Mapping the world's opinions

About us Style guide Log in  |  Sign up

Opinion map

Men are from Mars and women are from Venus, so the saying goes. But are the behavioural differences between men and women the result of social and cultural conventions? Or are our gender-specific behaviours driven by biological factors?


Arguments supporting this position



Biosocial Theory was created by Money and Earhardt in 1972, suggesting that gender roles are not entirely innate, nor are they exclusively a result of socialization.

The Argument

Biosocial gender theory accepts suggestions made in biochemical gender theory, such as the role hormones play in shaping personality, however also accepts that socialization plays large role in the construction of gender. Socialization is the dominant role in shaping gender within bio-social gender theory.

Counter arguments

The counter argument is to refute the biological impact implicit within biosocial theory, and to argue the role of biology is so minimal in molding gender, that for all pragmatic purposes it can be regarded as inconsequential. Therefore any behavioral differences among genders are classed as socially constructed. In refutation of existing contradictory scientific evidence, it is argued that to remove existing cultural and societal programming during academic research is very difficult, and existing efforts have unsuccessfully removed such bias.


Both biological and societal factors play a key role in the development of gender roles

Rejecting the premises

Measuring the specific impact both biological and societal factors play on gender is unfeasible due to the inability to accurately separate societal factors during development.


Content references here ...


Your take

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Next step

Explore the next argument

This page was last edited on Tuesday, 7 Aug 2018 at 00:09 UTC