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

Noone is suggesting it "undermines the binary" or that two major distributions don't exist. Rather that variation exists at the tail end of distribution that has implications on ambiguity in sex categorisation.

Really depressing how full this thread is of defamatory misinformation and facile takes. How does science even operate in this new world of populist post-truth fantasy?

All caps doesn't qualify as an explanation of why there's a conflation.

It's basically Lewontin's argument about race transferred to sex.

It's not done with caps, silly.

So you can't explain the the alleged conflation? Makes sense.

Not only do you need primary school biology you clearly missed primary school English lessons as well. Telling lies with lots of big paragraphs and multiple posts doesn’t change the fact that men can never be women.

So, if it's not a conflation why do you use an ampersand between trans and intersex?

Because both these categories are products of biological variation in sex traits.

Sex in mammals is both fixed and also binary. It is defined by the type of gamete (there are two types, small or large, hence binary) that an individual’s body is organised to produce. The male body is organised around the production of small gametes, the female body is organised around the production of large gametes. In the vast majority of cases, the sex of an individual human, as defined above, will correspond with their expected sex chromosomes. Also in the vast majority of cases, external genitalia will unambiguously correspond with sex, as defined above, from a relatively early stage in pregnancy. Rarely, an individual may have atypical sex chromosomes (usually three instead of two) producing disorders in sexual development, which may render them ineffective at producing their expected gametes. This is usually what people mean when they use the inaccurate and outdated term ‘intersex’. Similarly, there are rare cases in which external genitalia does not develop in the expected way, leading to ambiguous sex at birth. However, neither in the case of unusual chromosomal makeup nor in the case of ambiguous external genitalia is a third type of gamete produced. Affected individuals are still either male or female, it is just more complex to categorise them than in the majority of cases. (Gender activists like to talk about clown fish changing sex and sex mosaicism in birds, but I think the platypus is a more useful reference point: despite laying eggs and having both something that looks like a beak and also venomous spurs, features we usually associate with birds or reptiles, the platypus is nonetheless a mammal because it feeds its offspring with milk from its mammary glands. The classification isn’t as obvious at first glance as in most cases, but it is solid all the same.)
At any rate, it is unclear what relevance these rare cases have to the trans debate. The men asking to be called women are not affected by chromosomal disorders, they are uncomplicated males, some of whom have not merely successfully produced small gametes but have even successfully united their small gametes with large to make new people. Similarly, even if we said that the platypus was simply too complicated to place within just one of the usual groups, that wouldn’t collapse the whole system of grouping. We wouldn’t think, just because a platypus lays eggs, that a pig might be cold blooded, or worry that a crocodile could somewhere out there be suckling her hatchlings.
So it is really pretty simple, at root. No woman can have testicles, because this organ produces small gametes and is therefore male by definition. No man can have ovaries because these produce large gametes and are therefore female by definition. If you chop off a male’s testicles, he does not stop being male, because his body remains organised around the production of small, not large, gametes. What you now have is a damaged male. If you cut out a woman’s ovaries she doesn’t stop being female, because her body is still organised around the production of large, not small, gametes. What you now have is a damaged female. In the same way, if you (cruelly) removed a cow’s rumen she wouldn’t stop being a ruminant, she just wouldn’t live very long. If you cut off a platypus’s mammaries you wouldn’t turn her into a bird, you’d just make it impossible for her to feed her young.
This is all incredibly obvious stuff. It requires only cursory thought. It may disappoint or upset some people, but a fact doesn’t cease to be a fact just because it makes people sad.

"The debate over how best to approach people who identify as transgender or non-binary is many-layered and can be complex. Medical questions about the evidence for the safety and efficacy of specific interventions, and the ethics of treating minors, deserve thoughtful and open discussion. The optimal way to incorporate transgender athletes into competition also could benefit from a good faith debate.
Unfortunately, discussion around transgender issues suffers from at least two sources. First, it has been coopted as part of a politically-motivated culture war. This reality is exactly the opposite of thoughtful good-faith discussion. Second, for most people wrapping their head around a reality that may not conform to traditional notions of strictly binary sex and gender takes a lot or processing. Misconceptions about the basic science are rampant, and are, in fact, encouraged by the culture warriors.
Many of those who are pushing back against trans healthcare and broader acceptance are explicitly premising their position on the claim that biological sex is strictly and obviously binary. They portray themselves as taking the scientific high ground, and anyone who questions this obvious biological fact are the ones engaged in pseudoscience.
For example, in a recent article by James Lyons-Weiler (“Biology is the biology is the biology“) he begins:
Most of us are born male or female. This is not our “assigned gender”: it’s our biological sex. An individuals’s sex is determined in animals (and plants) via the chromosomes one is born with.
Wrong, right out of the gate (as I will detail below). He goes on:
For most of us, we ARE male, or we ARE female. Unfortunately, early scientific articles conflated “gender” and “sex”, and much of society conflate them this as well. Depending on context, someone might need to know your sex (karyotype).
He is saying that sex is strictly binary, it is entirely determined by karyotype, and it is completely distinct from gender. While these views are common, especially among those who are critical of the trans identity, they are also demonstrably scientifically wrong.
Biological sex is not binary
The notion that sex is not strictly binary is not even scientifically controversial. Among experts it is a given, an unavoidable conclusion derived from actually understanding the biology of sex. It is more accurate to describe biological sex in humans as bimodal, but not strictly binary. Bimodal means that there are essentially two dimensions to the continuum of biological sex. In order for sex to be binary there would need to be two non-overlapping and unambiguous ends to that continuum, but there clearly isn’t. There is every conceivable type of overlap in the middle – hence bimodal, but not binary.
This matters, and in fact it is the overlapping middle that is the very point of the discussion. Denying a trans identity is denying that overlapping middle. Let’s review the biology of sex to see what I mean.
It is absolutely true that humans display sexual dimorphism, with a typical male and typical female set of traits. There is no third sex, or pole, or sexual archetype. This can be distinguished, for example, from body type which is understood as trimodal – ectomorphic, endomorphic, and mesomorphic – forming a triangle with individuals falling somewhere between the three poles. Biological sex has only two poles, with one axis of variation between them. (See the main image for a good visual representation of binary vs bimodal.)
It is also true that most people tend to cluster around one of the two poles of biological sex. At first glance, looking superficially at the human population, it may seem binary. This is because binary and bimodal can look very similar if you don’t dig down into the details – so let’s do that.
First we need to consider all the traits relevant to sex that vary along this bimodal distribution. The language and concepts for these traits have been evolving too, but here is a current generally accepted scheme for organizing these traits:

• Genetic sex
• Morphological sex, which includes reproductive organs, external genitalia, gametes and secondary morphological sexual characteristics (sometimes these and genetic sex are referred to collectively as biological sex, but this is problematic for reasons I will go over)
• Sexual orientation (sexual attraction)
• Gender identity (how one understands and feels about their own gender)
• Gender expression (how one expresses their gender to the world)

Let’s start with genetic sex. This may seem like a home run for binary sex, with females being XX and males XY, but on closer inspection this is not true. Again, yes, most people fall into one of these two chromosomal patterns, but we also see other patterns, such as XXY, XYY, XXX, etc. Further, some people can be mosaics, with some cells having XX and others XY. But I think even more important than these chromosomal states is the fact that chromosomes alone do not fully tell the story of the genetics of sexual dimorphism. There are a number of genes involved in sexual characteristics (not all located on the sex chromosomes), and they can vary dramatically within chromosomal sex types, and even among the cells in an individual person, and throughout one’s life. John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London’s Institute of Child Health, characterizes the situation this way: I think there’s much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can’t easily define themselves within the binary structure. Another layer of genetic complexity is gene copy number. For example, XY individuals with extra copies of the WNT4 gene can develop atypical genitals and gonads, and a rudimentary uterus and Fallopian tubes. Further still, genes alone are not the whole picture of biological sex. There are a host of epigenetic factors at play, including hormone levels at different stages of development, hormone receptor sensitivity, and metabolic factors. All of these influence the development of sexual characteristics, which can vary along a spectrum. For example, there are XY females who are chromosomal males but develop mostly or entirely female because of androgen insensitivity. There are, essentially, women walking around who have no idea they have XY chromosomes. Let’s move on to the primary sexual characteristics, which are essentially the internal reproductive organs and external genitalia; for females that is ovaries, uterus, and vagina, for males it is testes, prostate and penis. Do these characteristics vary in a strictly binary or bimodal way? When it comes to gametes, these are strictly binary – egg or sperm. However, even here there are intersex individuals with “ovotestes”, some of which can make both eggs and sperm. It is fair to say when it comes to reproduction the system is binary, but sex is about more than reproduction.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/

The tiny minority of people whose sex categorisation is complex (complex rather than 'ambiguous') are not identical with (or even mostly overlapping with) people who have a trans identity. Trans and DSD conditions are different things.

More importantly, the fact that "two different major distributions don't exist" (i.e. that men differ vastly from one another and women differ vastly from one another) is the actual stuff of feminism, real feminism, which argues that women have been unjustly confined by a society in which sex status (i.e. man or woman) is held to require or entail conformity with a narrow stereotypical range of gender presentations and roles.

Feminism (real feminism) has always insisted on diversity within the sex category 'woman'. It is the genderists who look for uniformity. The ineffable inner sense of being a woman, or the trappings of 'living as a woman' are held by them to be both clear and sufficient markers for 'womanhood' despite the fact that there is, in fact, no uniformity in these respects for actual women.

It was the genderists who said that we have either to be with them or against them. Since genderism promotes the sterilisation of children and young people, then anyone who's given this issue more than a moment's thought will be against the genderists. Dawkins or the promotion of young people wrecking their bodies forever? Well, looking at where we'd end up with each, I'm with Dawkins.

"The tiny minority of people whose sex categorisation is complex (complex rather than 'ambiguous') are not identical with (or even mostly overlapping with) people who have a trans identity. Trans and DSD conditions are different things."

Yes I have made that point already. Their commonality lies in both are products of biological variation.

"Feminism (real feminism) has always insisted on diversity within the sex category 'woman'. It is the genderists who look for uniformity. The ineffable inner sense of being a woman, or the trappings of 'living as a woman' are held by them to be both clear and sufficient markers for 'womanhood' despite the fact that there is, in fact, no uniformity in these respects for actual women."

Some people's natural inclinations don't necessarily align with societal expectations and norms dictating how individuals should act, think, and behave based on their reproductive sex category. Society as whole has constructed gender categorisations, trans people are only abiding by them as most of us do.

... trans people are only abiding by them as most of us do.

Well, no. Most feminists are challenging them, while many trans people are straightforwardly relying on them.

’Metal traps for burglars’ 😂

Will you be maintaining that energy for the majority of the population too?

Come on howseitgoin, what have we said about repeating the same old boring arguments. We’re looking for something original!

“Intersex = sex is complicated”

Are you really this uninventive?!

You also don't understand how discussion boards work. LOL. And multiplying your word salad by 100 doesn't change biology. Men can NEVER be women.

As earlier you didn't understand caps. The word 'never' in the sentence above in in caps. And in case that's unclear to you, given your comprehensive skills, caps means capitals.

Of course. That is what feminism is.

Aw, is chappie treating us to yet another helping of his super feminine logic and rationale?

kudos to the women responding to him with scientifically literate factual posts, but he ain’t never gonna hear you. He can’t. The lady fantasy is too important to him

Yup. And he's still banned from the women's changing rooms.

I remember well his craven tweet.

Yes it was fascist bullshit. It's good to understand things though in order to protect yourself from it.

I did the unthinkable and quoted from it the other day whilst talking about how Farage lies and why people believe him.

The quote was about the concept of The Big Lie and how you use the state to uphold The Big Lie and how you repeat The Big Lie means that people believe The Big Lie.

I also talked about how Big Lies don't just come from the right. They can come from all political quarters or even for marketing purposes.

TWAW is a good example of a Big Lie that could only be maintained by authoritarian methods.

Thus it is useful to know and understand things and it is idiotic and dangerous to dismiss what fascists said as something we should avoid reading because of a crazy notion that if we read it we somehow will become contaminated by it and being tainted or become fascists. This mentality assumes that people only become fascists because they read certain things rather than understanding that these propaganda techniques are far more widespread than that and actually it's quite useful to know how they work. For our own protection against such forces.

The reality is that the truth can only be hidden for so long. We handicap ourselves though, if we decide to adhere to purity spirals of approved and non approved reading because we create political blind spots and unwittingly make ourselves ignorant to how others think.

Your attitude is fucking nuts and ridiculous. You don't have a desire to stop fascism. You have a desire to virtue signal.

If you had a desire to stop fascism you would try to understand the enemy so you could defeat it.

He seemed, like many men, to have respect and admiration for James/Jan Morris, though....not seing through the facade.