Richard Dawkin's new book warns against denial of scientific truth by ‘astonishingly vicious’ trans activists and other threats on science

Um, you claimed I said a person can't know 'their (own) chromosomes which isn't the same as we can't know for sure another persons chromosomes.

In any case that's irrelevant to the initial point of:

"rather ‘Sex’ is often semantically flattened into a binary model, for which individuals are classified as either ‘female’ or ‘male.’ A more expansive definition of sex is bimodal—with most individuals falling within one of two peaks of a trait distribution. However, even a bimodal model is an oversimplification, since ‘sex’ comprises multiple traits, with variable distributions. Individuals may possess different combinations of chromosome type, gamete size, hormone level, morphology, and social roles, which do not always align in female- and male-specific ways or persist across an organism’s lifespan. Reliance on strict binary categories of sex fails to accurately capture the diverse and nuanced nature of sex."

Not sure if the bit about ‘persisting across an organisms lifespan’ was hinting that he doesn’t think post menopausal women are still human females or at clownfish…
…either way, I very much doubt Dawkins would agree it was relevant to why transwomen aren’t women.
Try reading what he said, he’s pretty clear on the overriding importance of anisogamy

Richard Dawkins: ‘Trans women are women’ slogan is scientifically false
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/54f726a91a9ec89b

“Howseitgoin · 31/08/2025 15:31

The single thing that unites every woman throughout time is her female body.

False. Diversity exists in morphology, chromosomes & hormones not to mention function.
Yes diversity in biology is 'real'.

Howseitgoin · 03/09/2025 11:10

Firstly whether you can accurately detect sex (& you can't) isn't the point. The point is other cues are used & they aren't chromosomes, ovaries or genitals.
Secondly, it's a spectacular ignorance of biological variation. Yes biological variation is 'real' its why intersex people exist as well as ambiguity in morphology. Whilst most people's morphology will reflect their sex, exceptions exist as they do in gendered psychological traits.
Thirdly, the time is upon us where puberty blockers hormones & surgery will render natural puberty null & void. How will you tell then?

“Howseitgoin · 02/09/2025 07:09

Ultimately what a woman is defined by is a personal subjective opinion as to what associations an individual more identifies with
Doesn't work. Is discriminatory against women (the real meaning of the word 'women', the one everybody understands, not the neo nonsense of the trans ideology). Is a supremely selfish definition that serves only the purposes of trans ideologues.

“You're confused because you don't recognise your own culpability in gender identification because you are relying on your theoretical definition. But you, just like everyone else would assume sex based on stereotypical/archetypal associations IN PRACTICE because you rarely know another persons chromosomes or full morphology for sure. Trans people don't make the rules on social sex categorisation, wider society does. Wider society has decided by their actions that female sex distinctions aren't just limited to secondary sexual characteristics or chromosomes but also include behaviour.”

My bold on your last post. You also posted a link to some weird paper that you thought debunked the fact Caster Semenya is a man.

Like I said, do you have anything new to say? It’s all so trite and tiresome otherwise.

Yes, yes and no it's not.

What does this mean? Why have you included "social roles" alongside biological traits as though you think certain social roles should somehow be linked to a person's sex.

For someone critical of sexism in others you seem very sexist.

I've never said any such thing! 😂

Link the quote please.

You’ve said people don’t know their chromosomes so no one can be sure. Same old tropes. Nothing new to this thread?

Funny (peculiar) that we seem to be back in 2024 being told once more about how some bloke isn’t a friend to women 🥱

'Evolutionary biologist knows the importance of biological sex' isn't much of a headline, but I'll give it a read. I enjoyed his earlier books.

I agree with this whole post

Yes, it's weird.

I've always thought he was a bit of a twit and am happy to make fun of him point it out when he says stupid things about philosophy.

But the idea that this somehow means he is wrong about everything is dumb.

So you have no evidence of what you claimed I said about the binary nature of sex. Thank you.

The point is he's not the feminist's 'friend' he's attempting to be.

Might of been 12 years ago but he was a grown elderly man not a child at the time with a massive influence/following particularly of men & never recanted those smears.

Pick a thread you’re on. You’re always posting non-sequitur arguments. “So and so said this, that person is bad somehow, ergo sex is changeable.” Do you have anything original?

Do you have any evidence that ‘sex’ doesn't comply of multiple traits, with variable distributions. Or that Individuals may possess different combinations of chromosome type, gamete size, hormone level, morphology, and social roles, which do not always align in female- and male-specific ways or persist across an organism’s lifespan?

This stuff is thoroughly uncontroversial in science.

I really am bemused by this grievance mindset. I can't stand Richard Dawkins, and disagree with a lot of what he says.
But I wouldn't dream of bringing up a few tweets from 12 years ago that annoyed me.
It doesn't mean I can't read what he says today with an open mind. If he writes something stupid I'll say so then.

The book includes contributions from Carole Hooven and Alice Sullivan. It will be interesting. In fact I'll have to get my library to order a copy.

Evidence I have spoken about the binary nature of sex before.

Evidence for what?

Of course you haven't. You just keep trying to add "personality traits" to the binary.

I really don’t think it’s as clever as you think it is to try to put all those words into his mouth.😂

Evidence?

"So he does have the reflex response anyone of us as feminists have. He has the reflex of someone looking for evidence based facts to ask the question what if?
So an educated man is a sexist. Who would have thought it."

Oh my.
'Educated men' are only too happy to bang on about institutional 'due process' but somehow Dawkins 'forgets' about this when it comes to women's claims about sexual violence. The twitter moral failure police seems to be enough…

The great paradox about RD is that he's the last person to apply 'the scientific method' when convenient in smearing Muslims, Women, Christians etc…

Yes, you’re always the one going with non-sequitur arguments, I’m sure it’s you. Do you have an original discussion point about the facts today?

Actually Ive never spoken about sex being or not being binary before so you must have me confused with someone else.