Neuroethics (2012) 5:211–215 DOI 10.1007/s12152-012-9165-5

EDITORIAL NOTE

Neuroscience and Sex/Gender

Isabelle Dussauge &

Received: 4 September 2012 /Accepted: 13 September 2012 /Published online: 2 October 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

This special issue publishes interdisciplinary scholar- hosts very different epistemological approaches, a ship which aims to map and re-imagine the relations common knowledge of and gender between neuroscience and gender studies. studies was a prerequisite for the group’stheoret- ical and methodological exchange. The participants lively debated crucial issues, from current research neuroGenderings: The Network on sex/gender difference in neuropsychology, through the implications of notions of sex/gender, The authors of the present special issue were all par- gender identity and sexuality used in neuroscien- ticipants in the workshop neuroGenderings: Critical tific experimentation, to the social workings of a Studies of the Sexed Brain (Uppsala, 2010). Then co- sexed/gendered brain. organizers, now guest editors, we work in gender More precisely, the neuroGenderings workshop studies, neuroscience, and science and technology achieved an impressive first mapping of the research studies. In 2010, we did not know for a fact that the on sex/gender in and the methodological neuroGenderings initiative would grow and develop frames used in those sciences. We discussed, for in- into an international network and conference series. stance, the role assigned to “sexed” regions of the brain, Now we know. by analyzing the relevance of the notion of sexual di- In neuroGenderings, a transdisciplinary and inter- morphism, itself a system of significance that is always national group of researchers from the neurosciences, and solely framed by neuro-logical sexual dichotomy. the humanities and science studies working on and in Further, we elaborated on what kind of sex/gender facts, the neuroscience of gender convened to discuss the results, and understandings of the brain dominate in broad theme of sex/gender and the brain. As this neurosciences and how neuroscientific facts about sex/ specific interdisciplinary field of research usually gender are produced. We recapitulated how neuro-sex/ gender-facts are dependent on our contemporary his- torical and political context and we discussed some I. Dussauge (*) of the ethical and political consequences of neurosci- Center for Gender Research, University of Uppsala, entific knowledge production about sex/gender and Uppsala, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] sexuality. Not least, neuroGenderings explored the workings of without dismissing neuro- A. Kaiser science altogether. Neurosexism is a term launched Center for Cognitive Science, Institute of Computer Science by psychologist [1], and it stands for and Social Research, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany the (mis)use of neuroscientific facts and factoids [2] e-mail: [email protected] to assert that women and men are categorically 212 I. Dussauge, A. Kaiser different by virtue of their brains, or to simply rehash methods but also in terminology. And because termi- available sex/gender with the vocabulary nology is intrinsically intertwined with the object of of the brain. examination it is, to us, of primary relevance that we Like neuroGenderings, this special issue brings at- keep clarifying the notions of sex and gender in the tention to the imbalance within neuroscience between context of neuroscience. The editors and most of the a dominant neuroscience of sex/gender difference and authors represented here share the perspective that a less visible neuroscience of gender ambiguity and there does not exist a given, clear-cut distinction be- sex/gender similarities. The present publications also tween “sex” and “gender” (e.g. [6, 7]) and that what reflect the epistemic emergences coming from the culturally passes as sex is indeed already gender. In the empirical results of new brain imaging techniques such neurosciences too, it is becoming increasingly evident as fMRI, for instance the paths from raw data to sexed/ that the biological and social components of a gen- gendered brain images, in relation to the methods and dered brain function or structure cannot be separated. statistics mobilized during the process of investigation. Therefore feminist neuroscientists are still working to define an appropriate vocabulary for what is not in- separable but interlaced, not fixed but alterable. In the Related Critical Projects meantime we do not want to dismiss “sex” altogether (see also [8]), particularly since our research field is Of course, neuroGenderings does not stand alone. The inside the natural sciences or in interaction with them. recent years have been marked by attempts to define This is why we refer mostly to “sex/gender” [9] in this productive critical engagements with neuroscience. introduction. Especially two attempts have received quite some attention in neuroethical contexts: critical neurosci- ence [3] launched in the journal BioSocieties,and Generative Directions neuroskepticism [4] made visible, in print, in AJOB Neuroscience. The absence of feminist voices in these most visible However, the invisibility of gender—and other critical-ethical debates on neuroscience calls for dif- power orderings usually addressed in feminist studies, ferent simultaneous directions. The neuroGenderings such as sexuality or race—is striking in this ongoing encounters made visible the intellectual contours of establishment of critical engagements with the “neuro” the frontline critical research in the emerging field of in interdisciplinary settings. This is true even of the neuroscience of/and gender. Alongside with previous- scholarly events dominated by the humanities and ly published work (e.g. [1, 10–12]), the articles in the social sciences, such as the symposia organized by present special issue make three ongoing trends on the seminal ENSN. The lack of a feminist voice in that frontline salient: these critical initiatives is, in the long-term, hugely detrimental to the objectives of achieving a scholarly 1. The proposal of a feminist and gender sensitive counterweight to the threatening scenario of an unre- neuroscience flexively triumphant neuroscience. A newer and more A specifically feminist critical position is needed constructive alternative is the visionary “Neurocul- which conducts neuroscience on the basis of tures Manifesto” [5] which calls for critical feminist insights, perspectives and reflexivity from gender biocultural engagements with neuroscience and pro- studies and feminist theory. Feminist approaches, poses central tenets for that purpose. Pitts-Taylor's for instance from gender/queer studies or feminist Neurocultures Manifesto talks in many ways to the STS, are necessary for the implementation of scien- directions mapped out here. tifically sounder notions of sex/gender, sexuality and power in neuroscientific experiments. For instance, postmodern theories of sex/gender such as queer Sex and Gender theory have been deconstructing gender and have proposed theories of gender as performative for As an interdisciplinary research network, neuroGen- twenty years now [6]. Can gender-as-performative derings deals with a great diversity not only in be used in a neuroscientific experiment in order to Neuroscience and Sex/Gender 213

study gendered practices as embodied in the brain, for how gender science could engage more and what could such a neuroscientific experiment closely with biological notions of sex. look like? Moreover, what can we retain from the 2. The proposal of alternative accounts of the brain gender-studies based critics of a compulsory binary from outside the neurosciences. gender order in our analyses of sexually dimorphic Secondly, a more radical critical position is also aspects of the brain? Within this direction, a long- required which does not seek consensus, bridging term goal for feminist neuroscientists is to elaborate or communication between the social sciences and a new conceptual approach to the relation between the neurosciences with the purpose of improving sex/gender and the brain, one that could help to head the neurosciences. Rather, a position is crucially neuroscientists and gender theorists to an innovative needed now which retains the legitimacy to be interdisciplinary place, far away from social and critical of neuroscience’s cultural status, its under- biological determinisms but still engaging with the lying historical project, its financial advantage materiality of the brain. over social sciences, or its taking over of the In this issue, neurobiologist and gender studies objects of knowledge of the cultural and social scholar addresses ’ sciences. Perspectives presented in neuroGender- limited engagement with difference and proposes ings delineated such a feminist position which directions for a neuroscience informed by gender acknowledges and brings to the surface the polit- sciences. Roy argues that the question of differ- ical struggles and stakes of the neurosciences. The ence is a deeply ethical one. Roy calls for a direction offered by such a position is the produc- revalorisation of (neuro)biological complexity and tion of other goals, and other constructive-critical proposes that the neuroscientific studies of dif- standpoints about the human and about the brain, ference ought not to just reproduce pre-given than those of the neurosciences. categories of gender, but instead multiply differ- In her article, philosopher and gender studies ence and investigate difference “in and of itself”. scholar Cynthia Kraus defines such a position and What does, indeed, a difference in e.g. humor tell proposes a focus on studies of political conflicts us about how people live their lives, and about the and scientific controversies. Kraus analyses two inscription of power into our bodies and brains? examples: The non-controversial embracing by Roy also suggests that neuroscience devotes more feminists of the notion of brain plasticity; and attention to the mutual relation between brain the controversial issue of brain sex and gender structure and function, and therefore the neural identity in the intersex movement. Kraus’s stance workings of power. is that we need to give the analysis of political In her present article, biologist and gender conflicts analytical precedence over that of scien- studies scholar Katrin Nikoleyczik uses Karen tific controversies: The shifting texture of social Barad’s agential realist framework to define conflicts is what makes public scientific contro- “transdisciplinary diffractive strategies” for versies possible. Consequently, Kraus argues for a the integration of gender scientific concepts scholarly position which makes lines of social and perspectives into neurosciences. Nikoleyc- conflict visible rather than assuaging conflicts be- zik first identifies an irreducible difference in tween scientific disciplines. objects of knowledge: Whereas much scholar- Gender scientist, biologist and science stud- ship in biology/neurosciences addresses sex/ ies scholar offers a critical gender as a material, individual property (gen- analysis of the gendered notions deployed in der-1), much research in the social and cultur- . Schmitz argues that the neu- al sciences addresses gender as a social rosciences of decision-making build on and phenomenon outside the individual (gender- reproduce stereotypical sexing/gendering and 2), distinct from sex and individual biology. hierarchization of reason and emotion. Schmitz Nikoleyczik goes on to propose methodologi- links this problematic gendering of rationality/ cal directions for how neuroscience could emotionality to other ethically problematic work informed by perspectives and concepts issues of meritocracy, neuro-enhancement, and from gender studies’ and social sciences, and what she coins the “new neuro-determinism”: 214 I. Dussauge, A. Kaiser

the belief that an exact knowledge of the ma- concluded that the neurosciences do not have sat- terial state of the brain would make possible isfactory evidence that the brains of women and the prediction of behavior. men are unalterably different in behaviorally rele- Science studies and media scholar Hannah vant ways. Fitsch interrogates the historical and sociolog- In the present issue, neurobiologist Catherine ical status of neuroimages. Fitsch explores the Vidal reviews common misbeliefs in/about the conventions of imaging, not so much to criti- neurosciences of sex/gender differences. By fo- cize the reductionism at work as to emphasize cusing on research on language, mathematics or the productive side of that reductionism, i.e. to risk-taking, Vidal demonstrates how the assump- identifiy which material reality imaging tech- tion that women and men are biologically bound nologies are able to describe. Drawing on phi- to difference implies the reproduction of gender losopher Jacques Rancière’s work, Fitsch stereotypes in experimental settings. Vidal pro- argues that at the core of the aesthetics of poses that the plasticity of the brain enables us to images there is always ethics, since the act of account for the more serious observations of making visible and the choices of invisibiliza- neural differences. Vidal also considers the role tion are always deeply political. of the media in disseminating the results of du- In turn, social psychologist Cordelia Fine bious studies, and advocates deeper public infor- addresses how neuroscientific claims about mation about the neuroscience of sex/gender sex/gender directly affect and gender our lives. understood through the lenses of brain plasticity. Fine shows how the deeply embedded cultural Finally, epidemiologist and gender scientist conviction of “hardwired” sex/gender differen- Rebecca Jordan-Young and neuroscientist ces in the brain has consequences for everyday have authored a piece about behavior and for people’s minds. By reviewing the neuroscientific research paradigm of “hard- research on gender stereotypes, Fine pinpoints wired” sex/gender, i.e. the prevailing assumption their self-fulfilling influence on social percep- that there are fundamental sex differences in the tion, self-perception and individual behavior in organization of the brain that would depend on experimental as well as mundane settings. The prenatal hormonal exposure. Jordan-Young and permanent short-term activation of gender ste- Rumiati offer a selective review of neuroscientific reotypes in everyday life, the reinforcement of work and explain why the hardwired paradigm is the neuroscientists’ and media’s lack of interest both unscientific and unethical. Subsequently, and in identifying gender bias or changing the sta- illustrating that the task of critical review is related tus quo as well as their willingness to accept to the definition of new scientific agendas, Jordan- prescriptive social norms are, to Fine, some of Young and Rumiati propose an alternative neuro- the consequences that overinflated claims scientific account of sex/gender differences, about brain sex differences can have on our grounded in an acknowledgment of the variability minds. and plasticity of brain and behavior. 3. The review of the claims and evidential grounds As this special issue is being published in print, a of neuroscientific facts and factoids concerning third international neuroGenderings meeting is in prep- gender aration. These three directions of work are ongoing, The work of reviewing and clarifying the field growing and defining new agendas both in and outside of the neurosciences of gender is coextensive with the neurosciences. and, in many ways, foundational of the two direc- tions above. Two larger works by Cordelia Fine [1] and Rebecca Jordan-Young [12] have recently examined large regions of the even larger land- References scapes of the neuroscience of sex/gender differ- ences and its popularizations. Through these 1. Fine, Cordelia. 2010. : How our minds, meticulous reviews of hundreds of the most cen- society, and neurosexism create difference/The real science tral publications in neuroscience, both authors behind sex differences. New York: W. W. Norton/Icon. Neuroscience and Sex/Gender 215

2. Dussauge, Isabelle. 2012. Factoids of gender, brains and 8. Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The science. Lecture, Uppsala University, 29 August 2012. reinvention of nature. New York, NJ: Routledge, and 3. Choudhury, Suparna, Saskia Kathi Nagel, and Jan London: Free Association Books. Slaby. 2009. Critical neuroscience: Linking neurosci- 9. Kaiser, Anelis. 2012. Re-conceptualizing sex and gender in ence and society through critical practice. BioSocieties the human brain. Topical issue, “Sex and gender differences 4(1): 61–77. revisited – new perspectives and new findings”. Journal of 4. Marks, Jonathan. 2010. A neuroskeptic’sguideto 220(2): 130–136. neuroethics and national security. AJOB Neuroscience 1(2): 10. Kaiser, Anelis, Sven Haller, Sigrid Schmitz, and Cordula 4–12. Nitsch. 2009. On sex/ gender related similarities and differences 5. Pitts-Taylor, Victoria. 2012. Neurocultures Manifesto. in fMRI language research. Brain Research Reviews 61: 49–59. Social Text: Periscope. http://www.socialtextjournal.org/ 11. Dussauge, Isabelle, and Anelis Kaiser. 2012. Re-queering the periscope/2012/04/neurocultures-manifesto.php. Accessed brain. In Neurofeminism: Issues at the intersection of feminist 19 September 2012. theory and cognitive science, ed. R. Bluhm, A. Jacobson, and 6. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: and the H. Maibom, 121–144. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. subversion of identity. London: Routledge. 12. Jordan-Young, Rebecca. 2010. Brain storm: The flaws in 7. Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive the science of sex differences. Cambridge: Harvard limits of sex, 1st ed. London: Routledge. University Press.