An author and professor told a University of Wisconsin crowd Wednesday despite commonly held notions, gender roles do not, in fact, have a biological determinant.

Roger Lancaster, professor of anthropology and cultural studies and the director of Cultural Studies program at George Mason University, spoke about his newest book, “The Trouble With Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture.”

The focus of Lancaster’s lecture was a criticism of the bioreductivist theory of gender studies.

According to Lancaster, bioreductivism is an approach that explains human behaviors in terms of biological causes. Lancaster said he is highly critical of such explanations, especially in terms of gender roles.

Lancaster went on to summarize the history of this type of thinking that he refutes, saying many sex differences have been interpreted as biological adaptation.

Such differences include that women’s stereotypical love of shopping is attributable to their historical role of being gatherers or the tendency men have to be restless is a result of their historical role of being hunters. Lancaster calls this way of thinking a “just-so” approach, explaining many scientists accept this behavior as innate to human nature and universal to all people.

“I don’t discount that human universals exist; it just seems unlikely that they would be so readily accessible to us,” Lancaster said. He went on to say he doesn’t believe a universal approach is necessary to research.

Florencia Mallon, professor of history at the UW, said she admires Lancaster for not shying away from his beliefs, adding he knows how to argue his points intellectually.

“It’s been said by some reviewers that I take an ‘anything goes’ approach, that I think gender, sex and kinship are infinitely variable,” Lancaster said. “I actually doubt that social life is infinitely variable.”

He said he has little doubt biology influences human behavior and social norms, but he thinks human behavior presents a wider variety than a bioreductivist view alone can account for.