In complex contexts and environments, it is necessary for scientific investi- gations, which respect the findings of gender studies, to withstand simplifi- cations of gender and sex distinctions or non-distinctions. The severe consequences that may follow when such demands are disregarded will be made clear in this article. It will be demonstrated here for medical imaging technologies that these artefacts are not at all unique, reproducible or reliable, in any sense that can be claimed as objective.
DorisAllhutter, Hanappi-EggerEdeltraud. 2006. The hidden social dimensions of technologically centred quality standards: Triple-loop learning as process centred quality approach. InPerspectives in software quality, ed. , DawsonR, GeorgiadouE, LinecarP, RossM, StaplesG, 179–95. The British Computer Society.
2.
DorisAllhutter, Hanappi-EggerEdeltraud. 2008. Deconstructing the social shaping of technology: Mind scripting as research method and as reflection tool. 4S/EASST 2008 ‘Acting with science, technology and medicine’, August 20th-23rd, 2008, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
3.
GottfriedBöhm. 1994. Was ist ein Bild?München: Fink.
4.
VolkerBosch. 2000. Statistical analysis of multi-subject fMRI data: assessment of focal activations.Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging11: 61–4.
5.
BurriRegula V. 2008. Doing images. Zur Praxis medizinischer Bilder. Bielefeld: Transcript.
6.
LarryCahill. 2006. Why sex matters for neuroscience.Nature Reviews Neuroscience7: 447–8.
7.
CynthiaCockburn. 1991. Brothers: Male dominance and technological change.Pluto Press.
8.
CynthiaCockburn. 1992. The circuit of technology. Gender, identity and power.InConsuming technologies. Media and information in domestic spaces, Chapter 2, ed. , SilverstoneRoger, HirschEric, 32–47. London, New York: Routledge.
9.
CecileCrutzen2007Ambient intelligence, between heaven and hell. A transformative critical room?InGender Designs IT Construction and Deconstruction of Information Society Technology, ZornIsabel, et al.Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, GWV Fachverlage.
10.
LorraineDaston, GallisonPeter. 2007. Objectivity. Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books.
11.
WendyFaulkner. 2001. The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies.Women's Studies International Forum24(1): 79–95.
12.
AnneFausto-Sterling. 2000. Sexing the body. Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
13.
FrostJulie A, BinderJeffrey R, SpringerJane A, HammekeThomas A, BellgowanPatrick SF, RaoStephen M, CoxRobert W. 1999. Language processing is strongly left lateralized in both sexes. Evidence from functional MRI.Brain122: 199–208.
14.
EileenGreen, OwenJenny, PainDen. 1993. Introduction.InGendered by design?, ed. , GreenE, OwenJ, PainD, 1–8. London: Taylor and Francis.
15.
FrancesGrundy. 1996. Women and computers. Exeter: Intellect Books.
16.
DominikHaubner, BrüstlePeter, SchinzelBritta, RemmeleBernd, SchirmerDominique, HolthausMatthias, ReipsUlf-Dieter. 2009. E-Learning und Geschlechterdifferenzen?Zwischen Selbsteinschätzung, Nutzungsnötigung und Diskurs, 41–50; Waxmann Verlag, Reihe Medien in der Wissenschaft; Band 51, Münster.
17.
RichardHayward. 2003. Personal view: VOMIT (victims of modern imaging technology) — an acronym for our times.British Medical Journal326: 1273. http://ctsurgcomplications.wikia.com/wiki/VOMIT
18.
BettinaHeintz, NadaiEva. 1998. Geschlecht und Kontext. De-Institutionalisie-rungsprozesse und geschlechtliche Differenzierung,Zeitschrift für Soziologie27(2): 75–93.
19.
HerringSusan C. 1996. Computer mediated communication. Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20.
LudwigJäger. 2004. Transkription — zu einem medialen Verfahren an den Schnittstellen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses. TRANS — Internetzeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaftenno. 15, September. http://www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/06_2/jaeger15.htm. (28/02/2011)
21.
AnelisKaiser, KuenzliEsther, ZappatoreDaniela, NitschCordula. 2007. On females’ lateral and males’ bilateral activation during language production: a fMRI study.International Journal of Psychophysiology63: 192–8.
22.
AnelisKaiser, HallerSven, SchmitzSigrid, NitschCordula. 2009. On sex/gender related similarities and differences in fMRI language research.Brain Research Reviews61: 49–59.
23.
AllanPease, PeaseBarbara. 2001. Why men don't listen & women can't read maps.London: Orion.
BrittaSchinzel. 2006. The body in medical imaging between reality and construction.Poiesis und Praxis4(3): 185–98.
27.
BrittaSchinzel. 2009. Recognisability and visual evidence in medical imaging versus scientific objectivity.InDynamics and performativity of imagination; The image between the visible and the invisible, ed. , HuppaufBernd, WulfChristoph, 339–56. New York: Routledge.
28.
SigridSchmitz2010Sex, gender, and the brain — biological determinism versus socio-cultural constructivism.InGender and sex in biomedicine, KlingeIneke, WiesemannClaudia, 57–76. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
29.
ShaywitzBennet A, ShaywitzSally E, PughKenneth R, ConstableTodd R, SkudlarskiPawel, FulbrightRobert K, BronenRichard A, FletcherJack M, ShankweilerDonald P, KatzLeonard, GoreJohn C. 1995. Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language.Nature373: 607–9.
30.
SirotinYevgeniy B, DasAniruddha. 2009. Anticipatory haemodynamic signals in sensory cortex not predicted by local neuronal activity, Nature457: 475–9.
31.
SommerIris EC, AlemanAndré, BoumaAnke, KahnRené S. 2004. Do women really have more bilateral language representation than men? A meta-analysis of functional imaging studies.Brain127: 1845–52.
32.
SommerIris EC, AlemanAndré, SomersMetten, BoksMarco P, KahnRené S. 2008. Sex differences in handedness, asymmetry of the planum temporale and functional language lateralization.Brain Research1206: 76–88.
33.
UnterrainerJosef M, RuffChristian C, RahmBenjamin, KallerChristoph P, SpreerJoachim M, SchwarzwaldRalf, HalsbandUlrike. 2005. The influence of sex differences and individual task performance on brain activation during planning.NeuroImage24(2): 586–90.
