Talk:Anne Fausto-Sterling

Factual difficulty.

Consider this paragraph:

She once claimed, in a tongue-in-cheek paper entitled "The Five Sexes," that there were five sexes: male, female, merm, ferm, and herm.[3] Advocates for intersexual people stated that this theory was wrong, confusing and unhelpful to the interests of intersexual people. In response she has since stated that she no longer advocates the use of these terms.[4]

The truth of this is difficult and complex. At no point in "The Five Sexes, Revisited" does Fausto-Sterling explicitly state that she no longer advocates the use of these terms, either in so many words or in equivalent words. There is no retraction here. She does state quite clearly that "The Five Sexes" was "intended to be provocative, but written with tongue firmly in cheek", which would seem to preclude any kind of a serious proposal being inferred and would quite definitely preclude any kind of a serious proposal being implied. In fact, on reading "The Five Sexes", the idea's presentation as a "utopia" and its introduction with a "what if?" construction makes it quite clear that it was intended as a thought experiment. Suzanne Kessler, it seems, interpreted the thought experiment as a proposal and termed it as such, and Fausto-Sterling, in acknowledging her, used the phrase "'five sexes' proposal" in echo -- which produces the erroneous impression that Fausto-Sterling was retracting a proposal, which she does not appear to have been. --7Kim (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs a general rewrite.

The Case Study section is a mess. As an example, the first sentence reads: " "Of Gender and Genitals" is the third chapter of Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling (referred to as FS), a sexology and gender studies expert."

7 out of 20 cites are from the same book. Furthermore, other claims are left uncited, such as: " Fausto-Sterling also takes an interest in how flatworms (more precisely planaria) manage to reproduce themselves asexually. ", which is part of the "Life and career" section. Not only there is no source, but I'm unsure of how this is related to her life and carrer at all.

Removed the Case Studies section

As commented above (several years ago, but with an undated edit), the Case Studies section is poorly written, and, if it stays, needs a thorough rewrite. No one has undertaken the task. The present "case studies" are really garbled summaries of a few chapters of Fausto-Sterling's books dealing mostly with basic biology. What's appropriate for a BLP would be a clear explanation of Fausto-Sterling's contributions to biology. However, the material I removed does not do this. NightHeron (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Problems with "criticisms" section

CycoMa: Currently there's a "Reception" section that contains only a criticism subsection, as if Fausto-Sterling's work has only been criticized. This is misleading and inappropriate for a BLP. See also [1]. It is also WP:UNDUE attention, because the criticism is largely directed at one aspect of her writing about which she herself later changed her views. NightHeron (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron just give me a minute to find sources that praise her. It takes time.CycoMa (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I know she has been praised it’s just I’m having a hard time finding some sources that praise her.CycoMa (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Academic book reviews usually contain a mixture of praise and criticism. NightHeron (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa: I don't think your citation to her employer's blurb is a good source, since those are always promotional. Googling book reviews about A F-S, I found, among others, this [2] from Publishers Weekly and this [3] from the Los Angeles Times. NightHeron (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m gonna add on more scholars who criticize her and more who praise. I know two scholars with their own Wikipedia pages that criticize her and I know some more feminists who praise her.

Giving some due weight on who agrees and who disagrees with her.CycoMa (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Martha Nussbaum praises her "compelling... painstaking biological analysis" compared to Judith Butler's work in her 2000 critivisceration "The Professor of Parody" of the later (p. 8, also p. 6). That's only a blurb, though, and quite old, and I can't find anything else at a glance by Nussbaum on AFS. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Why I reverted 3 edits

CycoMa: (1) The criticism by the activist will be unclear to most readers, who won't see what's wrong with A F-S using those terms. In any case, scholarly criticism is more important than activist criticism, since A F-S is a scholar. (2) The fact that John Money mocks someone is WP:UNDUE. (3) The word also should not occur twice in successive sentences. NightHeron (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see the issues you brought up. However, I’m not sure about John Money being Undue weight, yes I know he has received some criticism but, he is a influential scholar on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

In order to put John Money in context, we'd have to explain what his (rather extreme) views on sex/gender were, and it would be undue to go into such detail. We can't simply say he mocks Fausto-Sterling. NightHeron (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)