🧵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:
whitehouse.gov/presidential-…
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."
mashable.com/article/trump-e…
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."