Dawkins' Defiant Declaration: Science Over Slogans in the Trans Debate! By Mrs Vera West and Peter West
The cacophony of culture wars: where feelings often eclipse facts, Richard Dawkins emerges as a voice for reason, ignoring his atheism for this post. His latest salvo, excerpted in the anthology The War on Science (edited by Lawrence Krauss and published by Post Hill Press), skewers the mantra "trans women are women" as not just misguided but "scientifically false." Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist whose The Selfish Gene popularised sociobiology, warns that this "postmodern counter-factualism" threatens women's rights and academic integrity. Speaking to The Telegraph, he decries the trans lobby for hounding dissenters like Kathleen Stock and JK Rowling, while publishers bow to junior censors. At its core, Dawkins' take isn't bigotry, it's biology: Sex is binary, defined by gametes, not spectra or sentiments. In this essay, we'll unpack his argument, exploring the science, societal fallout, and why truth must trump emotion in an era of ideological overreach.
Dawkins doesn't mince words: The notion of sex as a continuum is a "denial of genetic reality." Rooted in anisogamy, the fundamental asymmetry where female gametes (eggs) dwarf male ones (sperm), this binary underpins all sexually reproducing species. "There are two sexes," he reiterated in a 2023 interview, echoing his call-out of Scientific American for peddling "sex is a spectrum" pseudoscience. Intersex conditions? Rare anomalies (0.018% of births), not a third sex, they don't produce novel gametes.
In his War on Science chapter, Dawkins laments academia's slide into postmodernism, where "personal feelings can change reality." This "hubris" dismisses science as a "social construct," fuelling the "nonsense lie" of spectral sex. He draws the line at literal interpretations of "trans women are women," arguing it's not just semantically slippery, but empirically bankrupt. Dawkins' stance echoes his 2021 AHA award revocation over trans tweets, where he questioned identity without malice. As Alison Gill critiqued, it's under the "guise of scientific discourse," but Dawkins insists: Science isn't a guise; it's the gold standard.
Beyond biology, Dawkins spotlights the slogan's real-world wreckage: Infringing women's rights in sports, prisons, and changing rooms. Trans women (biological males) competing in female categories? A "logical entailment" that edges out cis women, per Dawkins, think Lia Thomas' NCAA swim dominance. Prisons? Cases like Isla Bryson (formerly Adam Graham) in women's facilities spark outrage over safety. He notes the lobby's vitriol disproportionately targets women: "It's always women who suffer."
Dawkins cites Stock's Sussex hounding and Rowling's resilience amid death threats. At 2023 London Pride, one activist urged punching "TERFs" (trans-exclusionary radical feminists), language Dawkins dubs more "typical of the sex that … claims to have left." DEI policies, he argues, stifle academic freedom, promoting "falsehoods under the banner of social justice." Publishers? Bullied by juniors into self-censorship, per his Telegraph chat. The result: A chilling effect on discourse, where facts bow to feelings.
Dawkins pulls no punches on the trans lobby's "dogmatic and hectoring" tactics. His 2021 AHA ouster? For tweets analogising trans identity to Rachel Dolezal's racial claims, prompting cries of "transphobia." In a YouTube sit-down with Nick Gillespie, he laments the "problem with identifying as a different gender," stressing empathy without endorsement. A Reddit thread on The War on Science fumes: "Why are we not asking young people?" but Dawkins' essay, hailed on X as "superb," insists age doesn't alter axioms.
He ties this to broader "war on science": Postmodernism's assault, where truth is subjective. "Scientific truth stands above human feelings and politics," his excerpt declares. Yet, as First Things notes, Dawkins' gender binary aligns oddly with his atheism, resigning from FFRF over retracted pieces affirming biology. The irony? A freethinker cancelled by freethinkers.
Dawkins' critique isn't hate; it's a bulwark against erosion, scientific, societal, and scholarly. In a world where "her penis" passes as prose, his call for empirical anchors resonates. Compassion for trans individuals? Absolutely, but not at truth's expense. As he urges: Defend facts from "subversion," lest postmodern hubris unravels reality.
Comments