Talk:Anne Fausto-Sterling

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anne Fausto-Sterling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Gender studies High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Donoghue, Helen D. (1993). "Review of Myths of Gender: Biological theories about women and men". Science Progress. 77 (1/2): 153–155. ISSN 0036-8504. JSTOR 43421331.
Hubbard, Ruth (1987). "Review of Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men". American Journal of Sociology. 92 (4): 1033–1035. ISSN 0002-9602. JSTOR 2780073.
Ring, Jennifer (1987). "Biological Perspectives On Gender". The Review of Politics. 49 (1): 133–136. doi:10.1017/S0034670500044351. ISSN 1748-6858.
Rosser, Sue V. (Winter 1987). "Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men by Anne Fausto-Sterling (Book Review)". Signs. 12 (2): 402 ff. ISSN 0097-9740.

Factual difficulty.[edit]

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)[reply]

Needs a general rewrite.[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Problems with "criticisms" section[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why I reverted 3 edits[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]