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

So Howsitgoin has claimed the following on this thread:

-Caitlin Jenner didn't try on his own daughter's clothes
-Germaine Greer has dementia

Both proven to be bollocks.

I'm sure lurkers can decide for themselves whether this person is a) truthful and b) posting in good faith.

I mean, yes. But I’m surprised you admit it. Is this your other personality posting??

Perhaps Howie should start a new thread for an announcement of this magnitude.

But apparently Beowulfa, if Richard Dawkins expresses an opinion that can be considered not accurate enough on a topic on which he is not an expert, we should discount his expertise on evolutionary biology.

Oh... and don't forget the next pivot.

That Dawkins is quite correct, there are only two sexes for reproduction. However, there is this 'social' sex that changes who should and should not be accessing single sex provisions. And this means that Dawkins is also irrelevant on the definition of sex. Because there is more to sex classification than reproduction.

And... we are about to see, finally, the BIMODAL SEX MODEL. How exciting is that!!!! Finally!!!!!

😂

I mean, isn't that why Germaine was introduced onto this thread.

You cannot write the unexpected twists to this plot. It is really good today. All to discredit Richard Dawkins no less!

This really is one for the lurkers.

[waves to the lurkers] I too was once a #bekind-er.

Oh.. wait. Now we SHOULDN'T take note of what Germaine Greer has said and done because she too should be discounted from speaking about the area of her expertise because she expressed an opinion about something that someone thinks is not accurate or is not very pleasant to have said.

So, not Germaine Greer and not Richard Dawkins. Should we start a list?

Fuck!! If I had have known that Howsa was so wedded to this train of thought, I would have just fucking posted all the unpleasant things that some of people Howsa presented as appeals to authority. Well. Lesson learned.

Still. Someone who has the secret to BIMODAL SEX modelling is someone to consider an expert. So there is that...

... that you seem to hold trans people responsible for ...

Where did I say that? How on earth would trans people have that power? I said that many trans people rely on these stereotypes for their self-identification into opposite-sex categories.

And by the way, it isn't trans status that is the core of the problem here. The whole point of the gender critical stance is that trans status is precisely irrelevant in the wide range of situations in which sex matters. Men, regardless of how they identify, are the problem, insisting as they have always done that womanhood exists within their eye and, that the bearers of the concept 'woman' are not sufficient-unto-themselves autonomous material entities but the projection, embodiment, instrument of men's needs.

EDIT: I didn't even say that "it's wrong to adhere to stereotypes". I specifically said that people conform or don't conform -- in accordance with their individuality.

I found out about DARVO - 'deflect- attack-reverse-victim-and-offender', if I remember rightly - here on this board, and it was incredibly revelatory.

There is a lot of DARVOing in trans discourse.
Once you know what it is, it really jumps out at you as an obvious tactic for shutting down debate.

Howseitgoin has given a couple of examples of it here:
-introducing the issue of GG's health, and then accusing others of using it is a 'distraction technique'
-referring to old age and dementia in clearly negative terms, and then saying that others consider dementia to be offensive.

Classic DARVO.

Not sure, I mean, there isn't even a Nobel category for us biologists, we have to aim for chemistry or medicine, although the Swedish Academy that hands out the Nobels gave some award to Carl Woese because he wouldn't qualify for a Nobel prize despite his ground breaking contribution to phylogeny. Maybe we can talk to them about a special award for Howsa.

I think your problems with comprehension cluster around definitions and distinctions.
No one is saying trans gender people created gender stereotypes or holding them responsible for the broader social enforcement or submission to them. What has been said, often and correctly, is that gender ideology relies on gender stereotypes. Do you understand the difference?

How does gender ideology rely on gender stereotypes? Well, it takes some of the components of a stereotype about women (eg women have long hair, enjoy shopping, wear pretty dresses, are socially submissive and neurotic) and makes this the primary working definition of ‘woman’, over and above biology. Hence the question ‘how did you know you were a girl?’ can for gender ideologies be correctly answered with something along the lines of ‘because I always preferred dresses, enjoyed playing with barbies, and felt frightened when the boys did rough play’, but not ‘Buddy, my vagina made it pretty obvious and menstruation made it 100% unarguable’.
The traditional feminist position is the opposite of this in that it accepts the millennia old definition of biological sex (bodies organised around large/small gametes, see my previous post for a primer on this) but rejects gender stereotypes. Thus, if a female child were to say to a feminist ‘I love my slouchy jeans but hate dresses and I cut all my hair off cause long hair is annoying and football is my life’, the feminist would reply ‘good for you, kid, maybe one day you’ll be a Lioness’. Likewise if a boy told the feminist ‘i really love lipstick and Taylor Swift and omg I just want to dance’ the feminist would say ‘nice! Have you looked at any local dance groups?’.
Do you see how gender ideology not only accepts subjective gender stereotypes but reifies them as primary over the objective criteria of biological sex in defining the words ‘woman’ and ‘man’, whilst traditional feminism accepts biological sex as the criteria for defining the words ‘woman’ and ‘man’ but rejects the idea that either women or men should be expected to conform to gender stereotypes?
Not sure how I can be clearer, but let me know if you have trouble with any of that!

It's amazing how many people think doctors and scientists don't know what they're talking about.

Absolutely.

Sounds like a plan!

Oh, ok, I've been so blinkered in my exasperated response to a couple of wide-of-the-mark quote-replies to my own posts that I hadn't realised that the person replying was on an absolute mission to correct everyone's posts with his/her godlike rationality tenacious dogmatism.

I will find a better way to entertain myself.

I think it is also important that the aim of feminism in regards to 'equality' is corrected again and again.

Feminists have worked to ensure female people have equality of opportunity. That requires equitable solutions to achieve that outcome.

This lazy reference of 'feminists fought for equality' keeps coming up. Usually, it won't be relevant to correct. In the discussions of how gender identity negatively impacts the prioritisation of sex in relation to female people's needs and the achievement of equality of opportunity, it does need to be corrected. And on this thread it has been already. It cannot be repeated often enough though.

It is very often used as abusive tactic from MRAs. For instance, 'you all wanted equality, now you must accept the consequences'. And didn't we see that the other day loud and clear with 'if you don't include male people in your groups, then expect that male people will treat you without respect'.

Once you see one form of this abusive tactic used and the DARVO that goes with it, you will see it replayed.

I never thought this day would come 🥹

I'm struggling to keep track of when Germaine is germane and when Germaine is not germane.

I'll just stop you there at your outright lie that people can have different gametes in one body. You are ridiculous.

Sounds like a great book. I’ve got it on my wishlist.

How truly dishonest of you to say she was admitted to a nursing home for dementia. In 2021 she went to live in what Australians call an aged care home for precisely 10 months, before declaring she couldn't live as an "inmate" (her word) and went to live with her brother. I can find no mention of dementia, not even in Wikipedia, one of your trusted sources, am I right? 😉

Among all the stupidity I missed that particular morsel of stupidity.

I mean, what's the point really? There is not even any basic understanding here.

To be fair, women can have both types of gametes in one body, but the small mobile ones have to be donated by someone else!

I think she did like the Dragonflies there though.

But apparently, rumours are all that is needed to validate the truth about Germaine, and absurd notions about using personality traits as a valid method of categorising sex classes is all good...

A pattern of reality rejection is showing, I think.

Well worth watching that clip from 2023. No sign of dementia there and she really doesn't look appreciably older than in the famous interview with Kirsty Wark in 2015.

Edited to add the link which didn't carry through in the quote.