[tovej]

If you've followed Dawkins' trajectory, I don't think it's clear that he's "otherwise of sound mind" anymore.

He's had some very strange output on biological gender, where he tries to handwave away the existence of intersex people. And he's a biologist.

[mrec]

"Intersex" is a misleading umbrella term for a whole bunch of different DSDs, each of which is 100% specific to one biological sex. And I don't think I've ever seen the term "biological gender"; about the only thing gender proponents seem to agree on is that it's NOT biological.

[tovej]

Biological gender is the inconsistent "sex=gender" conception that cranks and conservative grifters operate under.

I'm not sure what a "gender proponent" is, but Dawkins has come out and written some pseudo-scientific bullshit about there only being two sexes/genders, and that everyone fits nearly into one of them. Which is patently false. Intersex people are a real phenomenon, and are not clearly classifiable into either sex. Dawkins has made a fool of himself by claiming that a real biological phenomenon can simply be ignored when conceiving a theory of sex (and gender).

In other words, Dawkins has gone off the deep end. He doesn't really have credibility as a researcher or public intellectual. He's with the grifters now.

This embarrassing conservative grift is part of an anthology filled with drivel from other grifters: The War on Science", edited by sex pest Lawrence Krauss [1].

[1] https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-War-on-Science/Da...

[mrec]

> Biological gender is the inconsistent "sex=gender" conception that cranks and conservative grifters operate under.

I don't know about cranks and conservative grifters, but it's definitely not a feature of the "gender critical" position which I thought Dawkins was broadly aligned with. That's more that "sex" is absolutely binary, with your "intersex people" being umambiguously classified through genetics, while "gender" is too vague and undefined a term to be useful for much of anything in the public sphere.

> Dawkins has come out and written some pseudo-scientific bullshit about there only being two sexes/genders, and that everyone fits nearly into one of them

It'd be surprising for Dawkins to make any kind of definitive statement about gender. I do think that your use of "sexes/genders" in that sentence is symptomatic of exactly the kind of conflation you're complaining about. "There are only two sexes" is a completely different statement from "there are only two genders", and far more defensible.

[tovej]

The rhetorical claim "there are only two sexes" is only ever used to claim that there are two genders. And that is precisely what Dawkins has done.

You are wrong about intersex people being genetically classifiable. There is no deterministic causal relationship between genetics and sex characteristics: as an example, a person with XX chromosomes may develop external male genitalia and v.v. for XY chromosomes. But of course, for most people with XX and XY chromosomes develop, this is the other way around. See how genetics do not explain this?

[mrec]

Your first para seems utterly bizarre, to the point of nonsensicality. Maybe it would help if you could say what you think "gender" refers to, but at this point I doubt it.

Your second para's argument would only be valid if you thought that sex is defined by external characteristics. I'm pretty sure you don't think that. And as far as I'm aware, while some DSDs certainly have a gene-expression component, there's no reason to think that they don't all ultimately have a genetic basis. There's a strong whiff here of "it's all terribly complicated so let's just agree that nothing means anything".

Obviously people can disagree about the merits or otherwise of a genetic classification. But it's not straightforwardly wrong or insane, particularly since credible alternatives have been notably lacking.

[tovej]

Ok, so you don't know what you're talking about. That's fine.

"There's no reason to think they don't all ultimately have a genetic basis". Oh, so you have groundbreaking research results you want to share? Something that would explain luteoma as having a "genetic basis"?

And yes, external sex characteristics is how sex is determined by doctors at birth. And throughout life. If you live as female/male/ambiguous intersex, but have some other set of chromosomes, that does not change your sex.

[abc123abc123]

Biological gender exists. If you have a Y you're male, and if not, you're female. Easy as that. I, for one, am happy that wokeness and the post-truth ideology that tries to teach that there is no truth in math, is on its way to the garbage heap of history. It has done enough damage already, and must be thrown away quickly.

[amanaplanacanal]

This is clearly nonsense. You are taking about sex, not gender. There are a millions of baby girls born with Y chromosomes that aren't discovered until adolescence when they don't get their period, or even adulthood when they can't get pregnant.

See: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

[mrec]

Well, "baby girls born with Y chromosomes" is very clearly begging the question, and I'm not sure where you're getting your "millions" figure from. Even the upper estimates of CAIS have it around 1 in 20,000 XY individuals, which would put global numbers in the order of 200,000.

[amanaplanacanal]

My mental arithmetic was bogus . The point is the same though. These are children who were assigned female at birth, their parents think they are girls, they think they are girls, and then in teens or adulthood they find out about the genetic issue. Calling them men seems ridiculous.

[mrec]

"Seems ridiculous" is a very subjective thing, though, and very dependent on context. It can seem ridiculous that a boxer with male physical advantage since puberty (i.e. 5-ARD) can beat the ** out of a female boxer while the world's media looks on and applauds, but here we are.

Personally I'm sympathetic to the idea that CAIS individuals should be a reasonable exception, i.e. they're still biologically male, but in most social contexts there's no obvious gain to treating them as such. I can see why many people have arrived at a hardline "XX or GTFO" position given the absolute state of activism on the other side, but yes, there's definitely room for nuance. On the other hand, obviously, testicular cancer doesn't care what you were "assigned at birth"; there is a fact of the matter, and it matters.

Appreciate the civil discussion, btw. It's a rarity in this subject.

[amanaplanacanal]

The problem with the genetic definition is that it means that nobody knows whether anyone is a man or a woman until they get tested. Nobody pre-genetic testing ever knew. Most people alive today don't know. And that's clearly not how society works, or ever has worked.

[Arodex]

Blahblahblah bullshit

While you invent the terrible menace of the "anti-math woke" (it doesn't exist), the current president and secretary of health - who have actual power of nuisance over all Americans and a large part of the world - are unable to do correct basic percentage calculations and openly boast of it: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/apr/23/robert-f-k...

Meanwhile, yes, gender is a social construct, sex is another thing completely, and both can be changed.