In Women, Technology, and the Myth of Progress (2003) written by Eileen Leonard she supports my thesis that technoscience is socially constructed explaining that "technology is largely a secondary phenomenon, a construct of society, socially shaped. In a sense it has been chosen and so have its implications since technology is always developed and implemented within a particular social context" (p.14). Many individual traits and identity factors contribute to how we interact and who we become in establishing and evolving our unique identities. However, it is ones sex and gender that seem to be the most dominant. Our bodies are malleable and shaped through our choices influenced by behaviors and thought processes we learn through this social construction of gender. Therefore due to technoscience and social construction, is it possible to be a female by sex and a male by gender and vice versa? Can our self perceptions of who we are biologically and psychologically be shaped by technoscience and its social construction? This is the argument that challenges the lingering "nature vs. nurture" notion and how an individual's identity can be influenced that I am putting forth throughout this paper.
Girls and boys, women and men, these are the terms we use to identify ourselves and the behaviors we take on that are attached to them. Even though it has been decided that what is socially constructed for gender is not a biological fact of what boys and girls are actually like we continue to place boys and girls into different environments based on the sex they are born into, such as girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks or girls with Barbie's and boys with G.I. Joe. Much like, girl's wear pink and boys wear blue, girl's play house and boys play sports, these are all social constructs that shape our society in to understanding which gender role we each fit according to our birth sex.