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

Ive seen the Netflix show & that's false.

Ageism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia - quite the collection of repellent behaviours isn't it?

Most people would choose to not knowingly bring a child with a disability into the world. It is why amniocentesis and other testing exists.

Yup, Greer doesn't believe trans women are the same as CIS women in terms of "life experience" but not all women's life experiences are the same & some trans women experiences are similar to CIS women so it's not exactly one of her most rigorous analyses. She was getting on at that stage & admitted to a nursing home for dementia not long after.

Sex is binary. Male, or female. No Biologist well ever deny this.

Thank you Howseitgoin [I like your username, it makes me want to reply 'Grand thanks, and how's yourself?😁] for this from an article you quote

• Genetic sex
• Morphological sex, which includes reproductive organs, external genitalia, gametes and secondary morphological sexual characteristics (sometimes these and genetic sex are referred to collectively as biological sex, but this is problematic for reasons I will go over)
• Sexual orientation (sexual attraction)
• Gender identity (how one understands and feels about their own gender)
• Gender expression (how one expresses their gender to the world)

It is quite a useful 'Naming of Parts' for discussions around sex and gender.
It's not perfect - 'Gender identity' and 'gender expression' are both defined in terms of 'gender', which is not defined, so it's circular and not very helpful.

But overall it is still quite useful, in that 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are both defined as feelings, not facts, one being an 'understanding' and the other an 'expression'.

This separation between observable, verifiable facts, and some people's feelings about those facts, is crucial. Feelings, though important, are individual and varied, and can sometimes be totally irrational, or limited to small sections of the population.

For instance, a tiny 0.5% of the population of the UK - that's about quarter of a million people out of over 45 million people - reported on the Census form that the gender they identify with is not the same as their sex as registered at birth. That's an expression of a feeling about their biological sex, whereas their sex as registered at birth is based on observable and verifiable facts, and can be determined by more detailed examination if simple observation is unclear.

So we know how this very small number of people feel about their biological sex. That's very interesting to them and those around them, but there's no justification for using their feelings as a basis for profound legislative or social change.

Trans is an identity in person's head. There is no biological part of it.
Intersex are still either male or female. No biological variation there either.

Because both these categories are products of biological variation in sex traits.

All caps doesn't qualify as an explanation of why there's a conflation.

How genes influence behaviour? If you really want me to….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics

Dawkins is a world class scientist so he knows only too well no one is suggesting reproductive categories don't exist 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.

In other words, the guy knows better but is looking for pay back after the left hung him out to dry.

From a years old article in 'Vice' a now defunct site.
'Vice News controversy encompasses a range of issues, most notably widespread allegations of a toxic, sexist "boys' club" culture leading to multiple sexual harassment settlements within Vice Media. Further controversies include accusations of biased reporting and censorship related to Saudi Arabian government funding, the use of an offending editor in a Khmer Rouge documentary, and a general struggle to maintain profitability and a sustainable business model, culminating in Vice Media filing for bankruptcy protection in 2023.'
And you've stored it away, a bit creepy. Are you friends with the author?

Is this the same guy who said foetuses with Downs should be aborted and their parents start again?
I have very low regard for anything he says.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/richard-dawkins-downs-syndrome-disability-b1848956.html

I'm saying that anti trans positions are politically expedient/'cleansing'. IE I'm 'questioning' his motives.

And I'm also questioning the motives of those that white wash rape apologists & bigots for their own political expediency.

Yup, 'How To 'Clean Up' My Legacy' By Richard Dawkins

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-atheist-movement-needs-to-disown-richard-dawkins-999/

Damned for association.

I cant believe yet again a thread is being dumbed down to same old splitism arguements

Let alone the facile, infantile suggestion that in creat a thread that acknowledges a fact, ie a book has been published which includes a statement about the reality of science.

Sometimes I wonder if there are any real living human beings posting on FWR or just 2 opposing chat bots that churn out the usual cliches.

Many campaigns, including for instance equal rights for women, abortion rights were won by those with many political differences who recognised they did share a common cause and it would help that cause to be won, if a broad based coalition worked together to bring it about.

Dawkins is one Author of the 39(?) who contribute to the book.

Most of whom were notable friends of Epstein ( including the editor who put the book together, or have well know history of sexual assault, or racism when you actually look into their backgrounds.

But hey sure, creepy men to predate on their students is totally what feminism is all about (/s)

I wonder if Dawkins is on the Epstein List as well ?