There will be a few posts on the definition of sex today, as everything “dropped”—as the kids say—at the same time.
First, on January 20, the Trump administration issued an executive order, “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government”—an attempt to efface gender ideology from the government and ensure that people’s biological sex appeared on government documents like passports. It defined “sex”, “male”, “female”, “men”, “women”, “boys” and “girls” in standard ways that were also to be used, per the specifications, in all government documents. Gender ideology was to be eliminated from government-funded projects like grants, sex was characterized as “binary,” and the order specified things like this:
Agencies shall effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.
It also used the gametic definition of sex:
“Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
“Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.
. . . and specified standardized terminology:
“Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.
“Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.
Of course many people were angered by this, some assuming—with some justification—hat this was more than just a clarification of how sex was to be used in by government, but also an attack on those who considered themselves to not be of male or female gender, or on transsexual people. I recognize this construal and see that it comes from how people have seen Trump previously comment on sex and gender.
Nevertheless, I think the document itself is pretty much okay, though I can’t see why you can’t have both natal sex and some indication of gender on government documents, although that would be nearly impossible as there are a gazillion genders, and a single character wouldn’t say much. I do appreciate the attempt to protect “women’s spaces.”
Now, in an attempt to further clarify how biological sex is defined, and deal with some of the caveats and misconceptions about it, the Department of Health and Human Services (now headed by RFK Jr., oy), has issued another short document, which you can access below by clicking on the headline or by going here.
I’ll reproduce the entire text, indented, below the header:
Background
President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14168 on January 20, 2025, entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which directs the Department of Health and Human Service (the Department) to promulgate clear guidance to the U.S. Government, external partners, and the public, expanding on the sex-based definitions set forth in the Executive Order.
Defining Sex
There are only two sexes, female and male, because there are only two types of gametes. An individual human is either female or male based on whether the person is of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova) or sperm.
The sex of a human, female or male, is determined genetically at conception (fertilization), and is observable before birth. Having the biological function to produce eggs or sperm does not require that eggs or sperm are ever produced. Some females or males may not or may no longer produce eggs or sperm due to factors such as age, congenital disorders or other developmental conditions, injury, or medical conditions that cause infertility.
A person’s sex is unchangeable and determined by objective biology. The use of hormones or surgical interventions do not change a person’s sex because such actions do not change the type of gamete that the person’s reproductive system has the biological function to produce. Rare disorders of sexual development do not constitute a third sex because these disorders do not lead to the production of a third gamete. That is, the reproductive system of a person with such a disorder does not produce gametes other than eggs or sperm.
The Department has long recognized that the biological differences between females and males require sex-specific practices in medicine and research to ensure optimal health outcomes and rigorous research, including by considering sex as a biological variable.
Recognizing the immutable and biological nature of sex is essential to ensure the protection of women’s health, safety, private spaces, sports, and opportunities. Restoring biological truth to the Federal government is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself. Accordingly, the Department promulgates the following definitions:
Definitions
Sex is a person’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.
Female is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova).
Male is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm.
Woman is an adult human female. Girl is a minor human female.
Man is an adult human male.
Boy is a minor human male.
Mother is a female parent.
Father is a male parent.
I really cannot find anything biologically wrong with this short document, regardless of what you think its motivations are. And it does provide a standardized terminology while also correcting some misconceptions about sex (a common but ludicrous one is that if you have the reproductive apparatus of, say, a woman, but cannot produce gametes—as in the case of a sterile or postmenopausal woman—you are not a woman). It also notes, correctly, that “Rare disorders of sexual development do not constitute a third sex because these disorders do not lead to the production of a third gamete. That is, the reproductive system of a person with such a disorder does not produce gametes other than eggs or sperm.” (Many prefer to say “differences of sexual development” rather than “disorders of sex development” because the former sounds less perjorative. I am fine with “differences.”)
It appears that there was some salubrious biological expertise that went into the confection of this document. As I said, I can’t find anything wrong with it, and it comports pretty well with what I see as the consensus of biologists and with how terminology is used in the literature (see another post by Richard Dawkins to come today). But remember that administrations come and go, and were a semi-progressive Democrat like Biden to be elected again, this document would be very different.
Finally, I cannot resist a bit of snark. First note that the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the American Society of Naturalists (ASN), and the Society of Systematic Biologists issued a declaration addressed to President Trump and all the members of Congress (declaration archived here), a statement deliberately aimed at contradicting the first Executive Order by declaring that sex is not binary but a spectrum—in all species! I and others have pointed out the fallacies and misrepresentations in this “tri-societies” letter (see my posts here, here, and here); it almost seems that some of Societies’ misrepresentations of biology were based not on science but on ideology, and were deliberate.
How embarrassing is it, given the situation, that the SSE, the AASN, and the SSB got their biology wrong while the Trump administration got it right! But that’s what happens when scientific societies get ideologically captured.
Undoubtedly hard to monitor/enforce, but I would have preferred some definitions that might have better accommodated the distinction between sex (male, female?) and gender (man, woman?). Co-opting all such terms, including father and mother, to sex seems like a deliberate attempt to preclude the possibility of a trans person using a term that matches their gender role in society. A trans man cannot be a father? A child cannot refer to their trans mother as mother? Any event designated as woman/mother only excludes trans woman even when there is no obvious reason for rejection (no privacy or threat issue)? Even if limited to “government” use, seems could apply to domains like school, community activities, and anything that even tangentially involves government at any level, perhaps depending on the whim of organizers. As Jerry said there may be “some justification” for concerns related to gender. I’ve used trans examples above, but could just as readily apply to sexual orientation, and perhaps even more so. Two male parents cannot designate one to act as “mother” if circumstances required?
Why would the giovernment need to get involved with or make laws about notions of “gender” (as opposed to sex)? Can’t the government just stay out it?
There are no laws specifying how a child must refer to a parent; they can call their father their “great-grandmother” if they so wish.
If you’re suggesting that the government should pass laws saying that — in some situations — a trans person could mandate that they must be referred to in particular ways, then, no, again the government should just stay out of this.
Right. The government should be about as interested in your “gender” as they are in your haircut.
Which is to say, free citizens can do whatever they want. And employers can decide whether people with blue hair are right for the image they want to present.
But if you want to join the marines, or you are locked up in prison, then you lose such freedoms of self-expression. If getting a buzz-cut (and being called “sir”) is a deal-breaker, then you aren’t cut out for military employment.
The government definition makes sense. The purpose of identification by the government is to clearly identify the individual in terms of certain fixed characteristics, not the image they choose to project.
Sometimes even a loathsome opposition gets something right. Democrats who are uncomfortable with this biologically reasonable definition of (sex) terms might remind themselves that a first result of Operation Warp Speed: mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 to greatly reduce the likelihood of bad outcomes from COVID-19 disease — was a major success and could have been a signature accomplishment of the Trump administration.
Thought experiment: clinical trial results released before the 2020 election — Trump wins handily — how many people would then have refused the “Trump vaccine”? I have heard a credible story from a Russian-born virologist of people in Moscow refusing the Sputnik vaccine because of distrust of Putin — with very bad outcomes from COVID-19 (death, disability).
It’s a shame that “progressive” has become a pejorative term. It’s a crying shame that polarization and tribalism seems to require heretofore reasonable people to adopt intellectually indefensible and self-defeating positions.
“Rare disorders of sexual development do not constitute a third sex because these disorders do not lead to the production of a third gamete.”
It sounds like RFK got a grown-up to help him with his homework. The ironies of sober, scientific language coming from the Trump Administration are head-exploding.
And some of the emissions from leading biological societies and journal op-eds are head-imploding. A sad situation.
This a very clear statement of principles and definitions. I don’t recall ever reading anything this detailed or this clear in my biology texts in high school or college. Perhaps such texts should devote more space to the topic.
Gender and Trans- status are different matters and can be addressed apart from biological sex.
If the government did put a field for gender, or preferred hairstyle, on official identity documents, it would have to be filled in with some value in every case. The applicant couldn’t just leave it blank. If it’s optional, it doesn’t belong on a legal document. Imagine if all passport or driver’s licence applicants had to specify a gender as well as sex. That would instantly out every transgender applicant to every highway cop and every border guard because his sex would no longer, by definition, match his gender. What would the ACLU say about that, I wonder?
Trans activists don’t want even the freedom (much less the obligation) to declare on documents their transness for all the world to see. That’s what selectively visible tattoos are for. What they want is to have their self-identified gender, whatever that is, replace their birth-identified sex. They don’t want to help the world clock them as transwomen. They want officialdom to recognize them legally as women, even if they can’t pass with the rest of society. Having a separate field for gender would expose the ruse.
“I can’t see why you can’t have both natal sex and some indication of gender on government documents”
In what situation what having gender (as distinct from sex) have any function on a government document, especially if it can be re-defined at will to any of hundreds of values. (I don’t think that anyone who would want to have such a gender specification on a government document would be satisfied with just two genders without the ability to change them as often as desired.)
I take it back!
The main purpose I see for listing “Gender” or “Transgender” on an official document would be to indicate when people have modified their sex traits so much that they conceivably pass as the other sex.
A trans-identified female with muscles, beard, and all the other effects of regular testosterone injections might very well look male and draw skeptical scrutiny from an official. A mark somewhere indicating that they’ve deliberately messed around with their appearance would quickly explain the discrepancy.
What’s the purpose of including the clause “at conception” here? Is this biologically necessary, or is this more likely an attempt to get a fetal personhood foot in the door?
Looks like it. But maybe it’s an honest oversight (FSVO “honest”).
On first glance I assumed it was meant as a pointed shot directed against the “sex assigned at birth” nonsense, but there’s been a lot of concern that it’s some back door groundwork being laid for the purpose of outlawing abortion permanently. I don’t know.
Sex and gender are, if I’m not mistaken regarded as separate constructs that usually match up but don’t always?
As a person who was “different” I always feel obliged to respect those who are trans or whatever as it’ll be hypocritical but as a guy into basic biology, I have to respect that as well. Due to my basic understanding of psychology (I got issues upstairs) I naturally understand the basics of trans.
Check out this quotation from the Associated Press. It’s from January 23, but is still quite relevant: https://apnews.com/article/trump-transgender-passports-prisons-eggs-sperm-da1d1d280658a8c85c57cfec2f30cefb
“It [Trump’s executive order] defines the sexes in an unconventional way, based on the reproductive cells — large cells in females or small ones in males.“
Unconventional? Is this stuff even fixable?
As always, I appreciate your posts, Jerry, and thank you regularly, but I am frustrated by your apparent eagerness to embrace the enforced Newspeak of the gender cult and even amplify the belief that there is such a thing as “gender” beyond the collective noun for the sexes. I view entertaining or capitulating to the gender glossary enforcers in much the same way as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens described moderate religious zealots being the ones holding open the gates for the more extreme believers. Either there are two sexes or there are not. Either mammals can change sex or they cannot. Once you accept the evidence, there’s no need to believe or capitulate to any of the other nonsense, especially given the strong evidence that the gender cult is culture-created and culture-bound.
It is possible that you’ve been influenced by the “be kind” argument as your reason for entertaining the idea that gender is more than a collective noun for the sexes but I hasten to point out that being told to say that you believe something otherwise you are a bad person is not a good reason to believe it. I’m sure you’re aware that I learned that from you.
Love your books and ongoing discourse on matters of reality vs ideology.
Thank you
I am chuckling that the “science denier” at HHS knows what sex is, but the esteemed professors who run numerous scientific societies do not.
+1
As I recall Embryogenesis, sex determination is not made at “conception/fertilization,” but rather at a later stage when the SRY “sex determining” gene is expressed. That’s around 41 days after conception.
Nope. Determined genetically at conception. I believe you are talking about when we can first seed differentiation of the gonads.
Clarence Williams has a point.
whyevolutionistrue, which one of the two contradicting definitions of sex are you referring to when saying “Determined genetically at conception”?
Definition 1 (executive order 2025/01/30/2025-02090; “Biological Truth”; “immutable biological reality”): “”Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
Definition 2 (US Department of Health and Human Services press release 202-690-6343; “immutable biological classification”) “Male is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm.”
Both definitions state elsewhere that sex is either male or female.
SRY Gene Mutations
The SRY gene, typically found on the Y chromosome, is crucial for male sex determination. However:
XX males: Some individuals with two X chromosomes can develop as males if the SRY gene is accidentally transferred to an X chromosome during meiosis. This contradicts Definition 1, as these individuals do not belong to the sex that typically produces small reproductive cells (sperm) at conception.
XY females: Mutations in the SRY gene can lead to XY individuals developing as females. This contradicts both definitions, as these individuals have Y chromosomes but do not develop the ability to produce sperm.
RSPO1 Gene Mutations
Mutations in the RSPO1 gene can cause XX individuals to develop as males without the presence of the SRY gene. This challenges both definitions, as these individuals:
Were not of the sperm-producing sex at conception (contradicting Definition 1)
Develop male characteristics without the typical male genetic makeup (contradicting Definition 2)
5-alpha-reductase deficiency
This condition affects XY individuals and results in male internal reproductive organs but female-appearing external genitalia at birth. At puberty, these individuals often develop more male characteristics. This condition challenges both definitions because:
The reproductive system may not fully develop the biological function of producing sperm (contradicting Definition 2)
The individual’s sex characteristics change over time, complicating the notion of sex determined at conception (challenging Definition 1)
Contradictions and Limitations
These examples highlight several contradictions and limitations in the provided definitions:
Binary assumption: Both definitions assume sex is binary (male or female), which doesn’t account for intersex conditions or disorders of sex development.
Timing of determination: Definition 1 focuses on conception, while Definition 2 implies a fully developed reproductive system. This discrepancy doesn’t account for developmental changes or disorders affecting sex characteristics.
Functional vs. genetic criteria: Definition 1 emphasizes genetic factors, while Definition 2 focuses on reproductive function. This leads to conflicting categorizations in cases of genetic mutations affecting sexual development.
Oversimplification: Both definitions oversimplify the complex biological processes involved in sex determination and development, which involve multiple genes, hormones, and environmental factors.
These genetic mutations and the resulting intersex conditions demonstrate that human sex determination is more complex than either definition suggests, involving a spectrum of genetic, hormonal, and anatomical variations that challenge rigid binary classifications.
In conclusion, the #Trump administration DID NOT get it right.
Further reading: Biological sex is not as simple as male or female https://www.sciencenews.org/article/biological-sex-male-female-intersex
The question is whether sex is binary, and you highlight a few disorders of sex determinations that, in sum, make the frequency of intersex individuals no higher than 1/5600. Just because sex determination is complicated does not mean that, for all intents and purposes, sex is binary. Your point that there are DSDs or intersex individuals has already been made on this website. As we said in our letter to the three societies, Trump’s order was a bit misleading, but it was not misleading about the binary nature of sex. You are throwing a lot of sand in people’s eyes. Read Alex Byrne’s book.
And if you’re trying to say that biological sex is a spectrum, you’re just dead wrong.
Read