Is Emily Martin's "The Egg and the Sperm" an accurate critique of the way reproduction is described by biologists or just whiny nitpicking?

I'm not going to bother looking it up. If you post a link, I'll glance at it.

Edit: Meh. It's mostly a complaint about words that we use. That's not science; that's just social studies. If she wants to vote for different words, I don't care. It doesn't change the biological fact. In places, she does seem to be complaining that biological fact doesn't line up with her ideals. For instance, women ARE born with all of the eggs they'll ever have (we think; there is new research that casts doubt on this), and they genuinely DO degenerate in quality over time. That's not a judgement about gender roles; it's just a simple biological reality.

I do agree insofar as that much of the terminology we still use today was originally coined a century or two back, when our view of the sexes was very different. I've always thought, for instance, that we should rename ant and bee "queens" as the "sex slaves" of the colony. They're not in charge of anything, after all. NO ONE is in charge of a colony. That's a rather important point. Rather than the queen being seen as the brain and ruler of a colony, you can just as accurately view her as just the reproductive system.

Anyway, I have very little interest in social arguments like this. This question should really be asked in a gender studies section or something like that, because biology has very very little to do with her arguments.

Mostly whiny nitpicking.

She's written a strongly biased article by cherry-picking a few biased examples.

In order to tell for sure, you would have to read all of the examples for context and see whether Martin has taken some sentences out of context. That's a job-and-a-half.

I did not find Martin's article worthwhile (it seems too much like a "publish or perish" bit to me). Or, perhaps, this exposes my own personal bias.