I've read Shon Faye's book. It's extensively researched and referenced, rich in cultural history and testimony, and is insightfully educational on LGBTQ+ issues. It's a work of integrity, and I recommend reading it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Ben Goldacre has commented that some nutritionists put literally hundreds of references in their work. When scrutinised, it's apparent that the reference is not relevant, or that it's been misrepresented, or it is literally to a newsletter. E.g.:
And the scholarliness of her work is a thing to behold: she produces lengthy documents that have an air of "referenciness", with nice little superscript numbers, which talk about trials, and studies, and research, and papers ... but when you follow the numbers, and check the references, it's shocking how often they aren't what she claimed them to be in the main body of the text. Or they refer to funny little magazines and books, such as Delicious, Creative Living, Healthy Eating, and my favourite, Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet, rather than proper academic journals.
She even does this in the book Miracle Superfood, which, we are told, is the published form of her PhD. "In laboratory experiments with anaemic animals, red-blood cell counts have returned to normal within four or five days when chlorophyll was given," she says. Her reference for this experimental data is a magazine called Health Store News. "In the heart," she explains, "chlorophyll aids in the transmission of nerve impulses that control contraction." A statement that is referenced to the second issue of a magazine called Earthletter.
www.theguardian.com/media/2007/feb/12/advertising.food
So, what sort of references are included and have you validated a random sample of them? (Yes, I do do this for pretty much everything I read if it's meaningful to me.)