From the Boston Globe: Carole Hooven explains the binary nature of sex (and other stuff)

February 20, 2025 • 9:40 am

Evolutionary biologist Carole Hooven was bullied out of Harvard’s Department of Human Evolutionary Biology for public statements that were true, compassionate and biologically anodyne. As she explains:

At the end of July 2021, I made my first live TV appearance, on the Fox and Friends show on Fox News. I was invited to comment on an article in The Free Press by Katie Herzog,in which I’d been quoted. She reported that medical school professors were backing away from using clear scientific terms such as male, female, and pregnant woman, largely in response to student complaints. I said I thought this trend was a big mistake.

In the brief segment on Fox, my troubles began when I described how biologists define male and female, and argued that these are invaluable terms that science educators in particular should not relinquish in response to pressure from ideologues. I emphasized that “understanding the facts about biology doesn’t prevent us from treating people with respect.” We can, I said, “respect their gender identities and use their preferred pronouns.”

I also mentioned that educators are increasingly self-censoring, for fear that using the “wrong” language can result in being shunned or even fired.

The ensuing fracas at Harvard, during which Hooven found little support from her colleagues, led to her eventually leaving her department. But she hasn’t lost her cool and, in today’s Boston Globe, explains sex to the layperson, prompted by the Executive Order of Trump discussed in the last post. You can read Carole’s “ideas” post by clicking below or finding it archived here.

This is a great article for not only explaining biological sex to people who are new to the controversy, but also correcting misconceptions about it, like the tri-societies’ claim that sex is defined by some unspecified, multidimensional amalgam of traits like hormones, chromosomes, genitals, and even behavior. (They never tell us how such combining is to be done, nor how many sexes there are in humans and other species.)  But first an excerpt that shows how the media has distorted the sex “controversy,” which shouldn’t even be a controversy:

Ideally, political beliefs would not bias views of scientific reality. But take a look at how the media covered the Trump administration’s new executive order. The Globe: “Trump executive order misstates facts about sex and gender, scientists say.” Time: “Trump’s ‘Biological Truth’ Executive Order Is Not Based in Biology or Truth.” The Guardian: “Most scientists now reject the idea that sex is strictly binary” and “sex is a hell of a lot more complicated than Trump’s executive order would have you believe.” NBC: “The executive order questions [transgender people’s] existence by saying the government would recognize only two unchangeable sexes: female and male.”

As for Fox News: “Trump is returning sanity to the gender conversation.”

Many journalists — and the experts they consult — seem unable to disentangle their politics from analysis of the relevant science. I’m a Democrat, and I have never voted for a Republican. Yet while I might have worded things in Trump’s executive order a little differently, I agree with the way this administration has defined sex.

There are two and only two sexes. Sex is immutable in humans and other mammals, and it is defined by gamete size. (I’ll discuss some of the technicalities shortly.)

I’d love to live in a world in which children in particular felt comfortable expressing themselves as they saw fit, regardless of whether that expression was sex-typical. To promote such a culture, we adults don’t need to pretend that sex is not a biological reality, claim that sex can be changed, or deny the natural differences between boys and girls, men and women. Instead, we should foster an environment that respects individual expression, while also acknowledging biological reality.

Advertisement

AD

Unfortunately, mainstream coverage has elided basic biological facts and misled the public about what sex actually is.

Carole goes on to give the gametic definition of sex, dispelling the idea that biological sex is defined by other traits like hormone levels, genitalia, and chromosomes. These are traits that are associated (imperfectly) with biological sex, but for reasons that Richard Dawkins has engagingly and clearly  explained, are not part of the definition of sex.  Here is Carole’s related take:

The more we understand about the wide variety of characteristics that can be associated with one sex or the other — like genes, genitalia, hormone levels, muscle mass, or even how individuals feel and act — the better able we will be to meet the medical, psychological, and social needs of those with rare variations. But variation in characteristics that are associated with sex does not constitute evidence for additional sexes. Nor does it mean that sex itself is somehow on a spectrum.

What it instead shows is that sex-associated traits do exist on a spectrum.

Two more points from a long piece. First, Carole does seem to differ slightly from Trump on how sex might be shown on official documents:

Sex is written into law for a reason: There are situations in which it might make sense for boys and men not to have all the same rights as girls and women. For instance, perhaps women should have exclusive access to lactation rooms and women’s sports teams. Perhaps it’s reasonable to consider men’s-only spaces such as military quarters or social clubs. Yet the fact that we are born into one of two sexes doesn’t necessarily mean that our sex should always matter or that official documents must always reflect it. (In the United States, the sex marker on passports wasn’t required until 1977.) But constructive discussion about the implications of sex cannot happen if we can’t agree on basic facts and the language to describe them.

I agree with the last sentence, though I can also see reasons to have natal sex on at least some official documents (for medical care, for one reason). But as she said, it needs to be discussed. Do we have it on passports? (I think yes.) Birth certificates? (Yes, too.) Driver’s licenses? (Those are state and not federal documents, and I see no need to add “sex” to them.) But please put your own views in the comments.

At the end, Hooven explains why we scientists, who are in the truth business, have to get the science right before we begin making policy about it.  And she explains that, because we are humans (and Democrats!), we should avoid using the truth to promulgate bigotry and hatred. The truth is the truth, and the rest is commentary—and morality:

What are our options, as scholars and journalists, if we are concerned about science landing in the “wrong hands” and being “weaponized”? Should we refrain from doing the research that would produce such inconvenient facts, or keep them out of the public eye? Produce journalism that only reports that which appears to support a preferred narrative? Shame those who share facts that the “other side” could to use to advance their own agendas?

All of this is going on, and it’s bad for science, bad for trust in our academic and journalistic institutions, and just bad for democracy. Vulnerable people especially deserve honesty, dignity, and compassion. I hope we can agree that the facts of nature are not what provide the justification for treating people with dignity and respect. We should do that in any case.

You don’t need to have a PhD from Harvard to know the truth here, and you shouldn’t need courage to say it. Whether the policies in Trump’s executive order are justifiable is something reasonable people can disagree about. But as for the scientific facts: The order got those right.

If anybody asks you about the sex kerfuffle, refer them to Dawkins’s article linked above and also to this piece by Carole.

35 thoughts on “From the Boston Globe: Carole Hooven explains the binary nature of sex (and other stuff)”

  1. Great links, thanks Jerry. From Carole Hooven, what was new for me was that I hadn’t realized just how badly this was covered in so many mainstream media outlets. The headlines alone were eye-opening.

  2. This is very good. Thanks for the Carole Hooven link. I admire her, and as you wrote: she hasn’t lost her cool

  3. Great article by Carole Hooven. This part seems really important:

    “All of this is going on, and it’s bad for science, bad for trust in our academic and journalistic institutions, and just bad for democracy.”

    My fellow citizens can look around and see what’s wrong with “TWAW” and other fallout from genderism (the fetishists, the strange TikTok activists, the sad depressed autistic girls). Then they look at the academy as represented by most news orgs and scientific societies (looking at you SSE) and they think, “Why should I trust the science when the scientists say things I can see are not true?” This reputational damage will take a long time to repair.

    1. That last bit especially is a major priority for me. I think that its important that every time this Great Debate (and it shouldn’t be a debate!) is brought up, one should add that the sex-is-a-spectrum activists are only eroding public trust in science, and handing far right populists a big ‘ol talking point that wins them elections up and down ballot.

    2. Forgive me, what does “TWAW” stand for?

      Edit: Sorry. Just got it. Trans women are women. The internet really is littered with slang, acronyms and the like and now and then it just scrambles my brain into overload. I do wish people could take the time to spell words out, but I’m old and old fashioned.

        1. Thx Sastra. You beat me to my edit. I saw it again in your post and realized. When I searched it I got “the well armed woman”. Good gawd.

  4. Thanks for posting this, Jerry. I don’t think Carole is saying that no official document should have a sex marker; I think she’s saying that not every official document needs one. I haven’t thought through the issue to the point whether I can agree or not, but for sure birth certificates should have one. Big gametes, little gametes: it’s not that difficult a concept, is it?

    1. David, that’s correct. I’m also on the fence about requiring sex on official documents, with the exception of birth certificates. I agree that sex should be required there. I’m open to hearing arguments from all sides here!

      1. I think sex should be listed on the driver’s license or other official forms of ID in part because of police procedures. It’s easier to find a suspect if you know what sex you’re looking for. It’s also important to report crime statistics accurately.

        However, if someone identifies as transgender a “T” can be be added, also for accuracy.

    3. I personally don’t think that transgender people should be allowed to change their natal sex on their birth certificates, as they now can in many states. Maybe they should be allowed to annotate them, but I think their natal sex should be preserved, especially if they had children. Imagine trying to trace your ancestry or figure out whom a sex-linked genetic disease came from 150 years from now when your great-great-great-grandfather started out a man but became a woman with a different name and his/her birth certificate sex and name were changed to reflect that.

      1. Right. The certificate records one event, a birth. Your emotional life after the event is irrelevant.

        The only reasons to change it would be mistakes. Such as rare intersex conditions which caused the initial inspection to get the wrong sex. And tests indicating that the father was not the one indicated (or indeed the mother, if the hospital really messed up). In all cases this should somehow be clearly marked as “revision 2, correcting … on this date …”.

        1. This has even more immediate ramifications after certain disasters like fiery plane crashes, where identification would be slowed and/or confused when the number of charred penises doesn’t match the number of men on the manifest.

  5. I’m glad this is sorted out. I feel like for a time, allegedly intelligent people have been saying that 2 + 2 = 5, and that wheels should be square. Nice to see that 2 + 2 really equals 4 and that wheels should be round.

  6. Just want to highlight this quote from Carole Hooven:

    “Many journalists — and the experts they consult — seem unable to disentangle their politics from analysis of the relevant science.”

    (So I put it in bold italics. 🙂 )

  7. Good piece, as inferred from your quotations. (I don’t have access to the original.) It’s pathetic that Hooven was hounded out of her position at Harvard. Disgraceful.

      1. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I didn’t see it. Perhaps I was seeing red when I was reminded of how Hooven was hounded out of her job.

        Just finished reading her excellent article. Thank you for calling attention to it. Yes. Sometimes—perhaps rarely—the Trump administration gets something right.

  8. May I suggest a very slight emendation? Instead of “These are traits that are associated (imperfectly) with biological sex…” perhaps (something akin to) “These are traits that are very strongly – even if imperfectly – associated with biological sex…”

    1. I agree. Although the statement “men have penises and women have vaginas” is technically incorrect, from a statistical standpoint, having a penis is so strongly correlated with producing small gametes and having a vagina is so strongly correlated with producing large gametes, that for all practical purposes the statement can be considered true.

    2. One little advance of the ratchet suggested. All embryos (100%) that were able to make a fully formed penis are male by the small-gamete -formation and -conduction definition. You can’t make a penis without complete Wolffian differentiation and that can only be driven by an SRY or “close-enough” gene that will make a testis, which secretes androgens. Not all males are fertile — many who aren’t will never discover it — but we’ve already covered that as no impediment to maleness.

      Not all penis-lackers are female. Nearly all are, of course. But the babies with ambiguous genitalia and those with apparently typical vulva that hide abnormalities within are where the statistics don’t work out to 100% the way they do with penis-havers.

      This is a separate question from X and Y chromosomes which, all agree I think, aren’t part of the definition of sex.

  9. The “sex is a complex spectrum made of myriad intermediates that we won’t define” stance is the result of our extreme political polarization (plus the fear of young, empowered bullies). Democrats have backed themselves into this ridiculous corner because they must now oppose everything that comes from the Trump administration, no matter how reasonable, even if it means stomping all over liberal values, like, say, supporting the sex-based rights and protections for women and girls. Religion arguments aside, what’s the response from the inclusive, BeKind™️ Left when a Muslim girl can’t use her school bathroom because it now allows males in? How many knots must they tie themselves into to justify incarcerated women being locked in cells with violent males? They’ve left no room for reason and honest discourse and show no sign of retreat. The support for this position by “The Experts” does the party serious harm. The three societies may have thought that their political activism disguised as expertise was helpful but what the Dems need is a way to walk at least some of their nonsense back, not a shove pushing them farther from evidence and fact.

  10. I emphasized that “understanding the facts about biology doesn’t prevent us from treating people with respect.” We can, I said, “respect their gender identities and use their preferred pronouns.”

    This, surprisingly, is probably the part that triggers the outrage from trans activists. Note that the framework she’s using (sex is real and binary) requires that giving respect involves accommodating those who identify as transgender. We can choose to use the pronouns they “prefer.” We can make allowances. We can bend the rules when it’s reasonable to do so. Sure, we’ll treat you as if you were a woman — in many or even most situations.

    But the activists have framed this as a civil rights issue. They don’t prefer their pronouns; they merit them. TWAW; TMAM. Full stop.

    The language of benevolent respect must make way for the language of inalienable rights — which is why the sex binary has to go. It’s too easy for people to point out that they’re still male or female.

  11. I can’t twist my brain sufficiently to tie this to the gamete discussion, but how do victims of crimes identify their perpetrator/s? Isn’t sex the primary identifier? That’s based on appearance, but what does this say about not putting a person’s sex on their driver’s license — the one document most people carry. Where I get all screwed up is there’s biological sex at birth (natal, whatever), there’s what the person calls themselves, there’s the fickle “gender fluid” folks who refuse to be classified… What a stupid mess. I saw what I thought was a girl on Jeopardy the other day who I later decided must be a guy who then was referred to by the host as “she”. Ok. Not so important on a game show. In the big, bad world where people do awful things to one another, sex is critical. The men in womens’ prisons comes up here all the time. Somehow, I think the driver’s license ties into this. Help! I can’t articulate this. As with all this trans men/trans women talk, I feel like a toddler trying to jam a square block into a round hole.

    1. I would ask police officers whether they find identifying information on a driver’s license useful, be it sex, weight, hair color, eye color, etc. My father was a cop when I was a boy. He would routinely respond to calls like: Suspect is a white male, twenties, short dark hair, heavy build, wearing . . .. Today, some people want the race description dropped off; others would report that the police should be looking for a “woman;” I imagine the fat positive folks would be angered at the “heavy” emphasis. What matters to them is “my” identity, or not calling attention to certain demographics, rather than the practical issue of how one might quickly identify and detain a criminal suspect.

    1. Opinion polls in a repressive environment (or immediately after removing it but without guarantees that it won’t return) are unreliable.
      Otherwise, indeed, many youths have drunk the Kool-aid.

  13. Carole is a gem. I loved her book and follow her closely.

    With passports the very point of them is to facilitate travel. So other countries’ requirements come into it. Countries won’t accept foreign citizens if their passports are too forgeable for instance, or their gvts aren’t recognized. Millions of foreigners are in this unenviable situation. (consider Afghans as one easy eg).

    Similarly it is not unreasonable for foreign governments to need to get a read on the sex of foreign arrivals. MOST of the world isn’t cool with our idiot gender games in the anglosphere.

    To NOT have gender on US passports – or for it be up for some kind of debate – will effect the use and function of our passports in other countries.

    D.A.
    NYC

    1. It is considerate and bipartisan of the left to pitch in and help with the Republican destruction of American credibility though, don’t you think?

Comments are closed.