Interesting. Do we know how "badly chewed up" and whether Hoodless truly "could not" have made that determination, or whether he may have simply chosen another means / way of expressing his opinion based on direct observation and his experience as a medical doctor? No doubt half a pelvis was compromising, granted.
He had enough knowledge to provide measurements which latter-day experts found reliable enough, why would we be so willing to dismiss his first-hand judgment as to sex?
With all due respect, if we give credence to any of Hoodless's claims (measurements), perhaps we should be careful about accepting later alternate presumptions, no matter how expert, as to sex. And, no matter how expert, they did not have direct access to the bones - Hoodless did. That means we have some well-educated speculation, but until and unless the bones are found, we can't know.
It is notable, true, that Hoodless also drew other conclusions that seem at odds with our latter-day experts. But, if we find him suspect, how reliable can we take any of his report to be? Are we choosing correctly as to what parts are reliable, and which are not?
The prospect of the lost bones being Earhart's for certain seems to remain an interesting conundrum. So far Hoodless remains the only 'expert' to have given much detail from a direct examination.