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

[IwantToRetire]

In The War on Science, Dawkins joins several scientists and philosophers contending that academic freedom and truth in universities was being stifled by diversity, equity and inclusion policies that promoted falsehoods under the banner of social justice.

“I draw the line at the belligerent slogan ‘trans women are women’ because it is scientifically false,” he said. “When taken literally, it can infringe the rights of other people, especially women.

“It logically entails the right to enter women’s sporting events, women’s changing rooms, women’s prisons and so on.

“So powerful has this postmodern counter-factualism become, that newspapers refer to ‘her penis’ as a matter of unremarked routine.”

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/25/richard-dawkins-trans-women-slogan-scientifically-false/ and at https://archive.is/zAFxS

Wasn’t Dawkins initially on board with TWAW ?

All very well to come out with that now the tide has turned, but where was he when JKR was being lambasted?

Totally inappropriate comment.

In a 2015 tweet, he stated "Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no.

And wonderful as she is JKR is not the barometer. She mainly posts on twitter, and most sensible people dont bother with twitter.

Except Richard Dawkins apparently.

It's in the Guardian bookshop.
It's a collection of essays about the state of academia and free speech. Looking forward to it.
The Free Speech Union is hosting the launch.

You misunderstand.

For people in the public eye being on twitter is almost part of the job because lazy journalists use it to get stories.

JFK not being the barometer is about in the totallity of the UK, not really a rational benchmark to have.

He was lambasted by prick news in 2021 for pointing out that transwomen aren’t women, and was stripped of his ‘humanist of the year’ award the same year, and, I think, kicked out of at least one organisation because of his astounding views! As an evolutionary biologist, he seems pretty up to speed with the idea that there are exactly 2 sexes

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 ?

Which of the authors have backgrounds of racism, sexual assault or friendship with Epstein? I’m very keen to know and haven’t been able to find by Googling.

Read the book then respond.
'You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes.'

Maimonides

Do I need to read Mein Kampf too to know that it was a bunch of Fascist BS?

You defend these creeps, perverts, & pedos. I'll read pop science from people who haven't been fired for being inappropriate with students, or being disgustingly unrespectful with the human remains of indigenous peoples ( again leading to their firing).

I'm sure there are plenty of people who write good books without being documented ( and photographed) on the Lolita express.

I fighting GI means defending these people... Well id rather stand for womens rights and safety than defend those who are a known threat.

On Twitter such a sweeping claim would be met by people asking you to provide evidence that can be checked by others. I take it you can do so? If not I will draw my own conclusions.

Once again, and for the hard of thinking; just because someone agrees with someone (anyone) else on one thing, doesn’t mean they will agree on everything. Where there is well-respected science, the private (or even very public) moral choices of the scientists don’t discredit the work. Equally, if a scientist is very good and kind, that can’t counterbalance poor work. 🤷‍♀️

Can you be more specific? State who did what and when. Otherwise I'll assume that you're just making this up.

Please also explain how anything that any of these people might have done means that men are women if they say they are.

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.

The War on Science: Renowned Scientists and Scholars Speak Out About Current Threats to Free Speech, Open Inquiry, and the Scientific Process Hardcover – 25 Sept. 2025
by Lawrence Krauss (Editor), Richard Dawkins (Contributor), Steven Pinker (Contributor), Niall Ferguson (Contributor), & 4 more

An unparalleled group of prominent scholars from wide-ranging disciplines detail ongoing efforts to impose ideological restrictions on science and scholarship throughout western society.

From assaults on merit-based hiring to the policing of language and replacing well-established, disciplinary scholarship by ideological mantras, current science and scholarship is under threat throughout western institutions. As detailed by this group of prominent scholars – who range across many different disciplines and political leanings – the very future of free inquiry and scientific progress is at risk.

Many who have spoken up against this threat have lost their positions, and a climate of fear has arisen that strikes at the heart of modern education and research. Banding together to finally speak out, this brave and unprecedented group of scholars issues a clarion call for change.

Contributors: Richard Dawkins; Alan Sokal; Niall Ferguson; Gad Saad; Anna Krylov; Jay Tanzman; John Armstrong; Jerry Coyne; Luana Maroja; Sally Satel; Geoff Horsman; Alessandro Strumia; Roger Cohen; Amy Wax; Alex Byrne; Moti Gorin; Judith Suissa; Alice Sullivan; Dorian Abbot; Steven Pinker; Nicholas Christakis; Richard E. Redding.

Even if you ignore the quote from Dawkins, the issue of free speech, being sacked, etc., have all been topics of threads on FWR.

And in each instance the reality is in campaigning for equal rights to express believes it is inevitable that some believes will clash. But if you only campaign for those you agree with to have free speech, then it is just possible you dont understand the issue you are campaigning on.

Calm down dear. You seem to be happy to form your opinions on the basis of other people's opinions. Try going to original sources, it's the grown up thing to do.

I'm not defending anyone. If all you want is pop science there are plenty. Read what you want.

You haven't really got the hang of what reading is for. Reading intelligent people who you disagree with is a very useful exercise, especially if you try to engage with text instead of projecting what you think they've said. Maybe you'll change or modify your views. Or become clearer about why you are right.

Ol' Alice Roberts was probably responsible for humanist ousting. That wonderful anthropologist who believes trans women are women but estranged herself from her own parents due to their Christianity.

Isn’t Stephen Fry a humanist? He never has a problem taking away women’s rights 🙄

There was also a funny incident where iirc someone on Twitter told him about the ‘womens declaration’ in tones of horror, to which he replied with thanks for letting him know and that he’d signed it.

I think he took a somewhat similar path to jkr, in fact - initially cautious but then ‘to hell with that nonsense’ and took quite a lot of abuse as mentioned - someone also vandalised his car shortly after he nailed his colours to the realist mast.

Anyway, thanks for the thread, @IwantToRetire, it sounds like it may be an interesting book - It’s notable that Dawkins has focussed on the trans agenda, presumably some of the other authors are addressing various other areas where anti-scientism is problematic.
This quote from the piece has broad applicability:

“There’s this post-modern hubris which presumptuously and falsely dismisses science as a social construct. The human conceit here is the idea that personal feelings can change reality.”

I’m surprised. He didn’t start out there, at least if that was his belief he did a good job of hiding it.
He always seemed such an angry man, he seemed on board with the whole TRA rage aesthetic.

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/

Do you have anything original to add to the discussion?

Dawkin's history of misogyny seems pretty original here.

What? The enemy of my enemy is my friend even if he's sexist?