Atheist Richard Dawkins: “there are only two sexes as matter of science”

[watsup]

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."

He said bluntly, "As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it."

Richard Dawkins declares there are only two sexes as matter of science: 'That's all there is to it'

Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins slammed transgender and LGBTQ ideology in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, asserting, "There are two sexes."

www.foxnews.com

Dawkins was also stripped of his previous title of “Humanist of the Year” due to his comments.

He further said that “I was asking people to discuss. Discuss. That’s what I’ve done all my life in universities. There are people for whom the word ‘discuss’ doesn’t mean ‘discuss,’ it means you’ve taken a position, which I hadn’t. … I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss.“

Is Dawkins correct? Is it reasonable to discuss “gender theory”?

 

[SkyChief]

. . . . Is Dawkins correct? Is it reasonable to discuss “gender theory”?

I think the argument is that biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are completely different than genders.

I don't personally believe that, but that's the go-to argument for the multi-gender crowd..

 

[ataraxia]

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."

He said bluntly, "As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it."

Richard Dawkins declares there are only two sexes as matter of science: 'That's all there is to it'

Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins slammed transgender and LGBTQ ideology in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, asserting, "There are two sexes."

www.foxnews.com

Dawkins was also stripped of his previous title of “Humanist of the Year” due to his comments.

He further said that “I was asking people to discuss. Discuss. That’s what I’ve done all my life in universities. There are people for whom the word ‘discuss’ doesn’t mean ‘discuss,’ it means you’ve taken a position, which I hadn’t. … I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss.“

Is Dawkins correct? Is it reasonable to discuss “gender theory”?

It seems that Professor Dawkins is confusing the concept of separate sexes with that of genders. It may seem like a subtle argument, but it is at the core of the discussion here.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I think the argument is that biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are completely different than genders.

I don't believe that, but that's the go-to argument for the multi-gender crowd..

Gender and sex are, indeed, two different things. Some want to use a genetic anomaly like hermaphroditism, to say there are more than two sexes, but that's just ignorant IMO.

Homosexuality has existed since the written word. Obviously there are those who swing both ways, but heterosexuality still remains the primary choice of over 90% of human beings. This doesn't include girls "experimenting" in college or the White Supremacists having sex with Aryans in prison.

 

[Divine_Wind]

It seems that Professor Dawkins is confusing the concept of separate sexes with that of genders. It may seem like a subtle argument, but it is at the core of the discussion here.

He's definitely walking a tight-rope since most atheists favor leaving gays alone. Agreed sex and gender are different. Dawkins should know the difference.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[mrjurrs]

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."

He said bluntly, "As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it."

Richard Dawkins declares there are only two sexes as matter of science: 'That's all there is to it'

Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins slammed transgender and LGBTQ ideology in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, asserting, "There are two sexes."

www.foxnews.com

Dawkins was also stripped of his previous title of “Humanist of the Year” due to his comments.

He further said that “I was asking people to discuss. Discuss. That’s what I’ve done all my life in universities. There are people for whom the word ‘discuss’ doesn’t mean ‘discuss,’ it means you’ve taken a position, which I hadn’t. … I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss.“

Is Dawkins correct? Is it reasonable to discuss “gender theory”?

As a biologist, he is uninformed. Intersex is a sex.

 

[tosca1]

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."

He said bluntly, "As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it."

Richard Dawkins declares there are only two sexes as matter of science: 'That's all there is to it'

Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins slammed transgender and LGBTQ ideology in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, asserting, "There are two sexes."

www.foxnews.com

Dawkins was also stripped of his previous title of “Humanist of the Year” due to his comments.

He further said that “I was asking people to discuss. Discuss. That’s what I’ve done all my life in universities. There are people for whom the word ‘discuss’ doesn’t mean ‘discuss,’ it means you’ve taken a position, which I hadn’t. … I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss.“

Is Dawkins correct? Is it reasonable to discuss “gender theory”?

I'll have to agree with Dawkins.

From my religious standpoint - yes, there are only two genders created by GOD.
Science supports that.

 

[tosca1]

It seems that Professor Dawkins is confusing the concept of separate sexes with that of genders. It may seem like a subtle argument, but it is at the core of the discussion here.

He could be using "sexes," for genders. It can be used that way, too.
Mind you, perhaps political correctness had changed all that.

 

[ataraxia]

He could be using "sexes," for genders. It can be used that way, too.
Mind you, perhaps political correctness had changed all that.

It's not about political correctness, but about a more subtle understanding. Sometimes, as our understanding of something evolves and becomes more refined and sophisticated, the vocabulary needs to keep up.

What Do We Mean By Sex and Gender?

As we pursue our work at Women's Health Research at Yale, it is particularly important to use language that captures the different concepts of sex and gender so

medicine.yale.edu

 

[HonestJoe]

I have to say that I felt there was something of a contradiction between "there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it." and "There are people for whom the word ‘discuss’ doesn’t mean ‘discuss,’ it means you’ve taken a position, which I hadn’t.“ (though I've not seen the interview so he could have been taken out of context).

Is Dawkins correct? Is it reasonable to discuss “gender theory”?

He's correct that it is a reasonable topic to discuss and that there are multiple different opinions and positions that can be reasonable offered. Based on these quotes though, he isn't actually doing that.

He's also right that there are far too many people who are bullies and push only one definitive answer, but I'd argue that there are as many of those coming from an "anti-trans" direction. I feel it is at least as ridiculous to boycott Bud Light because they had a tiny marketing deal with a transgender influencer as it is to boycott Harry Potter because of the authors statements.

 

[Mircea]

Is Dawkins correct? Is it reasonable to discuss “gender theory”?

Whether it's reasonable is irrelevant since Liberals refuse to permit discussion.

I think the argument is that biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are completely different than genders.

That isn't true. All hermaphrodites are either XX or XY. It is extremely rare and better than 90% of cases are ambiguous genitalia. True hermaphroditism is extremely rare and one has a testis and ovotestis.

They all suffer from adrenal hyperplasia and 80+% also have renal tumors and if you remember your high school anatomy the adrenal glands are co-located with each kidney so the cause is malformation/dysfunction of the adrenal glands/kidneys.

 

[SkyChief]

Whether it's reasonable is irrelevant since Liberals refuse to permit discussion.

Ok.

That isn't true. All hermaphrodites are either XX or XY. It is extremely rare and better than 90% of cases are ambiguous genitalia. True hermaphroditism is extremely rare and one has a testis and ovotestis. . . .

I stand corrected. . . Hermaphrodites are not a third biological "sex". The point is sustained, however - i.e., biological sex should not be conflated with gender identity, which happens a lot, and many arguments are based on that false premise.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

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."

He said bluntly, "As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it."

Richard Dawkins declares there are only two sexes as matter of science: 'That's all there is to it'

Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins slammed transgender and LGBTQ ideology in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, asserting, "There are two sexes."

www.foxnews.com

Dawkins was also stripped of his previous title of “Humanist of the Year” due to his comments.

He further said that “I was asking people to discuss. Discuss. That’s what I’ve done all my life in universities. There are people for whom the word ‘discuss’ doesn’t mean ‘discuss,’ it means you’ve taken a position, which I hadn’t. … I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss.“

Is Dawkins correct? Is it reasonable to discuss “gender theory”?

It is necessary to science to ask questions and discuss results. On this topic biology has the best explanation about sexaul attributes. The entire claim of endless sexes is a social construct and not related at all to what Dawkins is talking about.

But that will not stop activists from attacking Dawkins.

 

[Helix]

Another person doesn't understand gender identity and wants to tell you all about it.

Tonight on faux.

 

[Mircea]

Gender and sex are, indeed, two different things. Some want to use a genetic anomaly like hermaphroditism, to say there are more than two sexes, but that's just ignorant IMO.

Yes, it is.

Homosexuality has existed since the written word. Obviously there are those who swing both ways, but heterosexuality still remains the primary choice of over 90% of human beings.

That is due to the fact that the primary function and raison d'être of every organism that has existed, that exists now and which will exist in the future is to procreate to perpetuate the species to ensure its survival.

Homosexuality is anathema to life.

He's definitely walking a tight-rope since most atheists favor leaving gays alone.

As an Atheist I don't have an issue with homosexuals.

I do have an issue with stupid x-tians who made a mess of everything and screwed everybody over because stupid x-tians didn't understand the problem.

The issues raised by homosexuals were the very same issues that affected heterosexuals.

Before we got married, I could put my girlfriend on my car insurance and home insurance and I even had her on my business insurance but I can add her to my health insurance?

Why the hell not? Why can't I pay for the higher cost of a family plan and add her to it?

Why do hospitals get to dictate who visits a patient? Do patients not have rights? Is that not the right of the patient to determine why may or may not visit?

Why do we have to be married in order to gain a benefit from living under the same roof?

There are a whole host of issues that negatively affected heterosexuals as equally as they affected homosexuals and thanks to irretrievably stupid x-tians heterosexuals are still suffering.

 

[devildavid]

Here is an interesting article addressing the topic of the OP.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

 

[Mithrae]

Gender and sex are, indeed, two different things. Some want to use a genetic anomaly like hermaphroditism, to say there are more than two sexes, but that's just ignorant IMO.

'Sex' is a way of categorizing organisms' form and function in relation to sexual reproduction possibilities; a two-sex categorization (male and female) is the approach generally taken by societies and scientists at least in the Western hemisphere, but it's no more inherently correct than say a five- or six-sex approach (prepubescents, reproductive females, reproductive males, menopausal females, old males), or a three-sex approach (male, female, intersex) or some other approach based on the various combinations of chromosomes, gametes or genitalia found in the human species.

Saying "There are only two biological sexes" is a bit like adamantly insisting "There are no more nor less than eight planets in our solar system"; it's correct according to current prevailing conventions, and those conventions are obviously based on biological/astronomical information and may even be reasonably objective, but they are still ultimately conventions which we have selected rather than discovered intact in nature itself. As most of us remember, there used to be nine planets - My Very Easy Memory Jingle Seems Useless Now So for example the exclusion of intersex as a 'sex' tells us more about society and convention than it does about biology.

 

[Divine_Wind]

'Sex' is a way of categorizing organisms' form and function in relation to sexual reproduction possibilities; a two-sex categorization (male and female) is the approach generally taken by societies and scientists at least in the Western hemisphere, but it's no more inherently correct than say a five- or six-sex approach (prepubescents, reproductive females, reproductive males, menopausal females, old males), or a three-sex approach (male, female, intersex) or some other approach based on the various combinations of chromosomes, gametes or genitalia found in the human species.

Saying "There are only two biological sexes" is a bit like adamantly insisting "There are no more nor less than eight planets in our solar system"; it's correct according to current prevailing conventions, and those conventions are obviously based on biological/astronomical information and may even be reasonably objective, but they are still ultimately conventions which we have selected rather than discovered intact in nature itself. As most of us remember, there used to be nine planets - My Very Easy Memory Jingle Seems Useless Now So for example the exclusion of intersex as a 'sex' tells us more about society and convention than it does about biology.

Sorry, not buying it. I appreciate that everyone is a little bit different. Politicizing science is why the public education about global warming is all fouled up.

People are different, but the science on both asexual and bisexual organisms is pretty solid. There's no magic there. There's only genetic variance. Some lethal, some resulting sterility or some fully function. It's rare, but it happens.

I follow the science and stand against pushing politics into science just like I'm against pushing religion into science.

 

[pragmatic]

To my recollection the terms gender and sex used to mean the same thing.

Some say that has now changed.

Worthy of discussion. Works for me...

..

 

[Mithrae]

Sorry, not buying it. I appreciate that everyone is a little bit different. Politicizing science is why the public education about global warming is all fouled up.

People are different, but the science on both asexual and bisexual organisms is pretty solid. There's no magic there. There's only genetic variance. Some lethal, some resulting sterility or some fully function. It's rare, but it happens.

I follow the science and stand against pushing politics into science just like I'm against pushing religion into science.

The two-sex categorization is at least as 'political,' influenced by prevailing societal biases, as any other. Arguably much moreso; "male and female He created them" as the story goes, and biologists of past centuries were obviously not immune to such ubiquitous and deeply-ingrained cultural biases even if and when they happened across some of the rarer variations present in our species. These days it's bleedin' obvious that not all of human sexual biology falls neatly into two distinct categories, so is it 'political' to suggest that this fact should be incorporated into a third sex category... or is it political to insist on adhering to the biblical categories, mere facts be damned?

 

[Divine_Wind]

The two-sex categorization is at least as 'political,' influenced by prevailing societal biases, as any other. Arguably much moreso; "male and female He created them" as the story goes, and biologists of past centuries were obviously not immune to such ubiquitous and deeply-ingrained cultural biases even if and when they happened across some of the rarer variations present in our species. These days it's bleedin' obvious that not all of human sexual biology falls neatly into two distinct categories, so is it 'political' to suggest that this fact should be incorporated into a third sex category... or is it political to insist on adhering to the biblical categories, mere facts be damned?

Which is exactly what I mean. "It depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is" type of mindset where words mean whatever you want them to mean. Sorry, no, Science is not politics. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Projections can be made from those facts or extrapolations, but, in science, it's always clear which is which. If it isn't, then those pushing it are not scientists. They are politicians with a science degree.

In your dream world of where sex means whatever you want it to mean, what do you expect will be different then than it is now?

 

[Mithrae]

In your dream world of where sex means whatever you want it to mean,

Thankyou for making it so obvious that you're not reading and/or not interested in honest discussion.

what do you expect will be different then than it is now?

Almost nothing; which makes the dogmatism and pushback from "male and female He created them" types or simple traditionalists such as apparently Dawkins particularly stand out. The mere recognition that human sexual biology falls into more than two simple distinct categories would have almost no consequence beyond a) removing the implication that intersex people are some kind of freaks who just don't fit, b) removing the comforting illusion of 'common sense' from anti-LGBTQI propaganda and I suppose c) adding a third box to government forms and suchlike

Under the charitable assumption that the pushback isn't coming from a position of explicit cruelty towards intersex people or inordinate fear over the choice between three boxes on a form, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that a lot of the objection to acknowledging sex categories which encompass the actual factual range of human variation is motivated by that supposed 'common sense' pretext for bigotry.

 

[bomberfox]

Whether it's reasonable is irrelevant since Liberals refuse to permit discussion.


That isn't true. All hermaphrodites are either XX or XY. It is extremely rare and better than 90% of cases are ambiguous genitalia. True hermaphroditism is extremely rare and one has a testis and ovotestis.

They all suffer from adrenal hyperplasia and 80+% also have renal tumors and if you remember your high school anatomy the adrenal glands are co-located with each kidney so the cause is malformation/dysfunction of the adrenal glands/kidneys.

Sex has never been solely defined by chromosomes.

 

[bomberfox]

Yes, it is.


That is due to the fact that the primary function and raison d'être of every organism that has existed, that exists now and which will exist in the future is to procreate to perpetuate the species to ensure its survival.

Homosexuality is anathema to life.



As an Atheist I don't have an issue with homosexuals.

I do have an issue with stupid x-tians who made a mess of everything and screwed everybody over because stupid x-tians didn't understand the problem.

The issues raised by homosexuals were the very same issues that affected heterosexuals.

Before we got married, I could put my girlfriend on my car insurance and home insurance and I even had her on my business insurance but I can add her to my health insurance?

Why the hell not? Why can't I pay for the higher cost of a family plan and add her to it?

Why do hospitals get to dictate who visits a patient? Do patients not have rights? Is that not the right of the patient to determine why may or may not visit?

Why do we have to be married in order to gain a benefit from living under the same roof?

There are a whole host of issues that negatively affected heterosexuals as equally as they affected homosexuals and thanks to irretrievably stupid x-tians heterosexuals are still suffering.

. There is no pre-ordained purpose in life. You’re just going to have to get over the fact we got our rights and theres nothin you can do about it.

 

[ataraxia]

That is due to the fact that the primary function and raison d'être of every organism that has existed, that exists now and which will exist in the future is to procreate to perpetuate the species to ensure its survival.

Homosexuality is anathema to life.

I wouldn't be so sure. Nature is often more complex and mysterious than we think.

Study Reveals Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction

Male homosexuality doesn’t make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. It appears that the trait is heritable, but because homosexual men are much less likely to produce offspring than heterosexual men, shouldn’t the …

www.psychologicalscience.org