Famous evolutionary biologist forced to confirm that 'humans are not worms'

[ArabellaScott]

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1753045097959100600

Thank you, Prof.

He must be so bored with doing this over & over.

I'm bloody glad he does, though! 😍

He's exhausted being a TERF! Tediously Explaining Reality to Fuckwits repeatedly is very draining (as women on here know) 😃

Thank you Richard for standing up for reality.

It's crazy mad that it needs to be said though!

Again, I ask, why have we come to a point in human history where we have access to so much information and we still have to go over this stuff that everybody already knows, including, but not limited to, those who pretend not to for their own advantage?

Why is it to anyone's advantage to play that dumb?

I'm no R. Dawkins, but I'm deeply frustrated by all of it.

I admire Richard Dawkins. He is one of the few skeptics/ humanists/ atheists who have actually been consistent in their core principles of reality/ evidence/ logic/and science and hence rejected Gender ideology, and publicly.

So many of that crowd have shown themselves to be unprincipled and cowardly.

I have absolutely no respect for any of those who mocked religion for its lack of evidence base and yet embrace gender ideology. Utter hypocrits.

And more. Here, he responds to a 'Scientific American' article:

'Sex is not defined by chromosomes, nor by anatomy, nor by psychology or sociology, nor by personal inclination, nor by “assignment at birth”, but by gamete size. It happens to be embryologically DETERMINED by chromosomes in mammals and (in the opposite direction) birds, by temperature in some reptiles, by social factors in some fish. But it is universally DEFINED by the binary distinction between sperms and eggs. You may argue about “gender” if you wish (biologists have better things to do) but sex is a true binary, one of rather few in biology.

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1752403995174252724

Gosh, he does seem quite cross. It's nice to see new ways of saying 'there are only two sexes' <off to google Ptolemaic epicycles>

'Superbly clear & totally correct lecture by Colin Wright @SwipeWright
. There are only 2 sexes & they're defined by gamete size. Convoluted attempts to deny binary sex are like Ptolemaic epicycles.'

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1752335146592682394

Colin Wright's lecture at Genspect:

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-sex-binary-what-it-is-and-why?r=lbgxq

<off to google Ptolemaic epicycles>

Oh do, they're fascinating attempts to make data fit a theory rather than vice versa. Especially if you can find some of the marvellously intricate astrolabes that were built to show them (I love a bit of complicated clockwork).

Well. I had a brief look and ran away screaming and decided it was a subject too complex for 5pm when my blood sugar is dipping. 😊

"postmodern effluent"😂😂😂

My suspicion is that there is a cause and effect element - because there is so much information, people are vulnerable to pseudo-information.

There is more than any person could pretend to have a handle on, and at the most advanced levels often it i really only understood by a few experts. Most people are used to having partial information, or being told things by experts which they have no way to confirm for themselves. And some of it is outright opposite of what people normally observe, like space being curved.

And maybe worse, people hear these things and think they know them to be true. They don't actually know, they believe someone who is an expert. It's not the same and an important distinction. They are accustomed to "knowing" things they don't understand and which they have no direct knowledge. "Knowing" about gender isn't so different.

Dawkins isn't so different. He does actually know about genetics, but he often spouts real nonsense about what he "knows" about philosophy.

I’ve just watched the Dr Colin Wright video and want to thank you all.

I hadn’t quite realised that it’s the gametes that underly it all. Now I understand that it’s just so so simple. There are two sexes. There is no spectrum and there are not more than two biological sexes.

I am now informed to be able to point out the flaws in others arguments.

Im very happy for anyone to change their ‘gender’ and if they are willing to have bottom surgery I’d even be willing to share a bathroom with them. But it should still be a woman’s choice who she shares her private spaces with.

Short version.

Astronomers looked up and saw that things in the sky go round in circles. The sun rises and sets, as does the moon. The planets and stars wheel around over the course of the night or the year.

Obviously, they all go around us. Because we can see them going around, and because God created Earth as an actual place with Very Important Humans in it, and everything else is a not-really-important blob. So we must be at the centre.

Also obviously, everything goes round in circles. Because circles are the perfect shape, and God is perfect; so if God makes things go round, they go roundninnperfect circles.

All going splendidly so far?

The one tiny little problem is that if you calculate the positions and movements of the stars and planets, using perfect circles that go around Earth, it doesn't match where the planets actually are.

Clearly there is a problem.

You recheck the observations with your telescope to make sure the planets really are where you thought, and you redo the maths. Still doesn't work, so you have to look again at your starting assumptions.

Obviously God is right. No need to check that.

Obviously Earth in the middle is right.

It has to be circles....

Ah, but it could be more circles. Instead of planets going round Earth, they are going round little invisible axes as well as going round Earth.

That nearly makes the maths work, so must be the right answer.

Except it still doesn't quite fit.

Must need more circles.

So instead of each planet going in a simple circle https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/640px-ptolemaic_system_psf1103314066618213214.png

they all do this a lot https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/epicycle-300.gif

And your planetary model looks as if a kitten got hold of the string.

God I love how intelligent most women are on this board. This is beautiful ^

Ah, but are we fungus? Or asparagus (or was it avocados 🤔 - according to the scientific organisation that is Kew Gardens, it was definitely one or the other that was trans, or non-b or queer or something in some correspondence I had with them. And that was definitely super-relevant to human sex differences in a way they tried and failed to explain to me).
So you see I may not be a worm, but who's to say I'm not a fungus 😂. More rights for fungus I say.

TERF! Tediously Explaining Reality to Fuckwits

That needs to go a T Shirt 😂😂😂

Thank you, that's delightful! Although probably more so in hindsight ...

Pulls up chair, gets comfy

Ah, but are we fungus?

is this the follow up to the Killers “are we human or are we dancer?” 😁

Are we fishes or are we fungus?

We are Devo.

Me too. I'd never heard of Ptolemaic epicycles, but I love that a) someone on this board is clever enough to explain them b) that Dawkins has used the idea to demonstrate the absurdity of trans arguments on gender.