5 ms·

Ahem... Do you know about Anne Fasto-Sterling or Donna Haraway? They are both highly credentialed biologists and pivotal figures in the development of women's/g

Ahem... Do you know about Anne Fasto-Sterling or Donna Haraway? They are both highly credentialed biologists and pivotal figures in the development of women's/gender studies.

YorkshireSeason 7y ago
In what sense is Donna Haraway a "highly credentialed biologist"?
- soudiere 7y ago
  Haraway has a PhD in Biology from Yale.
  - YorkshireSeason 7y ago
    According to Wikipedia [1] her PhD was about "use of metaphor in shaping experiments in experimental biology". This is not what I'd call biology proper. You can have a look at it: it was later published as a book "Crystals, Fabrics, and Fields" which is available online [2]. I'm not sure how [2] makes her a "highly credentialed biologist" (in the same sense that "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" doesn't make Kuhn a highly credentialed physicist). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway [2] https://monoskop.org/images/5/58/Haraway_Donna_Crystals_Fabrics_and_Fields_Metaphors_That_Shape_Embryos.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/5/58/Haraway_Donna_Crystals_Fabr...
    - soudiere 7y ago
      Yet somehow she got a PhD in biology from Yale with it, we should probably read it before judging it as "a biology paper" or "not a biology paper". Feel free to list some highly credentialed social scientists you respect, and we can look up their PhD thesis titles. Bottom line is she's highly credentialed with a PhD from Yale, taught at John Hopkins, and is now a "distinguished professor emerita" at UCSC.
      - YorkshireSeason 7y ago
        we should probably read it I spent about 20 minutes reading parts of it. I'd classify it as "history of science" (a perfectly valid subject). Bottom line is she's highly No. She is in no way "highly credentialised in biology". She has taught at universities but "Women's Studies and the History of Science", and "History of Consciousness [...] and Feminist Studies". (From [1]) The content of her Yale PhD is not in biology, in the way this term is usually understood (DNA, proteins, signalling chains, PCR, bench work, taxonomy of animals, ... i.e. studying the physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution of living organisms). Since the scientific credibility of subjects like "Feminist Studies" is controversial (unlike biology) claiming high credentials where there are none, makes me think of HN guidelines [7]: when discussing highly controversial subjects like, discussions about scientific credentials, should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less. list some highly credentialed social scientists you respect, I don't see why this is relevant for Haraway, not every great scientist has a great dissertation or written their dissertation in the field they later became famous for. The "bottom line" is that Haraway has no substantial credentials in biology, and certainly she has not done research in biology in the sense the term is usually understood. Anyway, to take up your challenge, I'm fairly familiar with the following highly credentialed social scientists: Karl Marx (PhD in philosophy on ancient Greek philosophy, I have been unable to locate it, if you have a link to the text, I'd be grateful), Max Weber (PhD in law about commercial law in Italy [2, 3]), Talcott Parsons (PhD is [4]), Émile Durkheim (PhD is on the division of labour [5]) and Niklas Luhmann (PhD about automation in administrations [6]). How is all this relevant regarding Donna Haraway? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway [2] http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/research/weber1.html http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/research/weber1.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zur_Geschichte_der_Handelsgesellschaften_im_Mittelalter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zur_Geschichte_der_Handelsgese... [4] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820700?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820700?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Division_of_Labour_in_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Division_of_Labour_in_Soci... [6] https://www.amazon.de/Recht-Automation-%C3%B6ffentlichen-Verwaltung-verwaltungswissenschaftliche/dp/3428009606 https://www.amazon.de/Recht-Automation-%C3%B6ffentlichen-Ver... [7] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jboynyc 7y ago
I doubt there's much desire around here to argue the merits of gender studies in good faith. However, those proclaiming that gender scholarship doesn't get biology, I suggest you pick up Evelyn Fox Keller's excellent book Making Sense of Life (HUP, 2002) and allow yourselves to be surprised. (Yes, Keller is a physicist, not a biologist. Those trying to belittle or dismiss what women's studies has accomplished will probably use that to disqualify her contribution...)
- soudiere 7y ago
  I will give it a read. Fausto-Sterling seems to be loose with data. In The Five Sexes she cites Money as the source for upwards of 4% of the population being intersexual. Money denied the claim here (last page) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239657377_The_Five_Sexes_Why_Male_and_Female_are_not_Enough https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239657377_The_Five_... Later she revised to 1.7% in this paper with some fairly loose definitions of what constitutes "frequency of deviation from the idea female or male" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.sci-hub.tw/pubmed/11534012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.sci-hub.tw/pubmed/11534012 If you dig into the 1.7% figure, 87% of it comes from late onset CAH. Problematic, as Late onset CAH is very similar to PCOS, which affects 5-10% of the population and was excluded. Both fit her definition of deviation from the sexual idea (hirtuisim, infertility) https://i.imgur.com/BYi5dem.png https://i.imgur.com/BYi5dem.png
  - jboynyc 7y ago
    Sure, but that's a weird publication of hers to take issue with. For context (from Wikipedia): > In a paper entitled "The Five Sexes", in which, according to her, "I had intended to be provocative, but I had also written with tongue firmly in cheek." Fausto-Sterling laid out a thought experiment considering an alternative model of gender containing five sexes: male, female, merm, ferm, and herm. This thought experiment was interpreted by some as a serious proposal or even a theory; advocates for intersex people stated that this theory was wrong, confusing and unhelpful to the interests of intersex people. In a later paper ("The Five Sexes, Revisited"), she has acknowledged these objections.

Ahem... Do you know about Anne Fasto-Sterling or Donna Haraway? They are both highly credentialed biologists and pivotal figures in the development of women's/gender studies.

YorkshireSeason 7y ago

In what sense is Donna Haraway a "highly credentialed biologist"?

soudiere 7y ago
Haraway has a PhD in Biology from Yale.
- YorkshireSeason 7y ago
  According to Wikipedia [1] her PhD was about "use of metaphor in shaping experiments in experimental biology". This is not what I'd call biology proper. You can have a look at it: it was later published as a book "Crystals, Fabrics, and Fields" which is available online [2]. I'm not sure how [2] makes her a "highly credentialed biologist" (in the same sense that "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" doesn't make Kuhn a highly credentialed physicist). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway [2] https://monoskop.org/images/5/58/Haraway_Donna_Crystals_Fabrics_and_Fields_Metaphors_That_Shape_Embryos.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/5/58/Haraway_Donna_Crystals_Fabr...
  - soudiere 7y ago
    Yet somehow she got a PhD in biology from Yale with it, we should probably read it before judging it as "a biology paper" or "not a biology paper". Feel free to list some highly credentialed social scientists you respect, and we can look up their PhD thesis titles. Bottom line is she's highly credentialed with a PhD from Yale, taught at John Hopkins, and is now a "distinguished professor emerita" at UCSC.
    - YorkshireSeason 7y ago
      we should probably read it I spent about 20 minutes reading parts of it. I'd classify it as "history of science" (a perfectly valid subject). Bottom line is she's highly No. She is in no way "highly credentialised in biology". She has taught at universities but "Women's Studies and the History of Science", and "History of Consciousness [...] and Feminist Studies". (From [1]) The content of her Yale PhD is not in biology, in the way this term is usually understood (DNA, proteins, signalling chains, PCR, bench work, taxonomy of animals, ... i.e. studying the physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution of living organisms). Since the scientific credibility of subjects like "Feminist Studies" is controversial (unlike biology) claiming high credentials where there are none, makes me think of HN guidelines [7]: when discussing highly controversial subjects like, discussions about scientific credentials, should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less. list some highly credentialed social scientists you respect, I don't see why this is relevant for Haraway, not every great scientist has a great dissertation or written their dissertation in the field they later became famous for. The "bottom line" is that Haraway has no substantial credentials in biology, and certainly she has not done research in biology in the sense the term is usually understood. Anyway, to take up your challenge, I'm fairly familiar with the following highly credentialed social scientists: Karl Marx (PhD in philosophy on ancient Greek philosophy, I have been unable to locate it, if you have a link to the text, I'd be grateful), Max Weber (PhD in law about commercial law in Italy [2, 3]), Talcott Parsons (PhD is [4]), Émile Durkheim (PhD is on the division of labour [5]) and Niklas Luhmann (PhD about automation in administrations [6]). How is all this relevant regarding Donna Haraway? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway [2] http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/research/weber1.html http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/research/weber1.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zur_Geschichte_der_Handelsgesellschaften_im_Mittelalter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zur_Geschichte_der_Handelsgese... [4] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820700?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820700?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Division_of_Labour_in_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Division_of_Labour_in_Soci... [6] https://www.amazon.de/Recht-Automation-%C3%B6ffentlichen-Verwaltung-verwaltungswissenschaftliche/dp/3428009606 https://www.amazon.de/Recht-Automation-%C3%B6ffentlichen-Ver... [7] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jboynyc 7y ago

I doubt there's much desire around here to argue the merits of gender studies in good faith. However, those proclaiming that gender scholarship doesn't get biology, I suggest you pick up Evelyn Fox Keller's excellent book Making Sense of Life (HUP, 2002) and allow yourselves to be surprised. (Yes, Keller is a physicist, not a biologist. Those trying to belittle or dismiss what women's studies has accomplished will probably use that to disqualify her contribution...)

soudiere 7y ago
I will give it a read. Fausto-Sterling seems to be loose with data. In The Five Sexes she cites Money as the source for upwards of 4% of the population being intersexual. Money denied the claim here (last page) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239657377_The_Five_Sexes_Why_Male_and_Female_are_not_Enough https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239657377_The_Five_... Later she revised to 1.7% in this paper with some fairly loose definitions of what constitutes "frequency of deviation from the idea female or male" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.sci-hub.tw/pubmed/11534012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.sci-hub.tw/pubmed/11534012 If you dig into the 1.7% figure, 87% of it comes from late onset CAH. Problematic, as Late onset CAH is very similar to PCOS, which affects 5-10% of the population and was excluded. Both fit her definition of deviation from the sexual idea (hirtuisim, infertility) https://i.imgur.com/BYi5dem.png https://i.imgur.com/BYi5dem.png
- jboynyc 7y ago
  Sure, but that's a weird publication of hers to take issue with. For context (from Wikipedia): > In a paper entitled "The Five Sexes", in which, according to her, "I had intended to be provocative, but I had also written with tongue firmly in cheek." Fausto-Sterling laid out a thought experiment considering an alternative model of gender containing five sexes: male, female, merm, ferm, and herm. This thought experiment was interpreted by some as a serious proposal or even a theory; advocates for intersex people stated that this theory was wrong, confusing and unhelpful to the interests of intersex people. In a later paper ("The Five Sexes, Revisited"), she has acknowledged these objections.