Atypical gender development - social explanations

What are the social explanations for gender dysphoria? Social constructionism

Social construction perspective argues that gender identity does not reflect underlying biological differences between people and, instead, these concepts are 'invented' by societies.
For individuals who experience gender dysphoria, the gender 'confusion' arises because society forces people to be either a man or a woman - they must 'pick a side' and act accordingly.
From this perspective, gender dysphoria is not a pathological condition (as described within DSM) but a social phenomenon which arises when people are required to choose one of two particular paths.

What did McClintlock research?

McClintock (2015) cites the case of individuals with a genetic condition (5-alpha-reductase deficiency) in the Sambia of New Guinea. This causes some biological males to be categorised as girls at birth because they have a labia and a clitoris. At puberty their genitals change because of the large increase in testosterone — testes descend and the clitoris enlarges into a penis.
This genetic variationi is common among the Sambia, and it was routinely accepted that some people are men, some women, and others are kwolu-aatmwol - females-then-males. Since this culture has had contact with other cultures however, kwolu-aatmwol are now judged as having a pathological form of gender dysphoria.

What is the social explanations for gender dysphoria? Psychoanalytic theory

Ovesey and Person (1973) emphasise social relationships within the family as the cause of gender dysphoria.
They argue that gender dysphoria in biological males is caused by a boy experiencing extreme separation anxiety before gender identity has been established. The boy fantasises of a symbiotic fusion with his mother to relieve the anxiety, and the danger of separation is removed.
The consequence of this is that the boy, in a very real sense, becomes the mother and thus adopts woman's gender identity.
This theory has some support. Stoller (1973) reports that, in interviews, GD biological males displayed overly close relationships with their mothers suggesting stronger female identification and thus conflicted gender identity in the long term.

AO3 - gender dysphoria- social - strength

One strength of the social constructionism approach is that not all cultures have two genders.
On the previous spread we saw how some cultures recognise more than two genders, such as the fa'afafine of Samoa. This is a challenge to traditional binary classifications of male and female. Indeed, the fact that increasing numbers of people now describe themselves as non-binary suggests that cultural understanding is only now beginning to 'catch up' with the lived experience of many.
This suggests that gender identity (and dysphoria) is best seen as a social construction rather than a biological fact.

AO3 - gender dysphoria- social - limitation

One limitation is there are issues with the psychoanalytic theory of gender dysphoria.
Ovesey and Person's explanation does not provide an adequate account of gender dysphoria in biological females as the theory only applies to transgender women (people assigned male at birth who identify as women).
In any case, research by Rekers (1986) found that gender dysphoria in those assigned male at birth is more likely to be associated with the absence of the father than the fear of separation from the mother.
This suggests that psychoanalytic theory does not provide a comprehensive account of gender dysphoria.