Nature vs nurture is a battle that divides opinions. There are various large factors of our lives, and our personalities, that can be seen as part of our genetic history or a subsequent result of the way we have been raised and the life we have lead. But which is the more dominant factor? 

 

Personally, I am a strong believer in nurture; I think everything we are is a result of events that have happened and people we have met throughout our lives. Now, I’m not trying to put across some erratic idea that science and DNA aren’t real and we’re all blank canvases delivered by a stalk- but sometimes what we see and feel is stronger than what we biologically are.

 

Are we purely products of our parents and earlier generations? Or do we develop as times change and cultures modify? In many cases it could be a combination of the two, but I decided to look at three very crucial aspects of someone’s life: gender, mental illness and sexuality.

 

Gender identity is a part of life that many, luckily, don’t have to think about. However, for some the gender they identify with is not the one they are born with. If your biological code presents you with a penis but you long for a vagina, surely our gender identity is an aftereffect of something that happens post birth? Let me just clarify that this does not purport that the nurture argument corresponds with the radical idea that there is a choice in the matter- of course gender and sexuality are not choices, but the alternative to that is not necessarily a genetic cause.

 

If your mind does not attune with your body that suggests nurture is the stronger side of this debate. Emma Wallwork, an English Language Bachelor with a qualification in Psychology, has an apposed argument to this debate. Emma contended that she follows the nature theory and that she feels that “environmental triggers can have an effect on behaviour, and so I do not strongly oppose the nurture argument, however I do believe that characteristics are genetic and acquired”. This is an intriguing perspective, personally I find the idea that my characteristics are not necessarily my own, but are more an arrangement of my family’s genes quite uncomfortable. 

 

Emma stated that “the most influential study that has informed my support for this view is the case of the boy who became a girl. Bruce Reimer’s penis was accidentally burnt off during circumcision. When his parents consulted a psychologist he informed them that identification of self as male or female was environmentally motivated rather than biologically motivated. His parents decided to raise Bruce as a female, however Bruce rejected his reassigned female identity and at the age of 14 was informed he had been born a boy”.

 

This case is quite astounding, regardless of what we are told and what we are surrounded with nature could be the stronger force. What Emma has revealed does prove that nature can overcome nurture, but what does this case say for transgender or gender fluid members of society?

 

Sexuality is another subject matter that causes many divides in opinions. After centuries of attempts to ‘cure’ homosexuals, and years of defending the idea that being gay is not a choice, it’s quite a controversial concept that sexuality could be subsequent to environment rather than being born that way.

 

There has been evidence found of genetic influence on sexual orientation. There may not be the ‘gay gene’ that many refer to, and perhaps hoped for, but there is scientific proof that our chemical make up can influence sexuality. Many choose the argument that their elder relative or parents are gay, which suggests it is part of their DNA. 

 

Emma-Kate is a 23 year old lesbian living in London. She comes from Ireland and has a sister that is also a lesbian. She strongly believes that her sexuality is reliant on nature, “I know it’s not something I ever thought about being, it’s not something I have chosen and it’s not something I can change ... so it must be in my genetic make-up!” Emma-Kate’s understanding of the nurture side of the argument is “to say something is nurture is to say it’s something you picked up along the way, so you should then be able to change it, but I think the majority of gay people couldn’t change it”. Especially when talking about sexuality, nurture is dismissed as “it wasn’t a choice”, but being transgender isn’t what nature has provided but most will be adamant that also wasn’t a choice.

 

Julie Bindel is a freelance journalist and political activist, she is a founder of Justice for Women and is also a lesbian. Julie’s book, Straight Expectations, delves into the battle of nature against nurture; “what makes us lesbian or gay? I don’t know about you but I was born a baby, not a lesbian. At least I don’t remember fancying the midwife”. Julie raises a fair point, aren’t babies asexual? Does this not mean that any sexuality, not just homosexuality, is developed through our life?

 

“I suspect that rather than biology being destiny, our sexual preference is shaped by a combination of early experiences, peer pressure, opportunity, circumstances and fate” believes Julie and she also suggests within her book that the idea of nature being a determiner of sexuality is used more so as protection from bigots.

 

It’s not just being gay that is coming under the microscope here- being straight is also caused through our genes or our environment. Personally, I haven’t ever seriously questioned my sexuality, but I don’t believe that I was born wanting to have sex with men. When people use the case study that they have X or Y amount of gay siblings or relatives to prove it is nature; I feel that could just as easily suggest nurture. If you are raised amidst LGBT members, surely this will act as a huge influence within your life; suggesting that your environment has sculpted your sexuality. I’m sure that growing up with straight parents and family members will have influenced my sexuality.

 

Depression, anxiety, schizophrenia- any form of mental illness is genetic. If your parent has been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, there is a chance that you will too could be diagnosed. Mollie has suffered with depression and anxiety, she’s overcome a lot of her challenges, but was her distress a product of genetic inheritance or circumstance?

 

When Mollie was born her mother suffered from anti-natal depression for around six months- this hints that Mollie, genetically, would be prone to depression. However, Parents. com states that within the first month of life babies can respond and acknowledge smiling, within the second month babies can express and recognize anger too. In month three babies can also imitate emotions, movements and facial expressions. This information presents the importance of a parent-baby relationship in the first stages of life; Mollie’s depression could have been something adapted from the first six months of her life.

 

Now 20, Mollie wasn’t sure whether her psychosocial disability was caused by nature of nurture. She thought “mental illness is in some respects born from nature. I think it is only the foundations of mental illness that exist in biology. It is through the behaviors of the family member who possesses mental illness that the child can fully establish it. And from personal experience, the type of mental illness is usually shared within family members and transfers to those most acutely exposed to it”. 

 

Psychiatric vulnerabilities can be transferred through generations, that’s not disputed, but perhaps the exposure to distressing behavior can increase the likelihood of developing a mental illness.

 

I’m not too sure if we can pin down our characteristics on nature or nurture. If you had asked me before I would have adamantly supported nurture, but after speaking to Emma-Kate and Emma, who both fully supported the nature side, my opinion has been altered slightly. I still feel nurture is the more influential aid, but maybe it’s the concoction of the two that presents who we are.

 

Daniel R. Weinberger, CEO of the Lieber Institute for Brain Development, summarized what could be the real answer to this question. “Genes and environment are critical factors. There is no one critical factor” he said. “All common medical disorders — all of them — heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, cancer, mental illness — they’re all genetic factors that make your risk greater, that affect your liability or susceptibility, and environmental factors that exaggerate those risk factors”.