Democrats won’t like this at all.
CNN’s hosts have been critical of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent guidance on the biological differences between men and women, claiming that the new definitions are stricter than what “most scientists” use.
The HHS issued the new guidance on Wednesday, following the framework of President Donald Trump’s executive order from last month titled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The guidance emphasizes a return to a scientific understanding of sex based on biological distinctions. It asserts that there are only two sexes—male and female—and will implement policies acknowledging that men and women are biologically distinct.
The new guidance defines a male as someone with a reproductive system capable of producing sperm and a female as someone with a reproductive system that produces eggs (ova). HHS Secretary Kennedy Jr. and the administration have made it clear that they are rejecting the confusing gender ideologies that have proliferated in recent years, advocating for clear, science-based definitions of sex.
CNN’s Brianna Keilar pushed back against the HHS’s stance, claiming that “most scientists” use less restrictive definitions. This claim is left unsupported by evidence, but it reflects the network’s broader critique of the administration’s push to reaffirm biological truth.
Co-host Boris Sanchez chimed in, linking the guidance directly to Trump’s executive order, highlighting that it defines terms like “sex,” “female,” “woman,” “male,” and “man” in a way that aligns with biological realities. CNN health reporter Jacqueline Howard, echoing these criticisms, argued that the new guidance could exclude people who are intersex or transgender from certain medical research.
Critics, she claimed, are concerned that by adhering to these biological definitions, the government could fail to account for individuals whose characteristics don’t fit the traditional male or female categories. These critics warn that the new definitions could lead to a lack of research data for intersex or transgender individuals, which might further marginalize these communities.
However, defenders of the new guidance argue that scientific clarity is needed in governmental policies, and that gender ideologies are muddying important biological facts. Supporters contend that scientific accuracy should take precedence over politically motivated attempts to blur the lines between sex and gender. Critics’ concerns about research data should be addressed within the context of maintaining the integrity of biological truth in government policy.