Graduate studies at Western
Neuroethics 5 (3):305-315 (2012)
|Abstract||Evidence has long suggested that ‘hardwiring’ is a poor metaphor for brain development. But the metaphor may be an apt one for the dominant paradigm for researching sex differences, which pushes most neuroscience studies of sex/gender inexorably towards the ‘discovery’ of sex/gender differences, and makes contemporary gender structures appear natural and inevitable. The argument we forward in this paper is twofold. In the first part of the paper, we address the dominant ‘hardwiring’ paradigm of sex/gender research in contemporary neuroscience, which is built on broad consensus that there are important ‘original’ sex differences in brain structure and function, organized by sex-differentiating prenatal hormone exposures. We explain why this consensus is both unscientific and unethical. In the second part of the paper, we sketch an alternative research program focused not on the origins of sex/gender differences but on variability and plasticity of brain/behavior. We argue that interventional experiments based on this approach will address more tractable questions, and lead to much more satisfactory results than the brain organization paradigm can provide|
|Keywords||Hardwiring Brain organization theory Plasticity Biosocial Intersectionality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Myra J. Hird (2004). Sex, Gender, and Science. Palgrave Macmillan.
Catherine Vidal (2012). The Sexed Brain: Between Science and Ideology. Neuroethics 5 (3):295-303.
Robyn Bluhm (2013). New Research, Old Problems: Methodological and Ethical Issues in fMRI Research Examining Sex/Gender Differences in Emotion Processing. Neuroethics 6 (2):319-330.
Katrin Nikoleyczik (2012). Towards Diffractive Transdisciplinarity: Integrating Gender Knowledge Into the Practice of Neuroscientific Research. Neuroethics 5 (3):231-245.
Deboleena Roy (2012). Neuroethics, Gender and the Response to Difference. Neuroethics 5 (3):217-230.
Todd K. Shackelford, Gregory J. LeBlanc, Richard L. Michalski & Viviana A. Weekes (2000). Analyses of Mating Differences Within-Sex and Between-Sex Are Complementary, Not Competing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):621-621.
Jami L. Anderson (ed.) (2003). Race, Gender, and Sexuality: Philosophical Issues of Identity and Justice. Prentice Hall.
Cordelia Fine (2012). Explaining, or Sustaining, the Status Quo? The Potentially Self-Fulfilling Effects of 'Hardwired' Accounts of Sex Differences. Neuroethics 5 (3):285-294.
Marla Morton-Brown (2004). Artificial Ef-Femination. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 11 (1):27-34.
Mari Mikkola (2011). Ontological Commitments, Sex and Gender. In Charlotte Witt (ed.), Feminist Metaphysics. Springer.
Robyn Bluhm (2013). Self‐Fulfilling Prophecies: The Influence of Gender Stereotypes on Functional Neuroimaging Research on Emotion. Hypatia 28 (4):870-886.
Peggy DesAutels (2010). Sex Differences and Neuroethics. Philosophical Psychology 23 (1):95-111.
Belinda Bennett & Isabel Karpin (2008). Regulatory Options for Gender Equity in Health Research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (2):80 - 99.
Stella Sandford (2010). Plato and Sex. Polity Press.
Added to index2011-09-26
Total downloads31 ( #44,928 of 740,856 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,957 of 740,856 )
How can I increase my downloads?