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

Basically, until it started affecting them due to the authoritarian nature of TWAW impacting their freedom of speech, plenty of men, Dawkins among them, firmly thought women should put up, shut up, and offer themselves as a resource to the sad men with the lady brains

Thanks for that excellent and clear explanation @RoseAndGeranium
It's oddly soothing to read a bit of sanity for a change!

I admire your consistency! But given the essence of feminism is self determination, dictating standards of conformism is hardly aligning with it in fact that's what The Patriarchy were all about.

Self determination for women, which is an objectively real category. ‘Trans women are women’ is a lie, however many words you try to hide it in.

“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.

Jesus Christ, way to completely reverse what I have just said! 'Dictating standards of conformity? I have spoken in every post about diversity within the category 'woman' and criticised the implied conformity that transwomen rely on when they claim that they are women in virtue of the imagined monolithic 'inner experience' of being a woman or in virtue of dressing a certain way or adopting whatever mannerisms, or simply in virtue of making the claim to be a woman.

Retaining the ordinary sense of what women is (i.e. a sex category) provides for infinite variety in ways of being a woman. For one thing, there is the biological variation outlined in the post I originally responded to; there are also many other biological variations. For another thing, regardless of biological variations, women can conform or not conform to every one of the many socially prescribed gender stereotypes associated with sex - the butch lesbian firefighter is as much a woman as the fake-eyelash-wearing wannabe princess.
It is only the genderists who take any of those presentational/attitudinal variables and call them markers of womanhood, who tell young girls that they are "really boys" if they find it hard to cohere with gender stereotypes, particularly the male-gaze and/or porn-saturated box that our sexist society drags them towards.

Bloody hell. It is incredible, the degree of stubborn persistence in motivated misunderstanding.

Someone upthread said Dawkins seems very angry. Yes he is at the anti science movement which is being perpetrated in our highest seats of learning. For example, the people on University campuses who say we should reject science and mathematics because they are the inventions of "dead white males."

Self determination for women, which is an objectively real category. ‘Trans women are women’ is a lie, however many words you try to hide it in.

To expect societal acceptance of self determination as a principle it kinda has to apply to everybody including men & trans people. After all feminism was part of the civil rights movement that was about equality.

“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's only scientifically false by reproductive standards, not social ones. As far as infringing on the rights of women go, to suggest competing rights can't be managed is patently false. As we have already seen in both sports & gendered spaces, compromises that are workable have been made.

Thank you Howseitgoin [I like your username, it makes me want to reply 'Grand thanks, and how's yourself?😁] for this from an article you quote

• 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)

James Lyons-Weiler “Biology is the biology is the biology“:

It is quite a useful 'Naming of Parts' for discussions around sex and gender.
It's not perfect - 'Gender identity' and 'gender expression' are both defined in terms of 'gender', which is not defined, so it's circular and not very helpful.

But overall it is still quite useful, in that 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are both defined as feelings, not facts, one being an 'understanding' and the other an 'expression'.

This separation between observable, verifiable facts, and some people's feelings about those facts, is crucial. Feelings, though important, are individual and varied, and can sometimes be totally irrational, or limited to small sections of the population.

For instance, a tiny 0.5% of the population of the UK - that's about quarter of a million people out of over 45 million people - reported on the Census form that the gender they identify with is not the same as their sex as registered at birth. That's an expression of a feeling about their biological sex, whereas their sex as registered at birth is based on observable and verifiable facts, and can be determined by more detailed examination if simple observation is unclear.

So we know how this very small number of people feel about their biological sex. That's very interesting to them and those around them, but there's no justification for using their feelings as a basis for profound legislative or social change.

Feminism is specifically about self determination for women, in the context of an unequal society with structural sexism embedded.

You simply can’t ‘self determine’ into a category you don’t objectively belong to. ‘Woman’ is a sex category. ‘Feminine’ is a social one. ‘Gender’ roles and stereotypes are culturally variable and malleable; sex isn’t. All the words you throw at it cannot alter this.

And it's not even clear how gender roles are relevant when talking about 'trans' because so many people who now identify as trans don't identify as either male or female, and there is no evidence that people who identify as trans don't retain social behaviours associated with their sex.

Perhaps 20 years ago it was possible to make objective statements about transsexuals, although we know that even then Jan Morris's behaviour was not 'feminine', but that ship has sailed and the trans umbrella now encompasses anyone who wants to be under it.

It's only scientifically false by reproductive standards, not social ones.

when it comes to determining sex, reproductive capability is all that’s relevant (please save your stupid and offensive gotchas relating to infertility and hysterectomies)

As far as infringing on the rights of women go, to suggest competing rights can't be managed is patently false. As we have already seen in both sports & gendered spaces, compromises that are workable have been made.

🤣🤣🤣

can you please describe these workable compromises? Do they involve women ignoring their feelings and taking their clothes off in front of men like Sandie Peggy was supposed to until she malfunctioned and said ‘no’?

You claimed stereotypes were a problem:

"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."

Which suggested stereotypes shouldn’t be maintained (that you seem to hold trans people responsible for when in fact it's the broader population that enthusiastically do). Your comment implied it's wrong to adhere to stereotypes hence the the logical conclusion being you were taking prescriptivist conformative approach on gender presentation.

"It is only the genderists who take any of those presentational/attitudinal variables and call them markers of womanhood, who tell young girls that they are "really boys" if they find it hard to cohere with gender stereotypes, particularly the male-gaze and/or porn-saturated box that our sexist society drags them towards."

The problem with this analysis is that regardless of what trans people do its the broader population that would continue to maintain limited gendered stereotypes. Gendered stereotypes have been around a lot longer than trans visibility so its patently false to hold them responsible.

The other problem with your analysis is that you seem to b under the false impression that gendered stereotypes are a monkey see monkey do phenomena. That there's no organic inclination influencing choices that maintain those stereotypes. You seem to be implying that embracing femininity or masculinity is a 'copying'/learned phenomena rather than there being any independent internal connection with that choice. It's as good as saying 'if I see gay people I will become gay'. But our choices often have deep evolutionary roots or genetic ones.

Embracing gendered stereotypes is more likely an extension of an evolutionary psychological drive to appear more attractive to the opposite sex so it's unlikely that stereotypes are changing anytime soon regardless how egalitarian society has become.

"It is only the genderists who take any of those presentational/attitudinal variables and call them markers of womanhood, who tell young girls that they are "really boys" if they find it hard to cohere with gender stereotypes, particularly the male-gaze and/or porn-saturated box that our sexist society drags them towards."

Again, no one is 'telling' anyone anything. It's simply a matter of a minority of individuals who consider their femininity or masculinity a defining aspect of their identity & want to embrace it to its capacity.

"Bloody hell. It is incredible, the degree of stubborn persistence in motivated misunderstanding."

Well, if you perceive the world thru the limited lens of contagion & monkey see monkey do it can certainly seem that way.

Trans acceptance is a relative new social phenomena so we are still in the process of 'ironing out' wrinkles so I don't think its accurate to say there hasn't been any progress.

Bloody hell. There has been some nonsense posted on this thread.

I will, however, get the book as that sounds like a good read.

It's simply a matter of a minority of individuals who consider their femininity or masculinity a defining aspect of their identity & want to embrace it to its capacity.

They can embrace it as much as they like.
But men are not women.

It's simply a matter of a minority of individuals who consider their femininity or masculinity a defining aspect of their identity & want to embrace it to its capacity.

It's not clear what your argument is here. Many individuals consider gardening to be a defining aspect of their identity and want to embrace it to its full capacity, but they still aren't allowed to steal flowers.

Your response doesn't answer Bernard's question at all.

What do you define as "progress" @Howseitgoin ?

"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."

The only thing that is relevant to access to single sex provisions is whether someone has a body formed around the production of large or small gametes, regardless of whether that body has ever, is or will ever produce those gametes. That covers off your 'chromosome type, gamete size, hormone level, morphology' of the body.

'Social roles' are irrelevant for access to female single sex provisions.

HTH

It seems like there are no observable verifiable facts because the terms of reference are "feelings" when in fact there are observable facts in terms of behaviour. Personality traits are a biologically driven phenomena that manifest in behaviours that are sexed in terms of averages. IE men tend to be more violent than women, women tend to be more agreeable & neurotic than men These averages can be measured in terms of offending rates, job choices, hobbies, consumerist & life choices etc.

Now I'm not suggesting an average behaviour denotes sex of an individual but here's where societal expectations come in that drive self categorisations. 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 & as such identify their own behavioural characteristics with the social expectations of the opposite sex.

Can we 'prove' an individual is a better fit with the opposite sex? I don't think we need to unless competing rights clash like sports & housing that can & is being managed so women's & trans rights aren't mutually exclusive.

Most major sports organisations have made rule adjustments, gender affirming care is under much stricter access, some countries have changed laws & policies on private spaces & housing where there has been a public demand.

Within realm of possibility & legality seems pretty self evident.

Is that in reply to my post at 09.42? I hope not. You have been very forthcoming with your responses to other posters so far, Howseitgoin, so I look forward to seeing how you respond to the points I made in my post.

Chicken, women don’t want men in places where they’re partially dressed or vulnerable

just use the gents

you’ll be fine

(Side bar for readers whose brains aren’t addled by gender woo woo-do take note of chappie’s utter lack of interest in what women want or how we feel. We’re not real people to him)

I think you are confused about what feminism is.

Feminism is about women's equal participation in society.

I'm not sure how you define 'self determination', but it usually refers to forming a government which isn't relevant here, or the ability to control your own life, which is obviously limited by both the laws of time and space and the laws of society.

Maybe you are confusing feminism and anarchy.

Stand by for more links about sex and behaviour as per all the other threads. Incoming in 3, 2,1…