Professor Richard Dawkins-There are only two biological sexes and that's all there is to it

www.foxnews.com...

During a recent interview with British journalist Piers Morgan, famed atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins declared that "there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it."

He added that LGBTQ activists looking to discredit the reality of two biological sexes are pushing "utter nonsense."

Dawkins further noted that those going after Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling for her commitment to the reality of two sexes are "bullies."

Good to see the great Professor of Evolutionary Biology-Richard Dawkins-verifying some basic facts in the middle of this political n ideological madness where scientific facts n reality have been challenged unsuccessfully-disregarded n given the middle finger in the name of the gender movement.

The famous critic of religion spoke with Morgan during a recent episode of "Piers Morgan Uncensored." The host prompted Hawkins by mentioning how "extraordinary" it is that LGBTQ activists and woke ideologues "want to what they call, de-gender and neutralize language." Morgan was referring to a recent list of problematic words put out by the "EBB Language Project," a collection of academics looking to police words that could potentially be found to be politically incorrect. The proposed list contains gendered words such as "male, female, man, woman, mother, father," U.K. outlet The Telegraph reported.

Dawkins had commented on the project last month, telling the paper, "The only possible response is contemptuous ridicule. I shall continue to use every one of the prohibited words. I am a professional user of the English language. It is my native language."

During their interview, Morgan trashed such language policing and the idea there aren't two sexes, saying, "I mean, it’s incontrovertible. There’s no scientific doubt about this." He also noted that a "small group of people have been quite successful actually in reshaping vast swathes of the way society talks and is allowed to talk."

Dawkins immediately discredited the entire movement by saying, "It’s bullying." Mentioning famous people who have been demonized for going against these activists, the renowned researcher added, "And we’ve seen the way J.K. Rowling has been bullied, Kathleen Stock has been bullied. They’ve stood up to it. But it’s very upsetting the way this tiny minority of people has managed to capture the discourse and really talk errant nonsense."Upon Morgan asking Dawkins how to combat the "nonsense," Dawkins replied, "Science."

I strongly agree with what Professor Dawkins said n I will point out whoever has any evidence n facts more than two biological sexes exist they are welcome to share it with us and prove their claims. I note how Dawkins spoke about the abuse of the English language n a number of words the gender ideology tries to impose to the rest of the population-he is absolutely correct-and he argued we all use the words we know without even thinking of changing our language for the benefit of some activists and ideologues. It is incontrovertible: There are only two sexes.

a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

The same applies to you, where is the evidence?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

The same applies to you, where is the evidence?

So you say there are more than two sexes?

Name them

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

The same applies to you, where is the evidence?

Do you need more time? Are you struggling with the concept of biological sex?

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

The same applies to you, where is the evidence?

So you say there are more than two sexes?

Name them

This Dawkins fellow has a Ph.D. in Zoology, that is it.

Here is one of his fellow peers reviewing his work and him.

Other Darwinist reviewers have blustered; Dawkins is the only one who has dripped venom. I will pass on replying to that. He makes just two substantive points in his review. The first is that the success of artificial selection in things like dog breeding show the malleability of organisms, so why should Darwinian evolution be a problem? I already answered that point in my reply to Jerry Coyne. Briefly, it begs the question of what changes are occurring at the molecular level in those examples, whether simple ones or complex ones, and it begs the question of where the sophisticated molecular systems came from that we have learned control animal form and development. Dawkins seems quite reluctant to engage my argument at the molecular level; in his review he defers to other scientists for that. He himself gives the kind of argument that a 19th century naturalist might give, before the elegance of the molecular foundation of life was discovered by modern biology.

At the end of his review Dawkins chides me for lack of peer-reviewed publications. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If Dawkins himself has many peer-reviewed research publications in the last few decades, he must be writing them under a pseudonym. Dawkins’ hypocritical complaint makes a nice little example of Darwinian gate-keeping. The nebulous, wooly-minded scenarios Dawkins spins in his books, of the origins of bat echolocation, spider webs, and so on, have no real justification in peer-reviewed publications. Yet Dawkins is free to write trade books without howls of protest from the scientific community because his stories fit the way many scientists want the world to be. But if (ahem…) someone publishes a book critically analyzing the data from a different perspective, the reaction is dramatically different.

www.discovery.org...

It appears your boy Dawkins avoids any discussion of biology at the microbiological level. I can post peer reviews of him all day.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

The same applies to you, where is the evidence?

So you say there are more than two sexes?

Name them

This Dawkins fellow has a Ph.D. in Zoology, that is it.

Here is one of his fellow peers reviewing his work and him.

Other Darwinist reviewers have blustered; Dawkins is the only one who has dripped venom. I will pass on replying to that. He makes just two substantive points in his review. The first is that the success of artificial selection in things like dog breeding show the malleability of organisms, so why should Darwinian evolution be a problem? I already answered that point in my reply to Jerry Coyne. Briefly, it begs the question of what changes are occurring at the molecular level in those examples, whether simple ones or complex ones, and it begs the question of where the sophisticated molecular systems came from that we have learned control animal form and development. Dawkins seems quite reluctant to engage my argument at the molecular level; in his review he defers to other scientists for that. He himself gives the kind of argument that a 19th century naturalist might give, before the elegance of the molecular foundation of life was discovered by modern biology.

At the end of his review Dawkins chides me for lack of peer-reviewed publications. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If Dawkins himself has many peer-reviewed research publications in the last few decades, he must be writing them under a pseudonym. Dawkins’ hypocritical complaint makes a nice little example of Darwinian gate-keeping. The nebulous, wooly-minded scenarios Dawkins spins in his books, of the origins of bat echolocation, spider webs, and so on, have no real justification in peer-reviewed publications. Yet Dawkins is free to write trade books without howls of protest from the scientific community because his stories fit the way many scientists want the world to be. But if (ahem…) someone publishes a book critically analyzing the data from a different perspective, the reaction is dramatically different.

www.discovery.org...

It appears your boy Dawkins avoids any discussion of biology at the microbiological level. I can post peer reviews of him all day.

What are you talking about??

Show me there are more than 2 sexes as you said and don't try to attack Dawkins as it gets your credibility to zero

a reply to: linda72

I wasn't attacking his credibility his peers are doing that, want to see more?

lol are only Microbiologists allowed to be experts on sexes?

2000 years of Western Civilization based on two sexes. were we wrong the whole time?
China and India go back further. two sexes.

I don't like Dawkins but he's right on this one.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Quit it. Every kid on this planet knew what a boy was and a girl was before they even started preschool. It's a Forrest Gump level shame that there are adults, doctors, and SCOTUS Justices that still don't know.

a reply to: quintessentone

Who the hell needs a peer review to know what a boy and girl are? Who needs a peer review to know that male and female are the only two sexes?

originally posted by: ElGoobero
lol are only Microbiologists allowed to be experts on sexes?

2000 years of Western Civilization based on two sexes. were we wrong the whole time?
China and India go back further. two sexes.

I don't like Dawkins but he's right on this one.

His peers say he is not objective.

This reveals another reason why Dawkins is not functioning as an evolutionist or a scientist on these subjects. Science is not just about how an individual goes about studying something; it is a social process. Individuals are expected to be as objective as possible, but it’s only human nature to become wedded to one’s own hypothesis. That’s why a peer review process is required for scientists to hold each other accountable. Yet, few evolutionists are willing to hold Dawkins accountable for what he says about religion or group selection on the public stage, even when his utterances would never survive the peer review process. Dawkins is not an evolutionist in part because no one is keeping him within bounds.

www.prosocial.world...

Microbiology would be the next step in understanding biology and not stubbornly holding on to subjective beliefs.

There are 2 sexes. Retardation and mental illness do not count

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

The same applies to you, where is the evidence?

So you say there are more than two sexes?

Name them

We've been on this merry go round before and I'm not taking the bait. I offered links to newest science, neuroscience, endocrinology...the list goes on, but you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. So Dawkins also can't provide evidence, where is Dawkins peer-reviewed, undisputed evidence?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

The same applies to you, where is the evidence?

So you say there are more than two sexes?

Name them

We've been on this merry go round before and I'm not taking the bait. I offered links to newest science, neuroscience, endocrinology...the list goes on, but you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. So Dawkins also can't provide evidence, where is Dawkins peer-reviewed, undisputed evidence?

But you're not leading a horse to water. You're leading a horse to sand and trying to tell the horse that it's water and he needs to drink it because you say it's water. Don't get mad at the horse for not being foolish enough to think the sand is water.

I imagine a thousand years from now our ancestors struggling to understand transgenderism because they can't find any fossil record of them. Just men and women...

They will dig up Catlin Jenner and immediately misgender her. How horrible!!!

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

The same applies to you, where is the evidence?

So you say there are more than two sexes?

Name them

We've been on this merry go round before and I'm not taking the bait. I offered links to newest science, neuroscience, endocrinology...the list goes on, but you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. So Dawkins also can't provide evidence, where is Dawkins peer-reviewed, undisputed evidence?

But you're not leading a horse to water. You're leading a horse to sand and trying to tell the horse that it's water and he needs to drink it because you say it's water. Don't get mad at the horse for not being foolish enough to think the sand is water.

l'll correct that for you: You can lead a biased closed-minded horse to water but when they get there they will believe it is sand, not water.

We have an 'X' chromosome, and we have a 'Y' chromosome. These determine sex. Unless a 'W' or 'Z' chromosome has been discovered recently, this has been settled for some time.
You want to split hairs with gender being self identification?
Ok:
A thin woman identifies as a fat woman. Do you:
a: Acknowledge that she is indeed a fat woman as she perceives she is.
or,
B: Recognise she is anorexic and is struggling with a mental health issue based on incorrect self perception?
Would it be the right thing to encourage her in her psychosis?
a reply to: quintessentone

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

www.theguardian.com...

None of the scientists/doctors you use as sources to disparage trans people's plight involve them accepting any other medical/scientific discipline's findings, such as neuroscience, endrocrinology, intersex spectrum...nadda. Biology study in and by itself does not show the whole true picture.

Good try but unless you have any evidence more than two sexes exist then the rest is just irrelevant

The same applies to you, where is the evidence?

So you say there are more than two sexes?

Name them

We've been on this merry go round before and I'm not taking the bait. I offered links to newest science, neuroscience, endocrinology...the list goes on, but you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. So Dawkins also can't provide evidence, where is Dawkins peer-reviewed, undisputed evidence?

But you're not leading a horse to water. You're leading a horse to sand and trying to tell the horse that it's water and he needs to drink it because you say it's water. Don't get mad at the horse for not being foolish enough to think the sand is water.

l'll correct that for you: You can lead a biased closed-minded horse to water but when they get there they will believe it is sand, not water.

Yeah I get it, I get exactly what you're saying here. You want me to believe what you're telling me and not believe what my eyes are seeing.