Fausto-Sterling, 255), locating the exact origin would likely only cause scientists and physicians to try harder.

Anyways, it seems that a good amount of research on origins of behavior and brain structure is founded on the assumption that the structure of the brain is permanent, when in fact the brain is plastic, and likely molded in response to certain experiences (Fausto-Sterling, 253). With such a malleable organ, the likelihood that sexual orientation is targetable as an effect of brain structure, with our technology, is not high, nor is it likely that any data is 100% reliable. That’s why a number of scientists look to genes to find the answer, assuming that genetics is far more rigid than the brain.

Genes, or genetic information, is passed from parent to child through chromosomes, one set of chromosomes from each parent, 46 chromosomes in all. This genetic information is stored in DNA (nucleic acid), and when used in combination with RNA, the genetic information acts as a code for which protein to make. DNA and genes do not act as a metaphorical catalogue for human beings and “there isn’t even a simply cause and effect relationship between a particular gene and a particular anatomical feature” (Bleier, 43), contrary to popular belief; technically all they do is assist in the production of proteins. Scientists nevertheless search for the answers to sexuality and behavior in genetics, as genes are presumably the most fundamental image of human beings. One science team, headed by Dean Hamer, studied homosexuality in relatives, brothers in particular, and attempted to gauge homosexuality against inheritability, looking near the Xq28 gene. However, their methodology seemed rather mendelian (the simplest form of genetic theory, rooted entirely in inheritability), so the experiment was replicated by George Rice et al, with modifications: they searched for four genetic markers. The result contradicted Hamer et al, with little indication of sexual orientation being determined near Xq28, though there was evidence of the “possibility of detectable gene effects elsewhere in the genome” (Rice) (see Xq28).

So it is possible that sexual orientation is indicated in genetic structure; allowing this evidence the benefit of the doubt, would it then mean that sexual orientation is as concrete as a person’s genes? Though the debate over sexuality and biology is indeed a hot one, many agree that both biology and experience play a role in the development of behavior (Rogers, 27). If this is true, the argument transforms into the ratio of influence genes and environment have over behavior, rather than whether behavior is triggered by one or the other; in other words, the argument is over social construction, and the power struggle between genes and experience in the body.

So what does it mean for the gay social identity if homosexuality is both environmental and genetic? If people were told that it is neither/both a choice or/and a biological disease, there isn’t really any one place to put the blame, and therefore would be more difficult to “cure” and legally discriminate against. It’s possible that homosexuality would be more tolerable by design, because there is no one clear cause of it. But the problem is the media (newspapers, science journals, etc.), and that it is far too invested in creating a sexual dichotomy, judging by the scientific research that it does or doesn’t advertise. The sexuality discourse is so controversial that studies like LeVay’s, that may or may not provide substantial evidence for a biological sexual preference, are major articles in journals like: The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News (Fausto-Sterling, 245). Newspapers only run stories that people would be interested in (it’s fundamental business), so a headline on the state of homosexuality should hint at how invested the United States is in the sexuality discussion. But as we’ve seen, not all of the scientific evidence on homosexuality, or even on sex differences, is sound. Some of the evidence is insignificant, some of it is only significant if the reader plays into gender normalities, and some of it is open to interpretation entirely.

So for the Gay political movement searching for equity in the US, it would make the most sense to say that homosexuality is both biological and environmental, and that sexuality is fluid, not dichotomous. Over all, there is little significant evidence that sexual preference goes as deep as an individual’s genetics, but it does exist, so it shouldn’t be discarded. At the same time, environment and experience should not be overlooked, as child-rearing and social influence have a great effect on the behaviors of an individual. Many scientists agree that behaviors are both environmental and biological, so why shouldn’t homosexuals argue that it is, in fact, a hybrid of the two? Politically, homosexuals could not be discriminated against because it’s something that they can’t help (like skin color or a physical handicap). But the effort to find a “cure” would also be obsolete, because one would have to locate the environmental influence as well as a genetic influence, which at this point seems impossible, before one could ethically “cure” the disease. And even if someone eventually found the social influence that “causes” homosexuality, how could they possibly go about changing it? It would also be more difficult to consider a simple sexual perversion (Terry 34), like pedophilia or necrophilia, because it wouldn’t be a conscious choice. If it is accepted that a homosexual develops that behavior through no means of his/her own, then it might be hard to describe a homosexual as a pervert. Like I said before, homosexuality, by that design, would have to be legally tolerated.

But one has to ask, what is the threshold for being gay? What behaviors constitute homosexuality, or bisexuality? Sexuality is fluid and far from dichotomous. So in order for a political movement based on homosexuality to make progress, it has to have a working definition of what exactly homosexuality is; this definition would have to be used by scientists, activists, lobbyists, and politicians alike, so that actions made by each party would be compatible and understandable with the other. There is no definite notion of what homosexuality is, so when politicians that use one definition take scientific evidence that uses another, the true significance of the evidence get’s misconstrued and lost between the voids. Before any real progress can be made, an understandable collective definition of sexuality must be established by the movement. With this basic definition as a foundation, an argument for homosexuality originating in both biology and experience can be formed. Not that there won’t be resistance, as bigotry is far from dead, but the movement will have the best of both biological and environmental arguments. With hope, the idea that homosexuality has more than one “cause” will bring society as a whole to simply accept the lifestyle without spending so much time regarding it as a disease and a genetic anomaly.

written by Dylan Partridge

Works Cited

Bleier, Ruth. "Sociobiology, Biological Determinism, and Human Behavior." Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women. New York: Pergamon, 1984. 15-46. Print.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "Myths of Gender: Homosexual Brains?" Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. New York: Basic, 1985. 245-59. Print.

Rice, George, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers. "Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28." Science. Science, 23 Apr. 1999. Web. 01 May 2012. <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5414/665.full>.

Rogers, Lesley J. "Sex Differences Are Not Hardwired." Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary Science and Medicine. Ed. Jill A. Fisher. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2011. 27-42. Print.

Terry, Jennifer. "Modernity and the Vexing Presence of Homosexuals." An American Obsession: Science, Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999. 27-39. Print.

Thornhill, Randy, and Craig Palmer. "Why Do Men Rape?" A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. 53-84. Print.