The Guardian, on Trump's EO re: gender ideology

[the paragraph breaks disappeared, I've added some but they may not match the original]

C&Ping Hooven's tweets for anyone who can't read them:

1/2 The Guardian columnist who wrote yesterday's op-ed about Trump's executive order reached out to me Friday morning for some "expert commentary." TLDR: I provided her with plenty of scientific evidence/argument/detailed commentary in answer to her questions about Trump's executive order (YES it is scientifically sound) and the idea that everyone starts out female (UNsound). All of that was ignored, which is not unusual. (She did say that she would follow up next week with a more comprehensive piece that might include my perspective...we'll see!) Given how extensive our communications were, I did expect that some of my perspective would be included. But it was the opposite.

Here's a sample quote from her piece: "Most scientists now reject the idea that sex is strictly binary. The likes of Nature, possibly one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, has noted that 'the research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female'." I know that my expectations were misplaced. I sill need to learn my lesson. I'm sharing some of our correspondence, below, so that you can have some insight into how journalists can select some "experts" over others. Here are her original questions (be sure to read her Guardian article): "Hello, I'm writing a column for the Guardian that touches on Trump's executive order around gender issued on Monday: https://whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/ There has been commentary suggesting that the wording of this order technically classifies everyone as a woman. See: "Basically, the early, default configuration of a human foetus is female. If we were to assign a sex at conception as per Trump's executive order, all of them would be female." https://mashable.com/article/trump-executive-order-sex-female-male-gender I was hoping to get some expert commentary from you on whether 1) that assessment that the EO technically classifies everyone as female is correct. 2) the scientific merits of the EO more generally."

MY FIRST RESPONSE From: Hooven, Carole Kennedy Date: Friday, January 24, 2025 at 11:24 AM To: Arwa Subject: Re: press request - the guardian - would need comment by 3:30pm EST

Good afternoon Arwa— A few thoughts right off the bat, and then I’ll get back to you with better answers to your Qs ASAP.

But clearly, we don’t all start out as female! And the “intersex” rate is .018, not 1.7, this [myth] has been very clearly dispelled in the scientific literature but people keep citing that inflated number. Also people with DSDs are not a third or fourth sex; sex is a reproductive category, not a gender identity or a social role, and not defined by external genitalia or hormone levels (these are traits strongly associated with sex). There are two reproductive categories, and Trump is correct that they are based on the kinds of gametes individuals are designed to produce. I assume he didn’t invoke chromosomes because he was advised that not every female is XX and not every male is XY, even in mammals including humans. The only thing that is common to every human female is that the reproductive system is designed to produce eggs (even if it doesn’t work).

People with DSDs don’t like being used as political footballs and generally want their health concerns to be addressed, if necessary. One other thing, people with “ovotestes” are exceedingly rare, and as far as I know there are no demonstrated cases of someone with this condition being able to naturally produce viable sperm and eggs. Hormonally, that would be quite a feat. Here’s a recent tweet of mine on this issue, in case it helps [below]. There are also a few pages from my book on testosterone that might be helpful, and I could send them along if you’d like. https://x.com/hoovlet/status/1850637652912988539

[Twitter question I answered:] It is often said that female is the default gender. This is an over simplification. How would you phrase it?]
[My answer:] "This is a great question. The reason people say that is because more has to go right in fetal development to develop male-typical internal and external genitalia, and to develop a "masculinized" brain. Although the female sex is not default, because 50% of fetuses are male (& have testes), some traits that are very strongly associated with the female sex, are, in a way, the default. The undifferentiated genitalia that males and females share very early in fetal development look like female genitalia, and the brain is, essentially by default, feminine.

In the fetus, genitalia (including the internal stuff like uterus and fallopian tubes) will develop into functional female structures without any special hormone action, and the brain will not develop in the masculine direction as long as high levels of testosterone are not present. In XY fetuses, high levels of testosterone from the testes, and its metabolite DHT, are almost always present, and that is what promotes the development of typical male genitalia, like penis and scrotum rather than clitoris and labia. Testosterone masculinizes the brain to bias male psychology to promote reproductive strategies that are more adaptive for males than females. (This helps to explain why little boys like rough play more than little girls, for instance, even though testosterone levels in little kids are roughly the same in early childhood.)

Developing into a typical female doesn't just happen with no other actions, of course; various genes have to be expressed, etc., so it is not a passive process, just in some ways It is more passive than what has to happen in males. Typical male development requires relatively high levels of testosterone and the metabolite of testosterone, DHT, and female-typical development will proceed in the absence of high levels of testicular hormones. But a person who has testes and produces testosterone that is received by the body is still male (designed to produce sperm), even if some of his reproductive structures don't develop in the typical male direction. That would be considered a male disorder of sexual development (DSD).

And obviously this developmental pathway says nothing about the agency or power of women or female sexuality or women's status in society. Some people don't like this narrative because they think that people misinterpret or weaponize it to uphold the "gender status quo" or they believe it actually suggests that women are somehow "less than." Obviously, that's not true. And whether mechanisms of early development are relatively "passive" or "active" is irrelevant."

Best Carole

SECOND RESPONSE On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 12:16, Hooven, Carole Kennedy wrote:

Onto “scientific merits”: Correct statements from the EO: There are two sexes Humans cannot change sex (but they can change sex-associated traits, like beards, breasts, hormones, voice, behavior, dress, etc.) Sex is not a synonym for gender identity (and GI does not have a clear and consistent definition, like sex does…or, did, until very recently) Girl and women: juvenile and adult human female, respectively The sex that produces the small reproductive cells (gametes) is female, that which produces the large ones is male. Women are biologically distinct from men.

NOTE: obviously current or fully functional production of these cells is not what defines sex; it is something like the “design plan” of the organism, in this case humans, to produce one gamete type or the other. (Boys and girls don’t produce sperm or eggs, but they are still male and female. I’m no longer producing eggs, but I’m still female. Etc.)

This begins with the differentiation of the bipotential gonad (can develop into testes or ovaries, depending on what genes are expressed) very early in embryonic development, around week 6. If the Y chromosome is present, testes develop; without the Y, ovaries develop. After testes develop, they secrete testosterone & DHT (those are androgens that stabilize and develop the precursors to male internal (and external) genitalia, & anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) which causes the precursors to the female internal genitalia to regress.

Some people think—because testosterone and DHT are necessary for male-typical development of the internal and external genitalia, and female-appearing genitalia will develop essentially by default, without those (or any) hormones—that female is the default sex. But it isn’t. In mammals (including humans) sex is determined not by sex hormones but by chromosomes. That is, the presence or absence of the Y chromosome (and the SRY gene it contains and the protein it codes for). That causes the development of testes rather than ovaries, and that’s male, not female development. This is true even if in some rare cases the clitoris looks like a penis in a female or there are remnants of some internal female-typical genitalia in a male.

Statements from the EO not supported by evidence: One’s “internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self [is] unmoored from biological facts.” I think this is supposed to mean that one’s sense of one’s sex can be dissociated from the fact of one’s sex, and this would be true. However the way it’s written suggests that the way one feels about their sexed body, and how they feel in that body in a society with different cultural norms and expectations for each sex, has no biological underpinnings. But the way we feel about our sex, our bodies, and social expectations based on our sexed characteristics, are all connected to our sexed biology; whether that biology is genes, hormones, or their effects on breasts, body size, face shape, voice, masculinity, femininity, etc. The interaction between biology and culture profoundly affects how we feel about ourselves in society. That was a long way of saying that biological facts, like having large breasts or big muscles or high testosterone or high estrogen, all profoundly affect our “subjective sense of self” in society.

SO, I think this section could have been written more clearly, and perhaps, with a touch of compassion for people who feel uncomfortable with the social expectations for their sex. I think that kind of language also would help people appreciate that the recommendations, as far as recognizing the reality of two sexes and basing policy on science, evidence and facts rather than ideology, are welcome changes.

[While I do have some concerns about the tone of the EO, I later asked Arwa to delete it because I thought my personal comments were inappropriate and that I should just stick to the facts.]

Please let me know if you have any other questions, and send me quotes if possible...before publication. And good luck with the article! Best Carole

THIRD RESPONSE From: Hooven, Carole Kennedy Date: Friday, January 24, 2025 at 4:37 PM To: Arwa Subject: Re: press request - the guardian - would need comment by 3:30pm EST

Hi Carole, ... [Arwa:] Just to clarify a little bit more, however, do you believe this specific definition from the EO [Trump’s Executive Order] is correct: “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the category of people who produces the large reproductive cell."

[CH:] YES THIS IS CORRECT. But some will argue, well little girls don’t produce sex cells. But the point is that their reproductive system is designed around producing large sex cells. The EO is correct.

[Arwa:] Is sex determined at conception--as this states it is? [CH:] YES!!! It’s correct. All those genes are present to be one sex or the other are present at conception, even if they have three X chromosomes and one Y. Good luck!!

Carole

THE END'

Here's Emma Hilton:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1883541430788092054.html

'On “we all start as females” (by request).

At the level of anatomy, “female” describes a particular reproductive system - eggs in ovaries, oviducts, uterus, cervix, vagina and vulva.
This reproductive system begins to differentiate at around six weeks post-fertilisation, when the embryonic gonads - two balls of cells clumped in your pelvic area - turn into ovaries and not testes.
The ongoing development of internal and external genitalia follows this gonadal differentiation into ovaries.

This is what is meant by “organisation” - the coordinated, sequential development of multiple tissues that have evolved around a given reproductive function.
The trigger for these balls of cells to turn into ovaries and not testes is genetic. This is what is meant by sex being “determined” by genetics.

Given those genes were inherited at fertilisation, it is reasonable to say sex is determined at fertilisation.
This means you can look at that genetic information in a fertilised egg and understand what will happen in six weeks to those balls of cells, despite the balls of cells not yet existing.

In an IVF clinic, for example, you can sort embryos by this genetic information.
The genetic switch that turns the balls of cells into ovaries and not testes is the absence of a Y chromosome gene called SRY.

The female switch is often conceptualised in the OFF position. That is, unless you have the genes required to flip the switch to ON, you will differentiate ovaries and not testes.
Plenty of developing systems use ON/OFF switches to drive different tissue fates. Sometimes the ON position makes something happen, sometimes it stops something different happening.

ON is not inherently more interesting or important than OFF.
The OFF position is often labelled a “default” pathway.

That is, we ask: what will happen to these precursor cells or this precursor tissue if it doesn’t get positively switched to do something else instead? What do they turn into “by default”?
Because differentiating as male - making testes and not ovaries - requires a positive switch (the SRY gene), female differentiation has been framed as the “default” pathway.
This leads to the claim that because the differentiation of female reproductive anatomy is “default”, the embryo before differentiation of any reproductive anatomy is phenotypically female.

This makes no sense to me; it’s really random.
And while many who anchor sex as a karyotype/genotype argue that embryos are, in fact, female (or male) from fertilisation before any sex differentiation, not even this framework can translate into the idea that all embryos are female at fertilisation.
It is a bonkers claim, leaning heavily into misogynistic ideas that the absence of a penis and the presence of a precursor embryonic outlet tube - the cloaca, in both sexes - means female.

Because females are no-penis cavities, amirite?
In fact, what we know is that female development is not the result of “do nothing”. You need plenty of female-specific, positive signalling to make ovaries. They don’t just drift into existence for lack of anything better to do; they are busy little balls of cells.
The embryonic gonads - the first point of sex differentiation - are bipotential. They are “competent” to differentiate as either ovaries or testes.

Before differentiation, they are no more female than they are male.
Internal genitalia develops from two sets of ducts, one pair that can be fashioned into female bits and one pair that can be fashioned into male bits. All embryos contain both sets of ducts.

This set up is no more female than it is male.
External genitalia develops from a tissue field that is, like the gonads, bipotential.

And again, before differentiation, this tissue field is no more female than it is male.
The wording in Trump’s executive order is fine (well, I dislike “conception” but that’s a minor quibble).

Sex is determined at fertilisation. We can predict the sex class of an embryo well before any sex phenotype develops, and with almost-perfect reliability.

Human embryos do not all start as female. This is a scientifically-illiterate claim.'

The Righteous know that their Pious Fraud is worth it because it is in aid of The Right Side of History.

This is remarkable. Hooven explains clearly and in detail why the EO is correct to say sex is determined at conception. So Mahdawi deliberately wrote something she knew wasn’t true. It’s remarkable that she’s so committed to the ideology she’s prepared to publicly make a fool of herself.

Too much actual knowledge and expertise!

Carole Hooven has just tweeted that she was contacted by the Graun writer as part of research for the piece and none of her comments were included!

https://x.com/hoovlet/status/1883607864025194744?t=SwWb6_4Ibr7OSEhkzTh9oQ&s=19

That's really useful thanks. Do you know how that relates to (the very rare) Swyers syndrome where I believe neither eggs nor sperm are produced? Are they are very rare case of not having a primary sex characteristic, or is it that they are regarded as having potential to produce either egg or sperm but it never developed correctly?

aFAIK they can't produce eggs because they are genetically male. In a minority of cases they may be able to have IVF with a donor egg.

Reason 3481 to Not Buy the Graun.

That's really useful thanks. Do you know how that relates to (the very rare) Swyers syndrome where I believe neither eggs nor sperm are produced? Are they are very rare case of not having a primary sex characteristic, or is it that they are regarded as having potential to produce either egg or sperm but it never developed correctly?

Another vote for bulghur wheat over couscous here!

I must admit, it's hard to hold The Scientists in the highest regard, when in most cases they (and their professional organisations) have been much too quiet in not denouncing the unscientific lunacy that is being peddled these days, not least in the pages of the Guardian and the rest of the 'liberal media'.

In many cases I imagine that that depends on whether they want to keep their jobs or not.

How do scientists in general deal with the ones who say that sex is on a spectrum etc? Is it politely ignored? Are they not laughed at?

Scientist here. And I'm not even a meteorologist or a physicist. A biologist. An evolutionary biologist where practically all we do is talk about sex (because it's so important for giving natural selection much more to work with).One of the first things they (used to?) teach us in biology is the difference between sex and secondary sexual characteristics. We were all shocked to learn (we were young, you know how it is) that even ovaries and testes are secondary sexual characteristics, to say nothing of vaginas and penises.The only primary sexual function is producing eggs or sperm. That's it. That's all. Even the most baffling DSDs in humans ("intersex") only influence how secondary characteristics develop. The fundamental potential to produce eggs or sperm still determines sex (including when the potential doesn't develop into full function). No one has ever seen a spegg.And all scientists do know that. Some just like to waffle on about secondary sexual charateristics so they can sit at the Cool Kidz table in the lunchroom.

So weird… as little as five days ago the Guardian published this article. Men are growing bigger and stronger all the time, apparently, more so than women, which is a little alarming. Seemed to know sex was binary in this context. Do you think we can all identify into ‘bigger and stronger’?

www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jan/22/men-have-grown-twice-as-much-as-women-over-past-century-study-shows

Sarah formerly Tim Macbride. It's based on that.

Sorry - no time to read whole thread, but this article is in line with the "clever clever" remark by the TW Congress member.

Name escapes me, but the Democrats thought it oh so clever.

Couldn’t get past the “sex is complex” in the byline. Embarrassing. The knots people are having to twist themselves into to avoid agreeing with 🍊 Face…

Things like this are the reason I have no intention of quitting X.

Amazing 🤣

The debunk argument in this article falls down at its first premise. We are not all female at conception - this idea was around in the 80s but has now been shown to be scientifically inaccurate, in that the drivers of sex development are in the embryo as soon as the sperm makes it into the egg.

I like couscous when it has stuff in it, or when I was a student I used to make a sort of couscousotto instead of risotto.

Tabouleh is much nicer than rather tasteless couscous anyway.

But coeliac-hating as a side order, right?

Glad I'm not a middle-class north Londoner, it sounds horrid.

Middle class north London staple. I read a book by another north London media woman whose family ate a lot of sushi. It's signalling to each other.