The National Science Foundation has awarded $138,000 to scholars at the University of Washington to aid them in studying “early gender development.”

The grant explains, “the project will involve asking 250, 4- to 6-year olds and their parents to complete a battery of measures assessing early and current gender socialization, children’s internal sense of gender identity, children’s gendered behavior (e.g., preferences for gender-typed toys) and measures of related gender cognition (e.g., memory for gender-consistent vs. inconsistent behaviors).”

“These measures will allow the researchers to examine the relative contributions of internal gender identity and socialization and ultimately provide a more comprehensive theory accounting for early gender development,” the grant adds.

“Prominent theories of gender development have discussed the degree to which gender identity results from an internal sense of gender and socialization processes,” the grant claims. “However, tests of these theories have been limited because, for most children, internal gender identity and environmental socialization substantially overlap, rendering it impossible to distinguish the relative impact of each factor on gender development.”

“Internal gender identity and environmental socialization” typically overlap in children, resulting in difficulty determining “the relative impact of each factor on gender development.”

The study questions whether current theories on gender sufficiently explain the “wider range of human gender experiences” that we see today.

The grant of $138,000 was received by the University of Washington in July and the study will continue through June 2019, the Washington Free Beacon reports.

Kristina Olson and Selin Gülgöz, two researchers at the university that were involved with the school’s “TransYouth Project,” will be leading the study.

Featured Image Via Flickr/U.S. Army Garrison Red Cloud

Sources:

The College Fix

The Washington Free Beacon

 

  • Rusty Esq

    The results will automatically be invalidated. The people observing the test have already been compromised (using the thought process from the article).

    My children were given dolls and little cars. We minimised the screens they watched (no TV, selective movies), my wife and I both work, cook and clean. My wife doesn’t wear dresses often (if ever, it’s rare). We’re a fairly gender neutral house because of who my wife and I are.

    My children grew up at a young age with their own identities. One is a hardcore sports nut, the other is a contemplative writer. The writer self taught language at 9 months old (most of the alphabet). We assumed it was self-directed play until one of the childcare staff pointed it out to us that our 9 month old was keeping up with the best of the 2+ year olds.

    There is so much evidence that points to nature shaping us* that it’s not funny. It’s not that nurture can’t, it just plays a much less significant role in most circumstances.

    * Gad Saad (Bless his socks) gave a cake analogy. You throw in the ingredients and they all come out random. My children have my face shape and eye colour, eye shape, nose shape – it’s not random at all. But, the minute we talk about a behaviour, it’s now fluid and only partially influenced by genetics. Sorry Gad, you’re a smart man but your cake analogy was more like Swiss cheeze, full of holes. Look at studies of twins separated at birth. There are some fascinating studies there.

    And Gad’s Galápagos Islands analogy was also wrong. The bird with the best shaped beak could spend more time doing other things like breeding. If anything, it shows some subtle variability of our physical bodies. It’s like our personalities, largely determined by our genes, but subject to some variability. What you “tell your head with” may shape what you know and some of the decisions you make.

  • Rusty Esq

    The results will automatically be invalidated. The people observing the test have already been compromised (using the thought process from the article).
    My children were given dolls and little cars. We minimised the screens they watched (no TV, selective movies), my wife and I both work, cook and clean. We’re a fairly gender neutral house because of who my wife and I are.
    My children grew up at a young age with their own identities showing through at a very early age. One is a hardcore sports nut, the other is a contemplative writer. The writer was self taught language at 9 months old (most of the alphabet). We assumed it was self-directed play until one of the childcare staff pointed it out to us that our 9 month old was keeping up with the best of the 2+ year olds.
    There is so much evidence that points to nature shaping us* that it’s not funny. It’s not that nurture can’t, it just plays a much less significant role in most circumstances.

    * Gad Saad (Bless his socks) gave a cake analogy. You throw in the ingredients and they all come out random. My children have my face shape and eye colour, eye shape, nose shape – it’s not random at all. But, the minute we talk about a behaviour, it’s now fluid and only partially influenced by genetics. Sorry Gad, you’re a smart man but your cake analogy was more like Swiss cheeze, full of holes. Look at studies of twins separated at birth. There are some fascinating studies there.
    And Gad’s Galápagos Islands analogy was also wrong. The bird with the best shaped beak could spend more time doing other things like breeding. If anything, it shows some subtle variability of our physical bodies. It’s like our personalities, largely determined by our genes, but subject to some variability.

  • Kristen Bonifield

    my son plays with a doll named dolly, has a throne, cars, cooking toys, you name it. if he wants to play i try to help regardless of what the toy is as long as it’s safe. he still gravatates more twords boy toys but he’s allowed to play with anything. we need to stop this “gender is a social construct so as such do serious sergery to change yours at will” and go with the ‘boys can play with whatever, girls can play with whatever, both genders can do whatever and acomplish most anything. boys cant have babies, girls cant get prostate cancer. other than that it’s pretty free on the whole do whatever!’
    i dont get why they want to ungender everything AND do gender changing, either gender is bad or it isnt, theres no logic in both… but then… -_-

    • Epicification

      Right? I noticed several years ago they want it both ways. “Children should be able to play with whatever and dress however regardless of their gender!” then “the boy likes girl toys! he must identify as a girl!”

  • Epicification

    And they’re still overlooking the experiments with monkeys that show biological basis in gendered behavior. Remember, only look at studies when they agree with your ideology!