Summary Of Fausto-Fausto-Sterling

1) Fausto-Sterling is examining the relationship between discourse and public policy surrounding women’s bone health, since bone frailty is considered to be more common in women. Fausto-Sterling asks why bones are more likely to break in certain populations, and if bone health and fragility are considered effects of sex-related traits why are there so few studies conducted on females specific health issues such as pregnancy and childbirth. Her hypothesis states that by using the existing framework to analyze social categories can help improve health conditions and treatments of individuals.

2) Theory/Qualitative Data; Exegesis/ Archival Data Research.

3) Fausto-Sterling argues that there is a disconnect between feminist theorists and the

*Fausto-Sterling

1) Fausto-Sterling defines race as a social construction and argues that current definitions lack a theoretical foundation within the field of medicine. She is questioning if there is a medical difference in bone density with regards to social constructions, such as race. The author’s main hypothesis states race is a poor object of study with regards to understating bone density health, and bone development is effected by other social factors that may or may not be race related.

2) Theory/Observation; Exegesis/ Case Study.

3) Fausto-Sterling argues that in order to understand the relationship between race and bone density, there needs to be a new theoretical framework for research. She argues that biological race is not a helpful tool for understanding variations in bone density and can only be used as a medical variable in accordance with other social factors such as culutre and economic

The variety of methods and data collection within the research design provided the author with a greater ability to support her thesis.

5) The concept of race is central to the thesis because Fausto-Sterling is arguing that using race, as causation for bone density is a flawed within the field of medicine.

* Fujimura

1) Fujimura is studying the definitions of sex determination and the materiality of nature within molecular genetic research. Her question asks how the social sciences should engage with the biological sciences with regards to nature and culture. Fujimura argues that biological sex is variable, diverse, and old medical frameworks of sex determinations as binary are flawed. She argues for the broadening of understandings of the material and the natural.

2) Theory/Reexamination of Observations; Exegesis/Archival Data Research.

3) Fujimura argues that collaboration between the natural and social sciences will achieve a better understanding and different perspective of sex determination. She also argues for reconsideration of scientific data and awkward surpluses as a method to better understand social and cultural frameworks regarding sex and