Atypical Gender Development (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes

Atypical Gender Development

Understanding gender dysphoria

Gender dysphoria (GD) refers to the experience where individuals feel a strong and persistent identification with the opposite gender, combined with significant discomfort regarding their biological sex assigned at birth. People experiencing this condition often describe feeling "trapped in the wrong body" and may desire to live as members of the opposite sex, frequently adopting clothing and behaviours associated with their preferred gender identity.

This condition is recognised as a psychological disorder in the DSM-5 and is sometimes referred to as transgenderism or gender identity disorder. Many individuals with GD may seek gender reassignment surgery to align their physical characteristics with their gender identity. The condition affects a small minority of both males and females who experience a mismatch between their biological sex and their internal sense of gender.

Biological explanations

Brain sex theory

The brain sex theory proposes that gender dysphoria results from specific brain structures that are incompatible with an individual's biological sex. Research has focused particularly on dimorphic brain structures - areas that naturally differ in form between males and females.

Zhou et al. (1995) conducted pioneering research examining the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a brain region that develops fully by age 5 and is approximately 40% larger in males than females. Their post-mortem studies of six male-to-female transgender individuals revealed that the BSTc was similar in size to that typically found in female brains.

This finding was supported by Frank Kruijver et al. (2000), who conducted follow-up research focusing on neuron numbers within the BSTc rather than just volume. Their study of transgender individuals showed a sex-reversed pattern, with participants displaying neuron counts in the female range rather than the typical male pattern.

Genetic factors

Twin studies provide evidence for a potential genetic basis to gender dysphoria. Frederick Coolidge et al. (2002) assessed 157 twin pairs (96 monozygotic and 61 dizygotic) using clinical diagnostic criteria from DSM-4. Their research estimated the prevalence of GD at 2.3%, with genetic variance accounting for approximately 62% of these cases, suggesting a strong heritable component.

Gunter Heylens et al. (2012) compared 23 monozygotic twins with 21 dizygotic twins where one twin in each pair had been diagnosed with GD. They found that 39% of monozygotic twins were concordant for GD compared to 0% of dizygotic twins, providing further evidence for genetic influence in the development of this condition.

Social-psychological explanations

Psychoanalytic theory

Lionel Ovesey and Ethel Person (1973) proposed a psychoanalytic explanation focused on early childhood experiences. Their theory suggests that GD in biological males results from extreme separation anxiety experienced before gender identity becomes established. According to this view, the child develops fantasies of symbiotic fusion with their mother to relieve anxiety about separation.

The theory proposes that this fear of separation leads the child to become overly identified with the mother figure, ultimately adopting a female gender identity. Supporting evidence comes from Robert Stoller (1973), who reported that interviews with GD biological males revealed unusually close relationships with their mothers, potentially leading to greater female identification and atypical gender identity development.

Cognitive explanation

Lynn Liben and Rebecca Bigler (2002) developed a cognitive theory emphasising individual differences in gender identity development. Their dual pathway theory suggests two routes for gender development.

The first pathway follows typical development where gender schema direct gender-appropriate attitudes and behaviours. However, the second pathway describes how a child's personal interests and activities might become more influential than their gender identity. For example, a boy who enjoys activities traditionally associated with girls (such as playing with dolls) may develop beliefs that such activities are appropriate for boys as well as girls.

In most cases, this leads to more flexible, androgynous attitudes towards gender roles. However, in a minority of individuals, this process may contribute to the development of an opposite-gender identity when personal interests consistently conflict with traditional gender expectations.

Evaluation

Contradictory evidence for brain structure theory

The brain sex theory faces several methodological challenges. Hilleke Hulshoff Pol et al. (2006) discovered that transgender hormone therapy actually affects BSTc size, suggesting that observed brain differences might result from treatment rather than causing GD. This finding questions whether brain structure differences are a cause or consequence of gender dysphoria.

Additionally, Wilson Chung et al. (2002) argue that pre-natal hormonal influences affecting brain structure are not activated until adulthood, meaning structural brain changes occur much later than early childhood. This evidence challenges the idea that dimorphic brain differences are present during early childhood when gender identity typically develops.

Twin studies provide inconclusive evidence

While twin studies suggest some genetic component, the findings have important limitations. The concordance rates for monozygotic twins (39% in the Heylens study) are relatively modest compared to other strongly heritable traits. Additionally, it becomes difficult to separate nature and nurture influences within twin studies, as monozygotic twins may influence each other and share very similar environmental conditions.

The rarity of gender dysphoria means that sample sizes in twin studies tend to be extremely small, limiting the extent to which researchers can make reliable generalisations about the broader population.

Biological explanations oversimplify complexity

Critics argue that biological explanations tend to reduce complex psychological conditions to simpler genetic, neuroanatomical, or hormonal levels. This reductionist approach may obscure important contributory factors occurring at psychological or social levels. An interactionist approach combining multiple levels of explanation may be more appropriate for understanding such a complex condition, as GD is unlikely to result from a single biological influence alone.

Issues with psychoanalytic theory

The psychoanalytic explanation faces several limitations. First, it only addresses GD in biological males and fails to provide an adequate account of the condition in biological females. George Rekers (1986) found that gender dysphoria in males was more strongly associated with father absence than maternal over-involvement, contradicting the separation anxiety explanation.

Furthermore, the theory's reliance on unconscious processes makes it extremely difficult to test scientifically. Since the proposed fantasies occur at an unconscious level, even individuals who experienced them may not be aware of these mental processes, making the theory essentially unverifiable.

Issues with cognitive theory

Like other cognitive explanations of gender development, Liben and Bigler's theory tends to be more descriptive than explanatory. The theory provides limited explanation for why some children become interested in activities inconsistent with their biological sex, or how such interests lead to the development of non-traditional gender schema.

Cognitive theories often describe the effects of gender dysphoria without adequately explaining its underlying causes, making them less useful for understanding the origins of atypical gender development.