conifer's review
‘because reproductive development disorders exist so human have More than two sexes’ LMAO
afestivalaparade's review
informative
tense
fast-paced
3.5
Really interesting and fascinating book; just wish I’d better anticipated what it was about before I began reading. I expected a history but it’s much more of a memoir: fascinating, but I did not expect it so all the personal involvement and experiences threw me. Dreger admits she has a Galilean personality, and in places it is definitely on display. I’m glad I learned about all these topics, but wow are some NSFW.
ursulamonarch's review
3.0
I found this book to be a bit spotty - certain topics were much more interesting to me than others. Also, I hadn't realized how much it would focus on Dreger's personal experience, which had components that seemed petty and gossipy. My favorite parts were discussions of the science rather than the people involved, even though one of the points of the book is how much personality influences acceptance (or rejection) of scientific ideas.
becquebooks's review
4.0
I picked this up because Dreger is coming to KU and giving a talk in a few weeks, and I was interested in finding out more about her. Midway through the first chapter it became clear to me that I did know who Alice Dreger is and I did know her writing, since I had read [b:Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex|296200|Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex|Alice Domurat Dreger|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/books/1347635861s/296200.jpg|287404] in an undergrad class on science and the body.
This book is not a history of Galileo - or a history of scientists across the ages. Instead it is focused and driven by Dreger's own experiences, her research and activism on behalf of inter-sexed individuals, and then her interest in understanding what happens when people advocating for different social causes - broadly - different kinds of identity politics collide with scientific research those groups don't like. It does read almost as a memoir, which I enjoyed, but might throw people who were expecting the book to be something else. To me, this seems like a vital book for anyone interested in truth, justice, identity politics, activism, and science. If those seem like broad groups I mean them to be, this is a book I think everyone should read. I've tried to talk about this book to several people, and it's hard, because many of the situations and arguments are bogged down in understanding various aspects of the medical literature. But don't dismiss it because it seems to "science-y," we need better science, and we also need better reporting and discussion of that science.
"Perhaps most troubling is the tendency within some branches of the humanities to portray scholarly quests to understand reality as a quaint or naive, even colonialist and dangerous. Sure, I know: Objectivity is easily desired and impossible to perfectly achieve, and some forms of scholarship will feed oppression, but to treat those who seek a more objective understanding of a problem as fools or de facto criminals is to betray the very idea of an academy of learners. When I run into such academics - people who will ignore and, if necessary, outright reject any act that might challenge their ideology, who declare scientific methodologies "just another way of knowing" - I feel this crazy desire to institute a purge. It smells like fungal rot in the hoof of a plow horse we can't afford to loose. Call me ideological for wanting us all to share a belief in the importance of seeking reliable, verifiable knowledge, but surely that is supposed to be the common value of the learned."
thethinwomanreads's review
2.0
A lot of good points made but the author is too proud to declare that she is politically incorrect. Her objective is to protect vulnerable people and make sure everyone is afforded their rights yet how much is empirical evidence worth at the expense of peoples' safety and well-being? Too much credit is given to the lay person. No one is going to extensively research something or read the whole story; they're going to pick up on the most controversial parts and run with it. No one is going to pick up a book on the evolutionary history of rape, read the content which is an author providing a sexual evolutionary explanation for rape and equally popularize the parts where the author goes 'oh but no this isn't a means to justify rape I would never'. It's a problem of naivety. You can't trust people to accept "truths" without there being dangerous implications or consequences.
zachkuhn's review
3.0
Fascinating chapters on the rights of intersex patients. But then gets bogged down in a personal history of the fight for rights for those people. Then a few pages that are mildly interesting for non-scholars. Then a long series of pages about how the scholars fought. Which, I mean, scholars fighting is not exactly riveting for a non-scholar.
I thought I was going to read a nonfiction narrative about intellectual freedom and instead I read a scholarly work on intellectual freedom with some narration that would only be interesting if I was a scholar.
I thought I was going to read a nonfiction narrative about intellectual freedom and instead I read a scholarly work on intellectual freedom with some narration that would only be interesting if I was a scholar.