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