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

oh mate. If you are under the impression that there are no trans paedos, perverts and creeps then I have some news for you…

I don't understand your logic here. What do you mean by "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Are you saying that because someone has done something sexist, we shouldn't agree with anything he says? So if Dawkins is sexist, therefore transwomen are women, because he says they're not? Is that it?

I mean your arguments are all the same. Do you have an original thought today?

So if someone is a misogynist and says sex is a biological reality, they cant really mean it, are lying or what.

Complete non sequitur

Unless of course you are an undercover member of AGCL who will say something they believe isn't true because somebody who in their purity politics is "the enemy" it isn't true when they say. But when you say it is true.

The whole point is to try and get the population as a whole to accept and be able to say that sex is biological.

Based on your logic we will never get 50% of the population to say it, because I suspect 50% if not more of the population have unpleasant ideas.

So the believe, knowledge that women are a biological reality will never be a majority position, because the only time it has meaning is when they have the purity stamp of approval.

There is evidence be believed and said to publicly long before many women now preening that somehow they are the figure heads ofGC campaigning.

So many threads are now based on posters personal feelings about somebody. Or worse some rumour they heard 15 years ago.

“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.”

Oh no - someone questioning queer politics and its need to challenge physical facts in order to "disrupt".

Even when that disruptions denies someones lived reality.

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.

Yes, you’ve tried this all before. Do you have anything original to say today?

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

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?

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.

Yes, we’ve heard your “sex isn’t binary” nonsense before. It’s all so trite. Give us something novel for a change.

The tweets are linked to the article so no, discrediting Vice won't make them disappear.

I am the last person to support academics sitting in ivory towers being then taken as the source of all reason.

But effectively his questioning of what are sometimes taken as unquestioningly true is part of his purpose.

And whilst as a feminist I dont think a man suggesting a woman could be lying about having been raped, and amongst feminists it has become accepted you do not question a woman saying this, as has been made clear he isn't a feminist.

So he doesn't have the reflex response anyone of us as feminists have. He has the reflex of someone looking for evidence based facts to ask the question what if?

So an educated man is a sexist. Who would have thought it.

And as to the quote about abortion, as you well know, whether you like it or not, many people believe this.

Honestly, at this rate we will be down to about 10 people we can each count as being truely worthy to say sex is biological.

And as usual the problem is, that it is the absence, more likely refusal of the so called left and liberal personalities to say they know that sex is biological that means they emphasis falls on those not in the thrall of being "woke".

The writers in this book and many others would just be one among many, even the majority who just said in a matter of fact way that sex is biological if so called socialists hadn't been totally Stonewalled.

So many people frightened, so many sheep.

That is the real dilema, the people we are meant to be aligned with (according to some opinions here ) are so silent so anti women's sex based rights that they make it seem more significant than it is that others not trapped in the false world of virtue signalling can say out loud that sex is biological.

That is the true disgrace.

Name me one "politically correct" male who has made a statement in support of sex as a biological reality.

Actually Ive never spoken about sex being or not being binary before so you must have me confused with someone else.

Yes, you’re always the one going with non-sequitur arguments, I’m sure it’s you. Do you have an original discussion point about the facts today?

"So he does have the reflex response anyone of us as feminists have. He has the reflex of someone looking for evidence based facts to ask the question what if?
So an educated man is a sexist. Who would have thought it."

Oh my.
'Educated men' are only too happy to bang on about institutional 'due process' but somehow Dawkins 'forgets' about this when it comes to women's claims about sexual violence. The twitter moral failure police seems to be enough…

The great paradox about RD is that he's the last person to apply 'the scientific method' when convenient in smearing Muslims, Women, Christians etc…

Evidence?

I really don’t think it’s as clever as you think it is to try to put all those words into his mouth.😂

Of course you haven't. You just keep trying to add "personality traits" to the binary.

Evidence for what?

Evidence I have spoken about the binary nature of sex before.

I really am bemused by this grievance mindset. I can't stand Richard Dawkins, and disagree with a lot of what he says.
But I wouldn't dream of bringing up a few tweets from 12 years ago that annoyed me.
It doesn't mean I can't read what he says today with an open mind. If he writes something stupid I'll say so then.

The book includes contributions from Carole Hooven and Alice Sullivan. It will be interesting. In fact I'll have to get my library to order a copy.

Do you have any evidence that ‘sex’ doesn't comply of multiple traits, with variable distributions. Or that 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?

This stuff is thoroughly uncontroversial in science.

Pick a thread you’re on. You’re always posting non-sequitur arguments. “So and so said this, that person is bad somehow, ergo sex is changeable.” Do you have anything original?