This is another one I read for neuroethics. I was considering using this article for my presentation on a neuroethics related topics, but that didn't happen because someone else split off my too-large group and it wasn't too big anymore. We actually wound up talking about a medication used to treat addiction ... that can itself be addictive. Fun times. So, here's some of my thoughts from reading Critical studies of the sexed brain.
“They suggest that we work and talk
across disciplines as if neuroscientists were from Mars and social
scientists were from Venus, assigning the latter to the traditional
feminine role of assuaging conflict” (247). sigh I am not
surprised that some scientists think of social sciences that way.
Brain plasticity+ identity formation in
intersex people, brains vs. genitals. That's going to be interesting. By which I mean, I have concerns. I have friends who are intersex. I know people who do intersex activism. And I know intersex people who concluded that intersex and/or nonbinary is their
gender identity rather than picking one of the two binary genders.
Hope the author isn't assuming a gender identity must be one of
man/woman. Heck, mine isn't that and as far as I know, I'm not intersex.
Oi
at calling autism a disease. It is a neurodevelopmental
disability [or a neurotype, that's a good word and also let's remember what I'm saying when I say disability - the social model of disability is a thing.] Also I know the
author found neurodiversity stuff because the article comes up when I
search the journal for neurodiversity, what the heck? I don't expect
to hear it called a neurotype
in anything done by neurotypical(-passing) academics but really?
Disease?
Ok,
gender in the brain as a result of plasticity, that's going to be
interesting – “reflect gendered behavior as learned and
incorporated in a social context” is a thing, but please, please
don't let this turn into “male socialization” for trans women or
“female socialization” for trans men, or either of the above for
nonbinary folks. The socialization of “consistently mistaken for X
while actually Y” is not the same as the socialization of “X.”
Ok, individual differences are a thing. That's good. “Plasticity
arguments are extremely interesting as they wage war against both
biological and social
determinism, reductionism, essentialism, and other -isms.” Phew
that's
not the socialization argument I was worried about, I don't think.
Does
she mean “cishet” by “normal people”? (Cishet=cisgender,
heterosexual.) I appreciate the quotation marks around “normal
people” but there probably is
another word for what she means and using it would be nice.
Now we have one of
my rage buttons. All caps time!
OH MY GOD STOP
CALLING NEURODIVERSITY AN ASPERGERS THING. THE ANI PEOPLE WERE
CLASSIC EVEN IF THEY TALK NOW, AND ALSO DIAGNOSED BEFORE ASPERGERS
WAS IN THE DSM. MEL BAGGS IS NONSPEAKING. AMY SEQUENZIA IS
NONSPEAKING. I'M CLASSIC EVEN THOUGH I USUALLY TALK. STOP. STOP.
SERIOUSLY THE ROOTS ARE OLD ENOUGH THAT ASPERGERS WASN'T A DIAGNOSIS
YET WHEN A LOT OF OUR FOLKS WERE DIAGNOSED, WHICH MEANS THEY WEREN'T
DIAGNOSED ASPERGERS. THEY ARE NOT ASPERGERS, WHICH IS ALSO NOT A
DIAGNOSIS ANYMORE. (maybe was when written?)
Intersex activist
history! I knew about unwanted surgery, gender role training, and
folks wanting their own intersex bodies back. I also know someone who was
put on unwanted hormones. What are the results of Diamond getting so
lauded while speaking in terms of brain sex, though? It's still the
language coming from the people who try to enforce the man/woman
dichotomy. What are the results of using the "sexed brain" discourse
while not necessarily fitting in the binary?
1 Walker,
N. (September 27, 2014). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms and
definitions. Neurocosmopolitanism: Nick Walker's notes on
neurodiversity, autism, and cognitive liberty.
[blog post] Retrieved from
http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/neurodiversity-some-basic-terms-definitions/
is a good explanation of the neurodiversity related vocabulary I
tend to use when thinking about neuro stuff.
The Brain Plasticity vs Gender argument has a flaw. Plasticity has limits: lefthandedness involves significant brain differences and teaching someone to be righthanded cannot make their brain righthanded, it only adapts the lefthanded brain to habitually using the right hand. I'd argue gender is similar, otherwise the extreme measures used in the past would have been more successful in reversing gender identity disorder.
ReplyDeleteBrain plasticity has been cited as disproving the theories that varient gender identity is caused by brain anatomy. The trouble is that assumes brain plasticity has no limits when it clearly does. Left handedness is definitely due to brain biology and it has already been shown forcing s lefthanded person to use their right hand only results in a lefthanded brain that is habituated to using the right hand, NOT a righthanded brain.
ReplyDelete