Six days ago I posted a group letter to the Presidents of three ecology/evolution/systematics societies who had issued a joint statement that many of us found deeply misguided. As I wrote at the time:
The Presidents of three organismal-biology societies, the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB) sent a declaration addressed to President Trump and all the members of Congress (declaration archived here) Implicitly claiming that its sentiments were endorsed by the 3500 members of the societies, the declaration also claimed that there is a scientific consensus on the definition of sex, and that is that sex is NOT binary but rather some unspecified but multivariate combination of different traits, a definition that makes sex a continuum or spectrum—and in all species!
I objected to this declaration, and Luana Maroja of Williams College, who agreed with me, drafted a letter that was signed by about two dozen people, many but not all of them members of at least one of the three societies. The point was to show that there is not a biological consensus that sex is a spectrum—indeed, the societies’ letter implied that biologists agree that sex is a spectrum in all species. Nonsense!
Further, the “tri-societies letter” did not involve polling the members of the SSE, the ASN, and the SSB to see if they agreed with the Presidents. Finally, I am not sure that their letter, addressed to President Trump and “Members of the U.S. Congress,” has actually been sent. Because it may have been changed since the first iteration, I archived it at the link above as soon as it appeared.
When I put up our response, because we were collecting signatures and had not yet asked the signers whether their names could be publicized, it was signed publicly only by Luana and me. Since then, we’ve asked all the signers if they wanted to “go public” with their names. All but a few agreed, and so I am putting the signed letter below, except for the names of those who objected to going public.
Further, I have heard independently from several other prominent biologists who were peeved at the tri-societies letter and/or were writing their own individual letters to the societies.
This is only the first stab at a response, and we intend to collect more signatures and have devised a method for doing so. So think about it, and we would like signatures only of those people who don’t mind going public. You need not be a member of any of the societies (though it would be a boon), and can add your society affiliation if you wish. And, of course, you must be a biologist or affiliated with biology
In the meantime, I’m putting up what we have just so the letter at this stage of its evolution can have a public URL. Ponder whether you’d like to join in, and you should hear more by later today or tomorrow. Do not email me or put in the comments that you want to be included, as we have a much more efficient way.
What is below is just a start. Our letter is below the line:
Dear presidents of the Tri-societies: ASN, SSB and SSE,
We, Tri-society members and/or biologists, are deeply disappointed by your recent letter “Letter to the US President and Congress on the Scientific Understanding of Sex and Gender” issued last Wednesday, Feb 5, 2025, in response to Trump’s executive order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government”.
While we agree that Trump’s executive orders are misleading, we disagree with your statements about the sex binary and its definition. In animals and plants, binary sex is universally defined by gamete type, even though sexes vary in how they are developmentally determined and phenotypically identified across taxa. Thus, your letter misrepresents the scientific understanding of many members of the Tri-societies.
You state that: “Scientific consensus defines sex in humans as a biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia, and secondary sex characteristics.”
However, we do not see sex as a “construct” and we do not see other mentioned human-specific characteristics, such as “lived experiences” or “[phenotypic] variation along the continuum of male to female”, as having anything to do with the biological definition of sex. While we humans might be unique in having gender identities and certain types of sexual dimorphism, sex applies to us just as it applies to dragonflies, butterflies, or fish – there is no human exceptionalism. Yes, there are developmental pathologies that cause sterility and there are variations in phenotypic traits related to sexual dimorphism. However, the existence of this variation does not make sex any less binary or more complex, because what defines sex is not a combination of chromosomes or hormonal balances or external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. The universal biological definition of sex is gamete size.
If you and the signers of this letter do not agree on these points, then the Tri-societies were wrong to speak in our names and claim that there is a scientific consensus without even conducting a survey of society members to see if such a consensus exists. Distorting reality to comply with ideology and using a misleading claim of consensus to give a veneer of scientific authority to your statement does more harm than just misrepresenting our views: it also weakens public trust in science, which has declined rapidly in the last few years. Because of this, scientific societies should stay away from politics as much as possible, except for political issues that directly affect the mission of the society.
Respectfully,
Daniel A. Barbash, Professor, Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University
Alexander T. Baugh, Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Swarthmore College
Kendall Clements, Professor, School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland
Mark Collard, Chair in Human Evolutionary Studies, Simon Fraser University
Jerry Coyne, Professor Emeritus, Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago
David Curtis, Honorary Professor, Genetics Institute, University College London UK
Richard Dawkins, Emeritus Professor, University of Oxford
Gilly Denham, SSE member, Williams College
Joan Edwards, Samuel Fessenden Clarke Professor of Biology, Williams College
Brian Gill, retired natural history curator from Auckland Museum, New Zealand
Emma Hilton, Developmental Biology, University of Manchester, U.K.
Carole Kennedy Hooven, Senior Fellow, AEI; Affiliate, Harvard Psychology.
Edward Lee, SSE member, Williams College
Luana S. Maroja, Professor of Biology, Williams College
Gregory C. Mayer, Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Parkside
Axel Meyer, Lehrstuhl für Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie, University of Konstanz
Marcella McClure retired from Montana State University
Nicholas J. Matzke, Senior Lecturer, School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland
Anthony M. Poole, Professor, School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland
Philip Ward, Professor of Entomology, University of California Davis
Best of luck to you and the others in the ongoing battle against stupidity. Stupid is hard to fix.
I’m no scientist, but I can tell a male from a female. A statement my dad used to say kind of sums it up: If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
Was your dad a golfer? A common retort to “If I had not hit my ball in the water, I would have made par on that hole” is “And if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle.” Golf is a friendly game but with low tolerance for hypothetical nonsense.
Also: great letter.
He was, and thanks for adding the “ball in the water” comment – I like that!
Did you hear about that guy Ted? Great golfer, but really dumb. Yesterday he fell off the ball washer…
Ouch!
Yes, it is very disappointing that some people feel they must bow down to an ideology . It is not “ kind” to lie.
As a former biology teacher, I find it incredible that people deny the truth of the binary of sex. How can they accept the false narrative of many genders , especially since gender and sex are two different things The delusion of many is hard to fathom.
Especially, those who should know better!
That President Trump had to declare the obvious tells us a lot about the ignorance of many. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,indeed!
Would I be able to sign.?
I have said this before and I will say it again. Gender Woo is the holiest of hollies. Note that NPR and the Olympics have “discouraged” the dreaded “B” word. Have others? Almost certainly.
I find it strange that such a seemingly common sense idea is so controversial.
For most of my life it wasn’t even a topic of discussion (I’m not a biologist, I should add).
If someone had told me fifty years ago that the phrase “pregnant people” would some day be in use, I wouldn’t have believed it.
Very good letter. Not a biologist or even biologist-adjacent or I’d love to sign it. Does being a biologist-ally count? 🙂
What part of the EO was misleading? I just read it again and it seems pretty clear.
I understand the idea of wanting to start with some common ground, a common framework, but I see no need to agree on the idea that the EO was misleading as a basis to begin this disagreement.
Sorry, but we would like people doing biology. Biologist allies are of course good to have, but we want biologists to sign because of their expertise.
I would try for Colin Wright, Emma Hilton, and Carole Hooven. I think they are Biologists. I would offer myself, but my degree is in the wrong field (Organic Chemistry). I regard OC as related to Biology, not Biology.
Emma Hilton and Carole Hooven are on the list of signatories.
Very good, and we can look forward to more signatures.
There is also Project Nettie, which is similar. A commenter put me onto that from this sight (sorry, I’d forgotten who). I don’t know if its still actively collecting signatures, but here it is: https://projectnettie.substack.com/p/project-nettie-scientists-and-academics
The reason for its name is très approprié.
Thank you very much for this link, Mark!
Very heartening to see scientists publicly standing up for the truth in the face of fashionable nonsense – as they are supposed to !
Once the biological realities are firmly established, others can deep-six the ever changing nebulous foo-foo of “gender identity” and expose gender ideology as the complete nonsense that it is. 👍
The letter allows the correct inference that disorders of sexual development (“phenotypic variations”) are embryological disorders, not blended “intersex” conditions, and so do not violate the dichotomous sex binary. Not even a person with ovotestis who made gametes of both sizes — none does — would produce spectral gametes, and of course in all species that are normally hermaphroditic an individual produces only distinct sperm and eggs.
It’s quite remarkable that the points in the letter had to be said (very well) and are at all controversial. But medicine has also gone seriously off the rails on this, both scientifically and ethically, so no pot calling the kettle black from me. Our sin has been to accept that OK, sex is binary if you biologists insist but we still believe that someone can have a gender that doesn’t match his sex, that it is medically necessary to castrate a patient and mutilate his appearance to make it “match”, …and to persecute dissident doctors and psychologists as transphobic human rights violators.
I am not sure if you are correct about this. It is very rare, but the medical literature does include cases of self-fertilization in human. Apparently, the persons in question are chimeras. See “Self-fertilization in human: having a male embryo without a father” (PubMed).
Did you read the paper? It simply describes how it COULD happen, not that it DID happen. There is in fact no such case.
Would it be possible for you to include my name? It may not amount to much but would at least add one country to the list.
Yes, we will do that, but the procedure is given in the last post of the day. But DO NOT register your name that way; I will include it manually.
Thanks!
I did sign, hope, I did it correct. Don’t know if I will be seen somewhere, but would have no problem with it. I am Biologist (PhD), but working as a Journalist for a big german daily newspaper. Dr. Markus C. Schulte von Drach
It is on the list.
There are 2 aspects to the argument, gender vs sex. The archaeologist in me says there’s 2 sexes. The anthropologist says otherwise. Gender is different to a baby’s sex at birth.
What is gender?
Exactly. Gender is no more real than soul.
I’m not a biologist, but an exercise physiologist. Nonetheless I support you letter.
Joe Weir
Univ of Kansas
The only spectrum of sexes is the human beliefs about the spectrum of sexes. No animals or plants are confused by the issue – only people.