WEBVTT 00:00:12.630 --> 00:00:17.868 Queering Human Neuroscience - what I understand by this is 00:00:18.031 --> 00:00:30.550 the complication of a dichotomous sex/gender in neurosciences. 00:00:30.686 --> 00:00:37.640 In this context I am interested in everything that is ambiguous. 00:00:37.757 --> 00:00:40.544 I’m interested in the contrast of atypical patterns to typical patterns. 00:00:40.762 --> 00:00:44.234 Normally we show typical patterns of women, typical patterns of men. 00:00:44.329 --> 00:00:46.741 I’m not interested in the typical ones any more. We know enough about them. 00:00:46.766 --> 00:00:49.310 I’m interested in the atypical ones, even if they’re in the minority. 00:00:49.381 --> 00:00:54.363 That would be one understanding of Queering Biology. 00:00:54.540 --> 00:01:01.555 I’d be interested in studies on people who don’t fit into this sex/gender norm 00:01:01.786 --> 00:01:06.815 who aren’t defined by this sex/gender norm but have other kinds of sexes/genders, 00:01:06.989 --> 00:01:08.564 so that we can also group them and say 00:01:08.639 --> 00:01:15.976 “this group of these people has this or that activity or structure in their brains.” 00:01:16.157 --> 00:01:21.404 And that’s part of Queering Neuroscience as well. 00:01:21.682 --> 00:01:27.212 And also to represent this diversity, or variability as we call it in science, 00:01:27.423 --> 00:01:30.782 which otherwise somehow gets ignored. 00:01:30.889 --> 00:01:40.407 Queer Biology or Queer Neuroscience is also about criticism and meta-reflection. 00:01:40.580 --> 00:01:48.826 Not just publishing empirical studies but also looking at neuroscience from outside 00:01:49.166 --> 00:01:54.683 Examining neuroscience from outside and publishing on that. 00:01:54.825 --> 00:02:00.983 For me, that also belongs to Queering Neuroscience, this meta-reflection – 00:02:01.111 --> 00:02:03.783 and that is already part of my research: 00:02:03.919 --> 00:02:18.820 the critical reflection on what other people do when they investigate sex/gender, sexuality etc. 00:02:19.057 --> 00:02:25.022 And in this particular example I wanted to say that in my opinion, 00:02:25.257 --> 00:02:28.535 that what we know in gender studies – which we have already known for a long time – 00:02:28.812 --> 00:02:36.833 that it’s never just about sex/gender, but sex/gender is interwoven with other categories 00:02:36.943 --> 00:02:44.202 and we can’t always separate them, there are interactions. 00:02:44.414 --> 00:02:55.106 I picked out this study because it’s about the intersections between sex/gender and race, 00:02:55.290 --> 00:03:05.356 and for example, the group who identified themselves as Black 00:03:05.510 --> 00:03:13.828 they are shown material that is supposed to work as erotic stimuli – pictures – 00:03:13.925 --> 00:03:20.860 And these erotic pictures were also categorized as 00:03:20.975 --> 00:03:27.368 Black, African American; Latino or White Caucasian. 00:03:27.567 --> 00:03:34.058 So there was a differentiation between the groups and these are intersections and categories 00:03:34.176 --> 00:03:36.193 categories that we want in one way, 00:03:36.307 --> 00:03:43.514 because we want to show that sex/gender is intersectional, also in studies like this, 00:03:43.559 --> 00:03:47.464 and then in another way this is incredibly difficult, because, what are we doing here? 00:03:47.573 --> 00:03:54.668 If we study participants, and group them as Black, Black American, Latino, White Caucasian etc. 00:03:54.806 --> 00:04:03.095 we also select the picture material that we show them – 00:04:03.249 --> 00:04:06.312 because we want to produce exactly this (erotic) activity in their brains – 00:04:06.520 --> 00:04:09.660 by categorizing the pictures and matching them to the participants. 00:04:09.661 --> 00:04:12.601 I think we still have a long way to go to work out: 00:04:12.884 --> 00:04:23.277 “How can we do this without getting stuck in these categories?” 00:04:23.372 --> 00:04:26.677 And I wanted to show this study firstly as an example of what happens, 00:04:26.746 --> 00:04:32.212 – and this is part of my work – to reflect on what is going on when my colleagues publish. 00:04:32.344 --> 00:04:37.310 And the other aspect is something I want to directly criticize about this study: 00:04:37.540 --> 00:04:42.015 If we have these categories and do this kind of studies, 00:04:42.255 --> 00:04:47.556 What is visualized in the publication? What is presented? 00:04:47.780 --> 00:04:51.016 How is the story presented in this study? Because every publication is also a story, 00:04:51.080 --> 00:04:53.543 a story, a dramatic composition. 00:04:53.670 --> 00:04:58.328 And it’s interesting that what is presented, is the White – the “white man” here. 00:04:58.357 --> 00:05:04.560 the white erotic stimuli and the anti-stimuli, 00:05:04.663 --> 00:05:11.168 because it was about contrasting something especially stimulating 00:05:11.252 --> 00:05:12.507 with something especially not stimulating. 00:05:12.708 --> 00:05:16.556 And in both cases it was about what was presented. 00:05:16.724 --> 00:05:19.724 And what was represented was: “the White”, “the normal”, the whatever.