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...)

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_...

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

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

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.

I am addressing a specific claim she made in her paper, quote in full.

"Not surprisingly, it is extremely difficult to estimate the frequency of intersexuality, much less the frequency of each of the three additional sexes: it is not the sort of information one volunteers on a job application. The psychologist John Money of Johns Hopkins University, a specialist in the study of congenital sexual-organ defects, suggests intersexuals may constitute as many as 4 percent of births. As I point out to my students at Brown University, in a student body of about 6,000 that fraction, if correct, implies there may be as many as 240 intersexuals on campus - surely enough to form a minority caucus of some kind."

This section of the essay is not tongue in cheek. She clearly states she's teaching this idea.

This was John Money's response

"To the best of my knowledge there is no publication attributable to me in which I suggest, as Ms. Fausto-Sterling puts it, intersexuals may constitute as many as 4 percent of births. Moreover, it is epidemiologically reckless to conjecture that on the campus of Brown University there are 240 students with a birth defect of the sex organs that would justify their being diagnosed as intersexuals, that is, hermaphrodites"

The paper "The Five Sexes, Revisited" which you can find at [1], is at best an essay on gender and recent changes in gender-based legislation, at worst badly written political activism, but most certainly not in the slightest a scientific investigation into the biology of reproduction. The latter is what those who criticise modern conceptions of gender have in mind.

[1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21a4/4d10b40354a974c8d1d3a9...

I referenced the original 1993 essay "The Five Sexes"

You have referenced the 2000 essay, "The Five Sexes, Revisited"

No on claimed it was a scientific investigation, I quoted the full text of the issue I was discussing in a previous comment.

I replied to "jboynyc" uncritical remarks about "The Five Sexes, Revisited", as if "The Five Sexes, Revisited" mitigated the weaknesses of Fausto-Sterling's work.

Ah apologies, yes her revisiting of the original paper does not address many of the issues raised.

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

Haraway has a PhD in Biology from Yale.

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

[2] https://monoskop.org/images/5/58/Haraway_Donna_Crystals_Fabr...

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.

   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

[2] http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/research/weber1.html

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zur_Geschichte_der_Handelsgese...

[4] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820700?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Division_of_Labour_in_Soci...

[6] https://www.amazon.de/Recht-Automation-%C3%B6ffentlichen-Ver...

[7] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Link me Haraway's PhD thesis please, I can't find it on scihub.

Original assertion was "highly credentialed biologists", which is different than "highly credentialed in biology", and I would agree with your objection to the later statement, her credentials lie mostly outside biology.

She's highly credentialed by the nature of her PhD from Yale, teaching at Hopkins & UCSC. She's a biologist by training, achieving her PhD in the field.

I asked for a list of social scientists so I could pick one and attack their PhD's or credentials under the same premise you criticized Haraway's, to demonstrate the absurdity of that line of thinking.

Marx's PhD was in philosophy, thesis something about greek philosophy being superior to religion. Spent most of his life as a journalist, so he's not credentialed in the social/political science field he's most notable for.

^^^ makes me sound foolish

Marx's PhD thesis https://archive.org/details/Marx_Karl_-_Doctoral_Thesis_-_Th...

Thanks for the link to Marx PhD. As far as I understand [1] is (a book version of) Haraway's doctoral dissertation.

   "highly credentialed biologists", 
   which is different than 
   "highly credentialed in biology"

By that sophistic logic, I'm a "highly credentialed chess player" simply because as a child I played a few games of chess and now have lots of credentials in a STEM field. By the same logic I would also be a

- highly credentialed soccer player

- highly credentialed surfer

- highly credentialed linguist

and many more variants. All of the above would be misleading because clearly statements like "X is a highly credentialed Y" are usually assumed to mean that X's credentials are in subject Y. Since a persistent and widely known criticism of Gender Studies and the concept of gender is the severed link with biology in general, and the biology of fertility in particular, is remarkable, and it is difficult to believe it is done in good faith.

[1] https://monoskop.org/images/5/58/Haraway_Donna_Crystals_Fabr...

It's not sophisticated logic, it's plain reading of the grammatical structure of the phrase. An adverb and adjective modifying a noun.

Haraway did not play a few games of chess as a child, she studied 7+ years to get a PhD.

I'm with you that gender studies has an evidence/science problem in general, baselessly attacking a researchers credentials does not prove that point.