Are you saying we have no evidence on the effects of hormones in the womb on development? I suspect we do have good evidence from other animals.

What? Stop pretending that I said something totally different to what I said. I write very clearly.

I pointed out that in the case of the "prenatal androgen exposure" in these theories & experiments, the "hormones in the womb" come from the embryo/fetus itself. They don't come from the womb and/or the mother in some magical, unpredictable & utterly mysterious process whereby out of the blue androgens from who knows where start raining down on fetuses.

I never said there's no evidence of the effects of hormones on development - in the womb or outside it. Nor would I say such a thing. Hormones in early development have lots of effects, just as they do later in life. Female people are very familiar with the impact of hormones. Coz our sex hormones vary over the course of each monthly menstrual cycle and our lifetimes in ways & to an extent that males' sex hormones do not. Having gone through pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding & menopause, I know all about hormones & their effects firsthand.

What I am saying & you are ignoring is that a great deal could be learned about effects of androgens and other sex hormones on human development by testing the hormones levels of newborns during the puberty of infancy, then following kids as they grow up to see if there is any connection between androgens & estrogen levels in the first months of life and how people turn out later on as they go through childhood, adolescence and adulthood.

In case you aren't familiar with it, the puberty of infancy is a 5-month long period that starts about 4 weeks after birth when human male babies have testosterone levels as high as in the puberty of adolescence, and when baby girls' estrogen levels also are very high (though not as high as the T in male babies).

Logically, there's reason to think that the hormones & hormone levels produced by neonates during the puberty of infancy would probably be consistent with, or at least would shed light on, the hormones & hormone levels that the same children produced in the preceding months when they were still in the womb.

But even if this weren't the case, the fact is that the puberty of infancy presents an ideal situation when neonatal sex hormones are extremely high & they can be easily ascertained with 100% accuracy via simple blood tests that can be performed with no ethical issues. (Testing the hormone levels of fetuses would put their lives at risk, but doing blood draws on newborns does not.) It would be very easy to do these tests & follow kids to see if there's a connection between the kind & level of sex hormones that infants produce & are "exposed to" in the first 6 months of life and the characteristics and behaviors they develop as they grow up & go through life, including digit ratios, sexual orientation, preference for certain sex positions/roles, conformity or lack of to masculine & feminine sex stereotypes, etc.

But no one is doing this research. In fact, no one is even suggesting it. Coz that would take real work and might yield results that don't fit with the speculative ideas of the gender theorists & others from the "soft sciences" & humanities where these sorts of hypotheses tend to come from & where they gain so much credence. It seems to me that "scholars" who propose and advance ideas about cross-sex "gender identities," homosexuality "gender nonconformity," digit ratios, preferences for certain kinds of sex acts/positions and so on all being caused by "hormone washes" and "androgen exposure" in the womb would rather just speculate instead of finding out some actual verifiable facts.