Leading journal accused of abandoning science over ‘social justice agenda’

Trying to run from you Butler sister?

Errr you just contradicted your own argument. Do you want to reroll on a comprehension check?

How to tell everybody you don't understand DSD's without telling them.

The presence of different sex chromosomes can affect the development and function of the gonads. For instance, XXY individuals may have smaller testes that produce fewer sperm. In some cases, individuals may have both ovarian and testicular tissue, but will produce one type of gamete or the other.

Relative to Christianity yes. Obviously secularism is preferable to anything but I’d rather live under an Islamic theocracy than a Christian one.

Nobody has "different gamete sizes," you monumentally dishonest idiot.

But Butler believes men can be women. Have you read her work? You both have the same writing styles so I think you’ll like it.

Lol, are you seriously suggesting that there aren't within the reproductive system multiple traits, with variable distributions? IE 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?

Of course RD correctly assumed gender criticals were either too stupid or too confronted to understand anything beyond oversimplifications & ran with it.
Gotta hand it to him, he knows a useful idiot when he sees one…

You realise both Butler & Gender criticals have more in common than you think like gender is a social construct. Oh wait….😂

The ignorance about feminism by so called 'feminists' never disappoints …

Maaaate. Are you trying to accuse feminists of feminist if wrong? As a man? Mate. No, just no. I know you’re upset women here won’t obey you and believe men can be women but you’re making yourself look a bit dull now. You’ll be quoting Butler at us next.

You don't get to exploit the mantle of feminism others built & then shit on it. That you & your hypocritical fellow travellers personally don't care isn't lost on rational people….

Based on Reddit…hmmmm indeed. I think you may have proved Krylov’s point. Did you mean to?
What do you think of her piece I linked to?

'Unpopular' conclusions from research = "abandoning science in favour of a “social justice agenda”? Hmmm:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-81567-9

A top journal publisher has been accused of abandoning science in favour of a “social justice agenda”.

Nature, which produces several leading science journals, has faced criticism over its position on equality, diversity and inclusion from leading scientists.

Prof Anna Krylov, a professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California, shared an open letter online encouraging fellow scientists to boycott Nature until it “recommits to scientific excellence”.

She said: “The Nature group has abandoned its mission in favour of advancing a social justice agenda.”

She accused it of trying to play identity politics and promote specific demographics instead of focusing on science, which is supposed to be “guided by a commitment to finding objective truth”.

The letter was backed by Prof Richard Dawkins, an expert in evolutionary biology, who said on X: “Nature used to be the world’s most prestigious science journal. Now it’s one of many accused of favouring authors because of their identity group rather than the excellence and importance of their science.”

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/26/bbc-allows-work-from-home-if-worried-about-trans-toilet/

And at https://archive.is/q5JlX

Thanks for this. A very interesting article. And a salutary reminder that "cancel culture" is not a recent invention, merely a new name for a very old practice.

You say “considering the damage Christianity has done to women in the West far exceeds that of Islam, which as I understand it is relatively progressive on women’s rights for an Abrahamic based faith”
Now I know you are trolling.

I had a look on google scholar to see what sort of work Prof Anna Krylov does … QM software … but found this which illuminates why she is so concerned about Nature policy. (Published by the American Chemical Society, no less)

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01475

I'm agnostic, but this is just plain wrong. What Islamic society is even close to being a leader in women's rights? Compare every current Islamic theocracy with every Christian one and it's pretty clear which group averages to be better overall for women (and children). And don't give outliers or historical comparisons like saying being a Muslim woman in 2025 Istanbul is better than being a Jewish woman during the Spanish Inquisition.

I’m not surprised to see accusations of Islamophobia laid at the feet of Richard Dawkins, hasn’t he recently gone on some sort of crusade defending Christianity all of a sudden? A strange angle if true, considering the damage Christianity has done to women in the west far exceeds that of Islam, which as I understand it is relatively progressive on women’s rights for an Abrahamic based faith.

While gender criticals promote RD as a defender of 'women's rights' without scrutiny they will have to wear the fall out. You can't have it both ways.

Given RD's 'record' I suspect his sudden turn to defending women is more about white washing his past with a side of relevance seeking & pay back to the left for being called out for misogyny.