arturs' Journal

Reiner and Gearhart’s idea was this: if gender is “constructed” by socialization at birth, newborns who are raised as members of the opposite sex from birth should show behaviors characteristic of their “socialized” sex rather than their biological sex. Cloacal exstrophy gave them a chance to do this, because males born with the syndrome sometimes have their penises and testes removed, a vulva constructed instead, and are raised as girls. If the “socialization” hypothesis is correct, these males should show female-typical behaviors when older; if the biological hypothesis is correct, they should lean towards male behaviors.

The authors had a sample of fourteen newborn males with cloacal exstrophy whose parents agreed to participate in the study. The babies were surgically constructed to have female genitalia, and parents agreed to raise the boys as girls, never telling the children of their biological gender. (Two other males with the syndrome were raised as males even though they had the surgery.) Several of the parents were raising “normal” girls at the same time.

At ages ranging from 5 to 16, the female-raised males were given psychological tests that explored their interests in toys, dolls, and clothes, the time spent playing various games, athleticism, aggressive behavior, career and sexual interests, sex of friends, etc. They were also asked to declare their gender. The parents were also given questionnaires on their child’s behavior and relationships with other children.

The upshot: all 16 subjects, including those with female genitals raised as males, “revealed moderate-to-marked male-typical behaviors” compared to the scores of children raised according to their biological sex at birth. (The paper reports the scores for each child on a number of scales.) As for the parents, here’s what the authors report:

The parents of all 14 subjects assigned to female sex stated that they had reared their child as a female. Twelve of these subjects have sisters: parents described equivalent child-rearing approaches and attitudes toward the subjects and their sisters. However, parents described a moderate-to-pronounced unfolding of male-typical behaviors and attitudes over time in these subjects — but not in their sisters. Parents reported that the subjects typically resisted attempts to encourage play with female-typical toys or with female playmates or to behave as parents thought typical girls might behave. These 14 subjects expressed difficulties fitting in with girls. All but one played primarily or exclusively with male-typical toys. Only one played with dolls; the others did so almost never or never. Only one ever played house. Each of the three exceptions represents a different subject. Parents noted substantial difficulty attempting to dress the subjects — but not their sisters — in clearly feminine attire after about four years of age.

And, tellingly, of the 14 subjects, four of them declared themselves as “males” even though they had female-type genitalia, had been raised as girls, and had never been told of their birth sex. Four more were actually told of their birth sex by parents who abrogated the agreement, and all four of them declared themselves males. At the last follow-up, two more of the children were “unclear” about their sex, and another one refused to discuss it. (I believe, but am not sure, that the initial assessment of self-declared sex, and the children’s psychological tests, were performed before those four had been told that they were born male.)

At the end of the study, all eight of the male-declarers used male names and male restrooms, and all eight wanted surgical reconstruction of a penis. The other six still living as females all reported difficulty fitting in with female peers, a result not seen at all in cases of genetic females with cloacal exstrophy).