Fausto-Sterling Research Articles

The Masculinity Studies Reader

Acknowledgments. Editors' Acknowledgments. Introduction (Rachel Adams and David Savran) Part I: Eroticism. Introduction. 1. Some Psychological Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction between the Sexes (Sigmund Freud) 2. Masochism and Male Subjectivity (Kaja Silverman) 3. Subject Honor, Object Shame (Roger Lancaster) 4. The Democratic Body: Prostitution and Citizenship in Classical Athens (David Halperin) Part II: Social Sciences. Introduction. 5. Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight (Clifford Geertz) 6. Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity (Tim Carrigan, Bob Connell, and John Lee) 7. The Fraternal Social Contract (Carole Pateman) 8. The Birth of the Self-made Man (Michael Kimmel) Part III: Representations. Introduction. 9. The Beast in the Closet: James and the Writing of Homosexual Panic (Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick) 10. The Woman Warrior versus The Chinaman Pacific: Must a Chinese American Critic Choose between Feminism and Heroism (King-Kok Cheung) 11. Skin Head Sex Thing: Racial Difference and the Homoerotic Imaginary (Kobena Mercer) 12. Bonds of (In)Difference (Robyn Wiegman) Part IV: Empire and Modernity. Introduction. 13. The Fact of Blackness (Frantz Fanon) 14. The History of Masculinity (R. W. Connell) 15. The White Man's Muscles (Richard Dyer) 16. What Does a Jew Want? or, The Political Meaning of the Phallus (Daniel Boyarin) 17. The Economy of Colonial Desire (Revathi Krishnaswamy) 18. Male Gender and Rituals of Resistance in the Palestinian Intifada (Julie Peteet) Part V: Borders. Introduction. 19. Homosexuality and the Signs of Male Friendship in Elizabethan England (Alan Bray) 20. An Introduction to Female Masculinity (Judith Halberstam) 21. That Sexe Which Prevaileth (Anne Fausto-Sterling) 22. The Gender of Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes (Don Kulick) Index.

Book Review: Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. By Anne Fausto-Sterling. Basic Books, New York, 2000, 473 pp., $45.00

Book Review: Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. By Anne Fausto-Sterling. Basic Books, New York, 2000, 473 pp., $45.00

Science and Homosexualities (review)

Reviewed by: Science and Homosexualities Chandak Sengoopta Vernon A. Rosario, ed. Science and Homosexualities. New York: Routledge, 1997. ix + 308 pp. Ill. $U.S. 65.00 (cloth), $18.95 (paperbound); $Can. 90.95 (cloth), $Can. 26.95 (paperbound). Historians have long been aware of the importance of the medicalization of homosexuality, and this anthology brings together some of the best and most recent work on the subject. Vernon Rosario’s introduction (“Homosexual Bio-Histories”) and Jennifer Terry’s concluding essay (“The Seductive Power of Science”) attack the persistent myth that scientific studies of homosexuality have always been used against gays by a hegemonic, heterosexist medical profession. As they show, an enormous amount of research on the biology of homosexuality has been conducted by homosexuals themselves and enthusiastically supported by large sections of the gay community. Rosario and Terry are indubitably correct in interpreting this phenomenon as a search for biological kinship and for the certainty, guaranteed by the magical name of science, that homosexuality is not a vice. Garland Allen’s critique of genetic research on homosexuality (“The Double-Edged Sword of Genetic Determinism”) places the current obsession with unearthing the “gay gene” in the historical context of mechanistic genetics. The opposing viewpoint is presented by psychiatrist Richard Pillard in an essay (“The Search for a Genetic Influence on Sexual Orientation”) that is so ahistorical and so amorphous that one wonders how it got into this volume! Anne Fausto-Sterling’s contribution (“How to Build a Man”) is equally ahistorical but, expectedly enough, masterful in its incisive analyses of current embryological and endocrinological theories of sex and sexual orientation. The collection has much to offer to historians who have little direct interest in today’s research or politics. Hubert Kennedy’s contribution, “Karl Heinrich Ulrichs,” is merely a competent recapitulation of his earlier, marvelous biography of that pioneer, but James Steakley’s essay on Magnus Hirschfeld (“Per scientiam ad justitiam”) is a new and finely nuanced study based on extensive research and perceptive readings. The same goes for Harry Oosterhuis’s analysis of Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s theories of homosexuality, which establishes how Krafft-Ebing’s work was constantly modulated by the views of his numerous homosexual correspondents, [End Page 148] few of whom were against medicalization in any straightforward sense. Erin Carlston’s essay, “‘A Finer Differentiation,’” develops the same theme in the context of interwar America. Medical and scientific interest in homosexuality has frequently focused on the relationship, if any, between homosexual orientation and physical hermaphroditism. Men who desired men have always been seen by physicians as psychosexually feminine, but are they also somatically—or physiologically—feminized? In her rich essay, “Hermaphrodites in Love,” Alice Dreger shows how nineteenth-century physicians determined the “true” sex of the person without any reference to external anatomy, sex of rearing, or preferred sexual role: all that mattered was the presence of testicular or ovarian tissue somewhere in the body. Thus, a hermaphrodite who looked feminine, possessed a testicle, but desired men was a conceptual nightmare, and Dreger demonstrates the complicated ways in which homosexuality came to be seen as a kind of hermaphroditism. One classical instance of this conflation was physicians’ preoccupation with the clitoral dimensions of female homosexuals, which is well documented in Margaret Gibson’s piece, “Clitoral Corruption.” Enlarged clitorises alone, however, were not enough: it was universally acknowledged that genital ambiguities were rare among homosexuals. Physiological hermaphroditism was a more promising concept, and for a while, homosexuality was thought to be caused by aberrations of sex-gland function. In “Who Counts When You’re Counting Homosexuals?” Stephanie Kenen examines American physician Clifford Wright’s research on the hormonal status of male homosexuals, and Alfred Kinsey’s blistering critique of that approach. Needless to say, medical and scientific research on homosexuality have been shaped by broader cultural forces. In “Normality, Whiteness, Authorship,” Julian Carter attempts to show that Anglo-American sexologists regularly conflated their conviction of Anglo-Saxon racial superiority with their ideas of sexual and linguistic “normality.” Vernon Rosario, in his essay “Inversion’s Histories/History’s Inversions,” addresses the literary construction of homosexuality in turn-of-the-century France, analyzing how physicians as well as the...

Science: The Broader Context

Letters from: [ Anne Fausto-Sterling ][1] [ Michael Shodell ][1] [ Peter T. Macklem ][1] [ Andrew Scheinman ][1] I applaud M. R. C. Greenwood's call to scientists to take on the responsibility “to be more civically inclined” (Editorial, [17 May, p. 933][2]). She notes that we are in a period of skepticism about the importance of scientific research. One way that scientists can move past this skeptical period is to examine our own mythology about how science works—that science is always objective and apolitical, that the scientist is best understood as a modern-day hero, a pioneer struggling on the frontiers of knowledge—and to consider rewriting our science stories to reflect more accurately how we produce scientific knowledge. # {#article-title-2} I was somewhat astonished to read Greenwood's editorial decrying the alarming erosion of “informed friends of science [who] understand [the] importance of science, mathematics, and engineering research and education.” The astonishment was not so much with what the editorial said, but rather by where it was published. For this compelling editorial, aptly entitled “Desperately seeking friends,” came almost as an unintended commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the AAAS's divestment of its major initiative geared precisely toward addressing such concerns. I refer, of course, to the decommissioning by the AAAS of the publication Science 86. This award-winning magazine, which had won the respect of the scientific community and the appreciation of the reading public at large, was precisely the sort of antidote to the “alarming anti-intellectualism” described by Greenwood and the kind of “public outreach” called for. # {#article-title-3} Greenwood's editorial seems to arise from the new paradigm in the world of economics: exploitation of innovative knowledge and technology is what drives a free-market economy. This puts the scientist in a more central position in society than previously. In order to make the friends that Greenwood is seeking, and meet “the demand for efficiency and accountability in the use of public funds,” new indices of science's contributions to society are needed. Greenwood states, “The United States leads the way in virtually all fields of scientific endeavor.” This may be true on an absolute scale, but when the data are normalized to population base or a country's general expenditure on research and development (GERD), a different picture may emerge. I propose that a country's scientific contributions in a given year can be assessed by the following four indices: • productivity: the number of scientific publications per capita; • impact (citations per capita): the average number of citations per paper multiplied by productivity; • efficiency: the number of publications in relation to GERD; and • effectiveness: the number of citations in relation to GERD. The United States leads the Group of 7 countries in impact, but is third in the other three indices. Canada leads in productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness and is second only to the United States in impact. Germany, France, Italy, and Japan are not strongly competitive with Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. # {#article-title-4} As a former scientist and current law student, I agree wholeheartedly with Greenwood that science in particular and society in general would benefit if law schools exposed their nascent lawyers and politicians to the quantitative methodology of science. It is deplorable that, as Greenwood points out, “most of the regulations governing the conduct of science are written by legislators who have graduated from law schools that do not require [such] sophistication.” As a current law student and former scientist, however, I see an equally pressing need to educate nascent scientists in the methodology of the law and, by extension, politics. Politics has always influenced science. Law is doing so more and more. The News & Comment article in the same issue about the Abbs case (J. Friedly, [17 May, p. 947][3]) is a case in point. Society will suffer if politicians and lawyers are not familiar with the methodology of science. By the same token science will, and to a certain extent already has begun to, languish because its practitioners are not familiar with the broader context in which science exists, as well as the specific rules and regulations that govern them. This is not a price that science can afford to pay. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.273.5279.1155d [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.273.5277.933 [3]: /lookup/volpage/273/947

Science: The Broader Context

Letters from: [ Anne Fausto-Sterling ][1] [ Michael Shodell ][1] [ Peter T. Macklem ][1] [ Andrew Scheinman ][1] I applaud M. R. C. Greenwood's call to scientists to take on the responsibility “to be more civically inclined” (Editorial, [17 May, p. 933][2]). She notes that we are in a period of skepticism about the importance of scientific research. One way that scientists can move past this skeptical period is to examine our own mythology about how science works—that science is always objective and apolitical, that the scientist is best understood as a modern-day hero, a pioneer struggling on the frontiers of knowledge—and to consider rewriting our science stories to reflect more accurately how we produce scientific knowledge. # {#article-title-2} I was somewhat astonished to read Greenwood's editorial decrying the alarming erosion of “informed friends of science [who] understand [the] importance of science, mathematics, and engineering research and education.” The astonishment was not so much with what the editorial said, but rather by where it was published. For this compelling editorial, aptly entitled “Desperately seeking friends,” came almost as an unintended commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the AAAS's divestment of its major initiative geared precisely toward addressing such concerns. I refer, of course, to the decommissioning by the AAAS of the publication Science 86. This award-winning magazine, which had won the respect of the scientific community and the appreciation of the reading public at large, was precisely the sort of antidote to the “alarming anti-intellectualism” described by Greenwood and the kind of “public outreach” called for. # {#article-title-3} Greenwood's editorial seems to arise from the new paradigm in the world of economics: exploitation of innovative knowledge and technology is what drives a free-market economy. This puts the scientist in a more central position in society than previously. In order to make the friends that Greenwood is seeking, and meet “the demand for efficiency and accountability in the use of public funds,” new indices of science's contributions to society are needed. Greenwood states, “The United States leads the way in virtually all fields of scientific endeavor.” This may be true on an absolute scale, but when the data are normalized to population base or a country's general expenditure on research and development (GERD), a different picture may emerge. I propose that a country's scientific contributions in a given year can be assessed by the following four indices: • productivity: the number of scientific publications per capita; • impact (citations per capita): the average number of citations per paper multiplied by productivity; • efficiency: the number of publications in relation to GERD; and • effectiveness: the number of citations in relation to GERD. The United States leads the Group of 7 countries in impact, but is third in the other three indices. Canada leads in productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness and is second only to the United States in impact. Germany, France, Italy, and Japan are not strongly competitive with Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. # {#article-title-4} As a former scientist and current law student, I agree wholeheartedly with Greenwood that science in particular and society in general would benefit if law schools exposed their nascent lawyers and politicians to the quantitative methodology of science. It is deplorable that, as Greenwood points out, “most of the regulations governing the conduct of science are written by legislators who have graduated from law schools that do not require [such] sophistication.” As a current law student and former scientist, however, I see an equally pressing need to educate nascent scientists in the methodology of the law and, by extension, politics. Politics has always influenced science. Law is doing so more and more. The News & Comment article in the same issue about the Abbs case (J. Friedly, [17 May, p. 947][3]) is a case in point. Society will suffer if politicians and lawyers are not familiar with the methodology of science. By the same token science will, and to a certain extent already has begun to, languish because its practitioners are not familiar with the broader context in which science exists, as well as the specific rules and regulations that govern them. This is not a price that science can afford to pay. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.273.5279.1155d [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.273.5277.933 [3]: /lookup/volpage/273/947

Corrections: The Politics of Genetics: A Conversation with Anne Fausto-Sterling and Diane Paul

Corrections: The Politics of Genetics: A Conversation with Anne Fausto-Sterling and Diane Paul

The Politics of Genetics: A Conversation with Anne Fausto-Sterling and Diane Paul

The Politics of Genetics: A Conversation with Anne Fausto-Sterling and Diane Paul

Re-membering a Queer Body

In the spring 1993 issue of The Sciences, Brown University geneticist Anne Fausto-Sterling, citing the work of John Money, indicates that approximately four percent of the population is, to some degree, intersexual: they either possess physical characteristics of both officially recognized sexes or they have chromosomes which indicate a sex which are 'contradicted' by their physical appearance.1 In Toronto, the four percent figure translates into roughly 88,000 people. Yet little has been written about intersexuality, although its concerns often intersect with those of feminist and queer theory. This paper deals with feminist issues in patriarchal medicine and its relation(s) to intersexuality (and intersexuality's inherent ability to challenge arguments for the 'natural' basis of heterosexuality).

Women in Science: A Report from the Field. Jane Butler KahleMyths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. Anne Fausto-Sterling

Women in Science: A Report from the Field. Jane Butler KahleMyths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. Anne Fausto-Sterling

Vaulting, Leaping, Skipping, and Trudging AmbitionVaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature. Philip KitcherMyths of Gender. Biological Theories About Women and Men. Anne Fausto-SterlingCulture and the Evolutionary Process. Robert Boyd , Peter J. RichersonPrimate Sociobiology. J. Patrick Gray

Previous articleNext article No AccessCommentaryVaulting, Leaping, Skipping, and Trudging Ambition Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature. Philip Kitcher Myths of Gender. Biological Theories About Women and Men. Anne Fausto-Sterling Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Robert Boyd , Peter J. Richerson Primate Sociobiology. J. Patrick Gray Laura BetzigLaura Betzig Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Quarterly Review of Biology Volume 61, Number 4Dec., 1986 Published in association with Stony Brook University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/415147 Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1986 Stony Brook Foundation, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Laura Betzig Rethinking human ethology, Ethology and Sociobiology 10, no.55 (Jul 1989): 315–324.https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(89)90021-6Larry Arnhart Author's Response, Politics and the Life Sciences 6, no.0202 (May 2016): 223–229.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0730938400003336