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

One more review of Dawkins' subjectiveness and I'm done.

In the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Nature, Nathaniel Comfort gave a negative review of Richard Dawkins' contribution as a scientist and he wrote:

“ Much of Dawkins's research has been in silico, writing programs for evolutionary simulations. In his simulations, life is utterly determined by genes, which specify developmental rules and fixed traits such as colour. The more lifelike his digital animals ("biomorphs") become, the more persuaded he is that real genes work in roughly the same way. Dawkins's critics accuse him of genetic determinism. This synopsis of his work shows that his life virtually depends on it.
A curious stasis underlies Dawkins's thought. His biomorphs are grounded in 1970s assumptions. Back then, with rare exceptions, each gene specified a protein and each protein was specified by a gene. The genome was a linear text -- a parts list or computer program for making an organism --insulated from the environment, with the coding regions interspersed with "junk".

Today's genome is much more than a script: it is a dynamic, three-dimensional structure, highly responsive to its environment and almost fractally modular. Genes may be fragmentary, with far-flung chunks of DNA sequence mixed and matched in bewildering combinatorial arrays. A universe of regulatory and modulatory elements hides in the erstwhile junk. Genes cooperate, evolving together as units to produce traits. Many researchers continue to find selfish DNA a productive idea, but taking the longer view, the selfish gene per se is looking increasingly like a twentieth-century construct.

Dawkins's synopsis shows that he has not adapted to this view. He nods at cooperation among genes, but assimilates it as a kind of selfishness. The microbiome and the 3D genome go unnoticed. Epigenetics is an "interesting, if rather rare, phenomenon" enjoying its "fifteen minutes of pop science voguery", which it has been doing since at least 2009, when Dawkins made the same claim in The Greatest Show on Earth (Transworld). Dawkins adheres to a deterministic language of "genes for" traits. As I and other historians have shown, such hereditarianism plays into the hands of the self-styled race realists (N. Comfort Nature 513, 306-307; 2014).[5]

www.conservapedia.com...

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

Apparently the Y chromosome is shrinking and in about 5 million years it might not even exist, if human species live that long...

Poor bloke still he wont be getting it as bad as J K Rowling.
I saw even Oxfam look like they have libelled her in their latest pride thing.


the pic

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

ZW is the system birds and insects use where ZZ is male and ZW is female.

Not quite sure why Dawkins is denying hermaphrodites, XXX and XXY types and there's a really rare condition where identical twins can be born where one is male and the other female, but the female is sterile but I can't remember what that is called. Though I'm pretty sure it'll be Fox or Moron misquoting him/not understanding it as Dawkins is a stickler for precision and not oversimplifying to the point of innacuracy.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

Apparently the Y chromosome is shrinking and in about 5 million years it might not even exist, if human species live that long...

It's already almost nonexistent in Looneyland.

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.

So will you concede that in zoology there are only two sexes or have you ever met a non-binary giraffe?

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

Exactly. Since when does one mental illness get a pass and we're all supposed to play along? And how does that benefit the person with the delusion?
It's no different from putting litterboxes in the elementary schools for the cat-identifying children.

Fantasy and delusion will inevitably collapse, for some coping with reality takes a little professional help.

There ARE only 2 Biological sexes!
Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

I really don't care, which "gender" you decide to be. I don't need to know, honestly. Are you now happy? Are you a good person? That is all that matters in the end.

But all this BS to try to change Biological facts, to fit a narrative, needs to stop. What also needs to stop, is social media. At this point, I wish the internet would crash.

Just fed up with people wanting their 15 minutes of fame, regardless of the issue, even if it is being a victim.

Sigh....
A man can think he is a woman. A man can not think like a woman.
Men and women are different.
It starts in the womb and continues until adulthood.
Our brains process the natural world differently.

a reply to: linda72

True. The 'human" skeleton....is of only 2 sexes...at hirh, positively.

The female skeleton has a pelvic birth canal opening as a newborn-forward.

The male skeleton has no such "opening" for babies.

Soooo. It's true birth skeletons are only 1 of 2.

Now whatever the hell happens to that persons outside skin thru-out their lives...doesn't matter( it's all good we're whatever)...because x-rays will thruout the lifetime....will ALWAYS SHOW...the drag queens as having no birth canal present.

The sexual, social disparities are real, but we really are just born w birth canal-female...or not.

a reply to: quintessentone

No one’s trying to disparage troons bro, just common sense and real science.

People can claim to be whatever sex, race, species they want to be. But claiming so doesn’t make it true and you can’t force people to believe something they don’t believe.. just be nice to people and accept EVERYONE’s opinion, even if it doesn’t align with your new ideological religion.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Exactly!
How the hell would a man know what it feels like to be a woman unless he’s been a woman before?

Yeah, maybe you’ve got a woman trapped inside......or maybe you’re WRONG!!!
It is the apex of entitled, privileged, arrogance for them to not even consider.
Like they’ve never been wrong before.

a reply to: linda72

So, Richard Dawkins is wrong about evolution science and God, but he's right about this?

If a man is able to transition to become a woman, is anyone claiming that person is now a 3rd sex? Nope. That they lost their "Y" chromosome? Nope.

What people, including scientists, are saying is that "sex" is on a spectrum, both biologically and in physical expression. There are endless shades of gray on the two ended spectrum that lies between pure black and pure white.

We have a Adam and a Eve...

It’s like trying to open the eyes of a flatearther, or a Trianatarian. All the evidence in the world to the contrary is ignored. This is akin to allowing flatearthers to control the narrative. Now Trinatarians used to control the narrative and that was an extremely dark and evil period of human history.

Satan is always using the same old tricks. Nothing new. And yet God’s word has never been proven wrong nor can it.

“And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”-Genesis 1:27.

“In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female...”-Matthew 19:4. Jesus Christ, son of the living God.

ETA
Had to change = to -. My eyes are blurry when I wake up sometimes and use my IPad. Hope that isn’t a bad sign.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

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

False.

His peers are not attacking his credibility but 'attacking' some of his ideas in science. This is happening everywhere in academia-it is not a safe space n everyone challenges everyone else constantly.

Nothing in what you quoted shows Professor Dawkins is getting criticisms for stating there are only two sexes.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: linda72

So, Richard Dawkins is wrong about evolution science and God, but he's right about this?

If a man is able to transition to become a woman, is anyone claiming that person is now a 3rd sex? Nope. That they lost their "Y" chromosome? Nope.

What people, including scientists, are saying is that "sex" is on a spectrum, both biologically and in physical expression. There are endless shades of gray on the two ended spectrum that lies between pure black and pure white.

How is he wrong about evolution? Are you claiming he is wrong?

If sex is non-binary then you need to state which other sexes exist.

The term 'spectrum' doesn't exist in biology/genetics

a reply to: randomuser

You can't be serious?

“And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”=Genesis 1:27.

Is this the home base you're defending when you claim this man/woman reality? Do you also claim "Eve's" suffering in childbirth is due to her sin of succumbing to Serpent's temptation, and that her proper place scientifically is under her husband's authority?

“In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female.”=Matthew 19:4. Jesus Christ, son of the living God.

You're quoting Jesus to support your mockery of trans and trans curious folks? Jesus Christ, a man(?), supposedly born of a virgin(?) who supposedly came back to life after being dead for 3 days?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

World current population: www.worldometers.info...

8,037,258,287

None of the the 8+ billion fellow humans were born from men

Do you understand the difference between the two sexes?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's the real crux of the matter isn't it? It's really a satanic attack on God's word. When you have raised an entire culture to believe unreality and lies (such as evolution is real, that God doesn't exist, and that his word is not in the Bible) it becomes an easy thing to manipulate them any which way you please.

"So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ."-Ephesians 4:14-15.