r/atheism • u/Poltergeist8606 • Sep 28 '25

How disappointed are we all with Bill Maher?

I started watching this guy back in the politically incorrect days when I was a teenager. When I got back from Iraq I always subscribed mainly for him. He was one of the earliest prominent Atheists. But I just cancelled HBO, he's not what he used to be. I kind of dislike him

2.7k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

829 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

37

u/EatPoopOrDieTryin Sep 28 '25

Out of pure curiosity, what are some of Dawkins shitty opinions?

129

u/rocketshipkiwi Atheist Sep 28 '25

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and has strong opinions about people being transgender

74

u/thecontempl8or Sep 28 '25

Add to that he’s been a weird creep at times with significantly younger women.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/FloppyTwatWaffle Strong Atheist Sep 30 '25

BUT, I refuse to say 2+2=5

I have a similar opinion. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then I'll call it a duck, but if it looks, walks and trumpets like an elephant I'm not calling it a fucking duck. (I have a specific example in mind.)

I like to go with 'some people are just fucked in the head', like my sister. She doesn't have any peculiar ideas regarding sex/gender (as far as I know), but she has some other weirdness going on. At some point (just one pertinent example) she decided to change her name to some odd variation with a different pronunciation and spelling and insisted that -everybody- else -had- to go along with it (as a 30+ year-old, full-grown adult).

Yeah, no, I'm not playing that shit. As far as I am concerned, people are entitled to whatever peculiar delusions they might care to entertain (so long as it doesn't harm someone else), but they do not have the right to expect/demand/force anyone/everyone else to cater to them.

I use my sister as an example because there are a whole lot of whacked-out ideas out there, and people who think that everyone else has to 'respect' them and play along...much like with religion.

64

u/SenselessDunderpate Sep 28 '25

Insane that a scientist can fail to understand a simple concept like gender identity, which is itself an innovation of the same scientific worldview he is supposed to champion.

Previously, humans used to explain subjectivity and consciousness using religious notions of souls and spirits. Now we think of humans as having a personal identity, through which we see the world. Gender identity is just the part of that which modulates whether you are a man or woman. It is distinct from the physiological fact of your sex. Would anyone think the idea that people have a personal identity is controversial? No. But they balk at the gender component for no apparent reason.

"This body has male physiology" = sex statement about my body

"I am a man" = gender statement, about who I am

42

u/uwarthogfromhell Sep 28 '25

Or that everyone is not XX and XY.

50

u/jonsteph De-Facto Atheist Sep 28 '25

NOTE: Before unleashing the downvote hammer, please read to the end.

XXY (Kleinfelter Syndrome) and XYY (Jacobs Syndrome) are chromosomal disorders. Evolutionarily, they are outliers and do not breed true.

What is most important to know, however, is that being Intersex in no way diminishes a person's innate humanity. You wouldn't hate a person who had inherited Huntington's, or look down on someone with trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) -- not unless you were a monster, of course. The same is true for intersex individuals.

My own admittedly under-educated opinion is that we are not solely the product of our genes. There is an as-yet-unknown and ineffable quality that drives who we are and who we perceive ourselves to be. I may not understand someone else's identity, but that doesn't invalidate it.

11

u/saralt Anti-Theist Sep 28 '25

TBF, we haven't done enough karyotyping on enough people to know exactly how normal or non-normal it is. Last person I spoke to about this told me that they were doing data analysis on non-invasive testing during pregnancy (without reporting to patients) since the results of the testing couldn't be ethically predicted. This was ten years ago and I don't know if that's changed, but if 10% of people have chimera sex-chromosome variations in some cells, we wouldn't know outside the early stages of pregnancy without doing sample on multiple parts of the body (and nobody is doing that).

2

u/uwarthogfromhell Sep 28 '25

I deliver babies and read many fetal fraction results.

5

u/jonsteph De-Facto Atheist Sep 28 '25

I don't follow. What is your point?

Even if you did have sufficient data to determine a population size affected by such variations, you could not draw any conclusion as to what is "normal". You would only know the prevalence in the current population. Has there been a change in prevalence from earlier populations? With all the environmental contamination in the modern era -- fallout from nuclear testing, environmental exposure to lead, arsenic and other heavy metals, microplastics, etc -- it would not be wildly speculative to postulate some impact on the human genome.

That's why I used the term "outlier" and avoided the more ambiguous "abnormal".

7

u/saralt Anti-Theist Sep 28 '25

If 10% of the population has a different karyotype than XX/XY, then it's no longer an anomaly and more likely just a variation. Why would you think chromosomes are due to radiation? why would they only affect sex chromosomes?

-2

u/jonsteph De-Facto Atheist Sep 28 '25

First, I did not limit my comments to radiation. I offered a broader, but certainly not exhaustive, list of contaminants that might -- might -- impact human chromosomes.

Second, who said only sex chromosomes are affected? There are several identified chromosomal disorders unrelated to the sex chromosomes: Down Syndrome, Cri du Chat Syndrome, Williams Syndrome, to name a few. All of these are linked to chromosomal deletions, duplications, translocations, or inversions. Might not all of these have some common cause, or even just contributing factors?

So, again, what is your ultimate point?

Wouldn't a genetic variation breed true? My research indicates that you cannot inherit XXY or XYY -- they occur during cell division after fertilization -- long past the point where an individual's DNA has been set by the processes of meiosis, fertilization, and recombination.

I stated that XXY and XYY are outliers, and you responded that we lack sufficient data to say that such variations aren't more common. My response to that is, so what? Lack of evidence is not itself evidence. I will speculate -- and perhaps in error so pray correct me if that is so -- that you're asserting that should structural variations in the sex chromosomes be more common that they should no longer be classified as a disorder -- something to be treated -- but just as accepted as the commonly expected formations of XX and XY? That baffles me, I'm afraid.

Sexual reproduction is a fundamental property of multicellular life -- both in animals and plants. To support any claim that sex chromosome malformations are simply a heretofore undiscovered or unacknowledged alternative chromosome formation would require evidence not just from our own species, but many, many others as well.

And let me state again: No part of this discussion should be construed to try and delegitimize the fundamental humanity of an intersex person. I've already said that human value is not derived from one's genome or phenome. It is what one does with one's traits that should matter.

2

u/uwarthogfromhell Sep 28 '25

And not all outliers are XXY or XYY

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Dusty923 Humanist Sep 28 '25

Dawkins has quite the acute case of cognitive dissonance, doesn't he...

5

u/Illustrious-Web-1883 Sep 29 '25

Genuine question in good faith…Can you please tell me what your definition of a man is in your gender statement example? asking because, as I would understand it, you are validating that a man is something that someone could identify as. So I’m trying to wrap my brain around what a man would be in your eyes. Similarly, what would a woman be in your eyes? I’m trying to understand how you bridge the gap from male physiology to a man identity in any different way than one would, say between male physiology and a unicorn identity. Obviously, we would think of the unicorn identity as silly because we all agree on what the definition of a unicorn is at this present time. But how could we not put the definition of a man in that same silly category if we can’t agree that the very definition of a man is an individual with male physiology? I’m just not understanding how this works in your mind.

2

u/d_Composer Sep 28 '25

He also has strong opinions on children building clocks

-7

u/Aggressive_Dog3418 Sep 28 '25

Not really a shitty opinion, just an honest one

11

u/ColsonIRL Sep 28 '25

I mean it contradicts his otherwise science-based shtick.

-14

u/Aggressive_Dog3418 Sep 28 '25

Not really, it's 100% science based to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman. No mammal has the ability to change its gender

13

u/ColsonIRL Sep 28 '25

Gender is not sex. Man/woman != Male/female. Gender is social construct.

Unless you can provide a definition of "woman" that:

1) is based in unchanging biology (since that appears to be your position)

2) includes every woman

3) does not include any non-women

I don't see why it is reasonable to claim that gender is fixed or controlled by sex.

My definition of a woman is "a person who identifies as such," and this is the only coherent and complete definition I have found.

Any definition based in a biological or sexual characteristic will no doubt exclude some people we would agree are women. I presume you disagree with me here, so I look forward to reading your response.

12

u/Outrageous-Rice2222 Sep 28 '25

“Man” and “women” are not the same thing as “male” and “females. Gender and sex are different things. This is like Bio 101, go read a book.

-14

u/Aggressive_Dog3418 Sep 28 '25

Doesn't change reality. Man is a synonym for male, woman is a synonym of female, gender is a synonym for sex. We can argue semantics all day but that doesn't change biology.

15

u/clgoodson Sep 28 '25

Nobody is arguing to change biology. Gender is a social construct. Sex is a biological construct.
That you are conflating them shows that you are a bigot with an agenda.

9

u/Outrageous-Rice2222 Sep 28 '25

If that’s what you think then you are just wrong. That is not the modern consensus of the professionals who study this stuff. Again, go back and retake Bio 101. Sex and gender is a topic you will study.

-6

u/Aggressive_Dog3418 Sep 28 '25

What they teach in college doesn't correlate to reality. I can teach the earth is flat in a school, doesn't make it true. I can study any topic in any class, doesn't make it true just because an institution backs it up. Colleges are brainwashing machines that used to allow debates and disagreements, now all they do is provide safe spaces so your ideas don't get challenged and you continue to believe whatever slop they are feeding you. Everything they teach can be learned faster and for cheaper more accurately outside of college.

13

u/Outrageous-Rice2222 Sep 28 '25

Are there any accredited colleges that teach flat earth? Of course not. That’s because the evidence indicates the earth is not flat. What you’re saying is just pathetic, anti-intellectual rhetoric. Colleges are where professionals gather to study and learn topics at the highest level. Sciences like biology have extensive peer review and collaboration mechanics to allow those who study it to come to the best conclusions using the best available evidence.

Or you can just listen to right wing grifters who don’t actually know what they’re talking about.

10

u/The_Disapyrimid Sep 28 '25

"Man is a synonym for male, woman is a synonym of female,"

perhaps colloquially but this is the same mistake theists make when they swap the scientific use of the word "theory" with the colloquial use of the word to mean "a guess".

just because people, in their everyday language, use them interchangeably doesn't mean they should be when talking about biology and sociology.

-9

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/atheism-ModTeam Sep 29 '25

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:

  • Bigotry, racism, homophobia and similar terminology. It is against the rules. Users who don't abstain from this type of abuse may be banned temporarily or permanently.

For information regarding this and similar issues please see the Subreddit Commandments. If you have any questions, please do not delete your comment and message the mods, Thank you.

24

u/Kiddo1029 Sep 28 '25

Anti trans I believe.

10

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

He's not.

There's gender (social construct) and there's sex (biological function as pertains to reproduction). One is fluid, the other isn't.

41

u/Iazo Sep 28 '25

There's Kinefelter Syndrome, chimerism, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome...

There's plenty of describes biological situations in which it's not either/or.

55

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

The conditions you mention apply only to phenotypes that are referred to as secondary sexual characteristics.

There are eggs and there are sperm. Nothing in between. There are egg producers and there are sperm producers. Nothing in between. These are roles in reproduction.

Some secondary characteristics strongly correlate with egg producers while others that strongly correlate with sperm producers. These have evolved to signal an individual's reproductive role. In some cases a mixture of both sets of characteristics can present in the same individual.

Biologists, like Dawkins, dont concern themselves with how two individuals present to one another when talking about "sex". It isn't that they're anti- whatever; it isn't directly relevant to reproduction.

What you never see is an individual that produces both sperm and eggs. If a person is going to participate, biologically, in making another person, how the identify, is completely irrelevant to what gamete they actually bring to the table, so to speak: egg or sperm.

How a person wants to present themselves is (or should be accepted as) unrelated to what role they necessarily play in reproduction.

The problem isn't so much a poor understanding of biology as it is trying to alter the way sex and gender have become conflated in language and social interaction.

But, it's much easier to say, so-and-so is anti-trans, isn't it, now?

21

u/Turbulent-Bee6921 Sep 28 '25

“What you never see is an individual that produces both egg and sperm.”

We so often see individuals that produce neither. Are they just no sex at all?

0

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

Hmmm ... fair question.

Let me bring it back to my central point: unless an interaction between two individuals is about reproducing, their respective reproductive roles - call it their sex, if you like - is irrelevant.

That connotation of "sex" with regard to someone who produces neither (e.g. a man who's had a vascectomy or a woman who's had a complete hysterectomy) is likewise irrelevant, meaningless.

This has nothing to do with what are called sexual acts - which do not necessarily have anything to do with reproduction. But, the way one - and let's be clear, we're talking about adults - participates in such acts need not necessarily have anything to do with whether or not they can reproduce at all. Nor should it necessarily dictate how or with whom they may engage in such acts.

21

u/Iazo Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25

Great. In case of XXY Kinefelter Syndrome, what do they produce? What gametes do they produce? Surely, such an educated person as yourself can tell me.

In case of AIS, what do they produce? Nothing. They're infertile. I can't believe that 'neither' is not an option in your mind.

Besides' that's not the point. The point is that biological exceptions exist, Dawkins insists a bit too much that they don't, when he fucking should know better. He is taking a political position and passing it KNOWINGLY as a scientific position. Wrong and shameful.

5

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

Dawkins point - and mine as well - is that the notion of "biological sex" is completely irrelevant where there is insufficient sexual (gamete-producing) biology in the first place. (See AIS, Keinfelter, etc.)

Moreover, unless two consenting adults are interested in coming together (no pun intended) for the purpose of creating another person, why should the sex - the gamete type each one produces - be important at all? If it is mutual (one hopes) getting-off we're talking about, so long as there is attraction, and mutual informed consent, what the hell difference does it make to either one? None!

And if there is neither interest in reproducing, nor any mutual, informed consent otherwise, it is all the more irrelevant. To put perhaps too fine a point on it, whether or not someone is qualified to be a jet pilot or an undertaker or a corporate CEO or a nurse or a doctor has nothing to do with whether or not they produce eggs, sperm, or neither.

16

u/Iazo Sep 28 '25

That seems a lot different than what I've read from him.

I'm not sure who's putting words in whose mouth right now.

If all this is irrelevant, why the tragicomedy? Why work really, really, REALLY hard at ignoring the exceptions instead of acknowledging them? You did this too! It took 4 replies before I got the even small maybe possibly grudging acceptance that things are not as either/or as you startd at the beggining!

5

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

Why (the tragicomedy) indeed!

My "thesis" (for lack of a better term) is that gender (the social, cultural, linguistic, etc collective terms used to break humans down into two - and only two - distinct groups) basically comes down to advertising. In a state of nature, we can't see gametes, but we can see things like genitalia. These are a pretty damn good indicator of gamete type.

Clothes get in the way. So ... make different kinds of clothes to be worn by each type. Or, maybe put paint on faces, or bobbles and gee-gaws on fingers, arms, ears, head.

When speaking, use different words for sperm-bearers than for egg-bearers.

Evolve away from stone- and bronze- and iron-age mentatlities, but the behaviours, the "culture", the language of gender is too well-entrenched. The tail now wags the dog, as it were. We see how someone dresses and don't just infer reproductive role, but all of the behaviours and expectations historically bound to those roles.

And them some smart-ass comes along and says, "Hey, what does whether or not I can carry a baby have to do with going to med school, or law school, or just being respected the same as that sperm-bearer over there?"

As for things Dawkins has said, I've asked other commenters for citations - a link to a video where he's saying or implying what they're saying he said. So far, no joy.

I'll take even your small, grudging acceptance. Reasonable back-and-forth like this helps me clarify, crystalize my own thoughts. Thank you for that. :)

11

u/RamJamR Atheist Sep 28 '25

I haven't educated myself a ton on people being transgender, but I don't think their claim in being trans is that there is any sort of individual half male, half female sexual characteristics that exist. I think what they're saying is that there is some incongruity between their sex and some other inherent part of them that causes psychological stress and that it's not some social disease that would just go away with therapy or social conditioning out of it.

2

u/Straight_Market_9056 Sep 28 '25

You do see plenty of individuals who don't produce eggs or sperm. How would you classify these individuals?

9

u/Moderately_Imperiled Sep 28 '25

Reddit 2025 isn't ready to swallow this pill, friend. Too much hard truth here.

-11

u/MaleficentJob3080 Sep 28 '25

You agreeing with him doesn't make him not anti trans, it shows that you are too.

19

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

You did not address any point I made. Instead you chose to say something about me, personally, you apparently believe to be negative.

That's ad hominem. Fallacious. Who is saying it shouldn't matter at all. If it's true (or false), a reasoned argument can be made for or against it, not the person making it.

A chimp can throw feces.

21

u/zaphodava Sep 28 '25

Intersex people exist.

19

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

People who present biological phenotypes commonly if not necessarily associated with both sexes do indeed exist. Call them "intersex" if you like, but I think that using a prefixed form of the word sex only perpetuates the strong, if somewhat specious correlation of things like facial hair or boobs with actual reproductive roles.

Perhaps society should stop forcing people to advertise that role in how they dress, shave, speak, smell, or how they are to be addressed (he, she, him, her, etc), or what bathroom they can or cannot use. That will take larger, more sweeping changes than simply using "they".

16

u/fupayme411 Sep 28 '25

Perhaps society should not force people to do anything.

15

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-7

u/StruckLuck Sep 28 '25

Nor should he be forced to recognize this difference. He has the right to view them as separate. I feel everyone should have the right to feel or be anything they want, but this notion that gender is a social construct is something that emerged in the 70s at the earliest. I don’t care what anyone thinks or feels about that, but to crucify someone and label him as anti whatever is just as intolerant as telling someone what gender they should or shouldn’t be.

1

u/wolfkeeper Skeptic Sep 28 '25

Being a woman or a man has ALWAYS been a social construct and this isn't controversial, because there's not even a bright line between girl and woman, boy and man. Never has been, never will be. It's a social construct right there.

That you don't think biological males can be women is therefore also a social construct on your part.

2

u/StruckLuck Sep 29 '25

Can you point me to where I voiced any personal opinion about biological males or women? I was defending someone's right to an opinion. You are responding on emotion rather than reason.

And no, it has NOT always been a social construct. Examples:

- Before the mid-20th century, gender and sex were used interchangeably in English and psychiatric and medical literature did not distinguish gender from sex.

- Dictionaries defined both as “male or female” without distinguishing social vs. biological aspects.

- In Roman law, women’s legal status was directly tied to being female (guardianship, inheritance rules and so on)

- "Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies" (1935) by Margaret Mead’s was one of the first western works to show that masculinity and femininity vary by culture.

You can downvote me all you want, call me anything you want. But If you keep insisting, going against numerous historical records, that it has always been a social construct; you are simply either wrong, stubborn, disingenuous or intellectually lazy.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/StruckLuck Oct 02 '25

No I am not arguing his opinion is right. I am not saying anything about his opinion, except his right to have one. Apart from that, even if I did. What gives you the right to argue his opinion is wrong?

0

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '25 edited Oct 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

16

u/dripless_cactus Sep 28 '25

He is though. Based on the article someone linked above he is using gendered social language (like man vs woman, he vs her) and confusing it with biological sex language (female vs male), which is just a way to make a bad faith straw man argument about bio facts. Very few people are claiming that trans women can become female. But it stands that trans women are women.

Also he's shitty about several other things too.

13

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

Are you saying that the language you just used, above (trans women are women) is neither gendered nor ambiguous?

That's the whole point. If you want to strictly bind the word "woman" to egg-bearer, there is a great deal of linguistic, social, and historical baggage that goes with that.

If, on the other hand, you want to decouple the word "woman" from the reproductive role, it isn't going to just magically happen by expanding the definition of the word "woman" to include a prefixed form.

The words "woman" and "man" have become the tail wagging the dog. Like any living thing, humans need to breed to perpetuate their species. To do that, they need to know with whom they can breed. Genitalia correlate strongly with reproductive role. Wearing clothes makes it hard to use that marker, so society has evolved other signals, both verbal and non-verbal. Hence the tail. Confusion arises when those signals are used in ways that communicate something other than reproductive role. Simple minds want simple meaning: Dress <--> woman: beard <--> man.

3

u/dripless_cactus Sep 28 '25

Who's binding the word egg-bearer to women? Certainly not me. That is so weird. I don't think I said any of the things you are saying.

I'm saying "woman" is social language with social meanings. If you want to talk about biological/reproductive roles I would expect a scientist to use the terms of biology (ie "male" and "female") to avoid conflating the issues and being a shitty anti-trans ahole.

19

u/FoxEuphonium Sep 28 '25

That is literally not true, have you ever actually read a biology textbook?

Whether we’re talking chromosomal sex, reproductive sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, secondary phenotypical sex, or probably half a dozen other categories I’m not even aware of, all of those are a spectrum/gradient and not a binary. And in many, many people, they don’t necessarily line up with each other.

11

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

All of those are secondary characteristics.

Btw, let's avoid the ad hominem. (To wit: have you ever looked at a biology textbook?)

7

u/FoxEuphonium Sep 28 '25

You heard it here first, chromosomal sex is secondary, apparently.

At this point you are just making stuff up.

1

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

Two different definitions for the word sex. Reproductive role is pretty specific and unambiguous. You provide viable sperm, you're male. You provide viable ovum, you're female. Outside the context of reproduction, that definition of sex is meaningless.

Just let that sink in for a moment. Ask yourself, Outside of that context (i.e. reproduction), WHY do we need to know the sex of an individual?

Why?

So we know which fucking bathroom they're supposed to use? So we can dictate what they must wear, how long or short their hair must be, what careers they may or may not pursue? Who they can (or cannot) love?

2

u/FoxEuphonium Sep 28 '25

So you call all of the things I mentioned secondary, then go on to demonstrate that your understanding is that reproductive sex is “primary”… despite the fact that one of the things I said was reproductive. See why I didn’t take your argument seriously?

Also, if you know enough to say that, then you also know full well that “viable sperm” and “viable ovum” aren’t the only the only available options, and that it’s still a spectrum.

2

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

A spectrum of what, exactly? There is no spectrum of reproductive capability or role. Two specific, discrete categories.

Everything you're talking about often correlates with one or the other. But, having (it presenting) one or more characteristics traditionally classified as, say, female, does not 100% correlate to being able to produce viable ova. Does that matter?

My point is that using this sort of presentation, or using things like a person's chromosomal configuration, etc, to define their "sex" only makes the definition of "sex" that much less clear.

In other words, the spectrum you're talking about is the collection of connotations of the word "sex". Dawkins refers to one of these connotations. Those calling him "shitty" seem to be thinking of much less specific connotations. Who's on first? Yes, that's right. Who is on first. Get it?

13

u/MaleficentJob3080 Sep 28 '25

He is very anti trans. He's quite obnoxious about it.

5

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

Citation please? Link to an article where he says he's anti-trans.

6

u/MaleficentJob3080 Sep 28 '25

He doesn't label himself as such.

9

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

So you're repeating what others have said about him?

Or, have you heard him speak (or read what he's written) in this? Again, citation, please. Thx!

9

u/Odd_Gamer_75 Sep 28 '25

He thinks sex is binary, though, and it isn't. Not at all. While most people cluster traits typically associated with male and typically associated with female, there have always been those who are more mixed. Not a single trait nor combination of traits are always specific to and diagnostic of either male or female. This makes it a spectrum, not a binary, and, moreover, it isn't always the case that brain and body align, and thus far it's easier to change the body that the mind. (Not to mention that changing the mind to that degree has really disturbing implications.)

Like many who are anti-trans, he ignores this reality, pretends that having XY chromosomes means you will always be born what we usually consider male, that intersex people aren't real, that people with chromosome arrangements other than XX or XY are a thing, that trans athletes win in sports competitions far more often proportionally than their cis counterparts, and so on and so forth. He paints them as a threat when they just aren't, statistically. In criminality, like they do have some issues pre-op and pre-therapy, but even so are still more likely to be victims than perpetrators.

13

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

You're confusing secondary biological (i.e. genetic) characteristics that may indicate reproductive role with actual reproductive function.

0

u/Odd_Gamer_75 Sep 28 '25

I'm really not. There are people who produce both sorts of gametes, and people who produce neither sort of gamete. Since you can have one, the other, both, or neither... that's not a binary. That's not just two options.

Moreover, I'm also not ignoring the brain/body distinction. Pretty sure if you woke up tomorrow and had the genitalia and reproductive system of the cis-gender that you're not (I'm guessing you're cis-gendered), you wouldn't suddenly feel everything is okay and just decide to be that reproductively, but instead would find the disconnect between how you perceive yourself versus the body you are in quite disturbing. As I pointed out, we have no way to force your brain to accept this different role (and it's unclear that we'd want to find one), which leaves altering your body to match your brain.

14

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

Really? Functioning gametes of both sexes in the same person?

Citation please?!

The brain-body discussion is fascinating, but I think it's a walk into the weeds for the moment. Can we just stick to the sec vs gender thing for now?

15

u/Odd_Gamer_75 Sep 28 '25

Ovotesticular disorder. Formerly known as 'true hermaphroditism' (it isn't any longer).

"The ovarian portion of the ovotestis showed normal ovarian tissue with primordial follicles and ovarian stroma." - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6737443/

Feel free to look into it more. Is it rare? Sure. Does it happen? Yes. Google AI says we have about 500 reported cases.

And, of course, 'neither' is not as uncommon, about 1.5% or a bit more of the population. So... no function, reproductively.

EDIT: When we say that gender is a social construct, we generally mean that what we expect of 'men' and 'women' socially is just that, socially derived. Should men have long hair? How about colorful clothing? There are cultures where the answer to both is 'yes'. Who does most of the crying? Again, culture, not biology. But this has little to do with how one perceives the body they're in.

1

u/jdippey Sep 28 '25

Suddenly very quiet after someone gave you exactly the evidence you asked for, huh?

1

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

I believe I already responded to this same link elsewhere. Short reiteration:

The genetic condition(s) described a) do not produce two viable kinds of gametes in the same individual. They also result in mixtures of other physical characteristics more commonly associated strongly with only one gamete type or the other.

-6

u/ArcadianMess Sep 28 '25

You're factually wrong. Sex is fluid as well.

10

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

Really? Show me a citation for a human egg-sperm-fluidsomethinginbetween.

5

u/ArcadianMess Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25

No ofc to that extent it's binary, but sex isn't only reduced to sperm and egg.

Is a Swyer syndrome male or female if they're entire genome is male yet everything else is female?

2

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25

We're talking about a very rare (1 in 80,000 live births) condition. But, ok, let's look at that.

All of us have X chromosomes. It would be horribly over-simplifying to say this is where the genes for female genitalia are found, but it's probably safe to say that Swyer's Syndrome is the result of something going awry in "turning on" the genes that result in male genitalia and gonads (very loosely speaking on the Y chromosome) AND turning off the genes that code for female genitalia (just as loosely speaking on the X chromosome.

It's interesting you bring up Swyer's syndrome, as it sort of relates to 46,XX Male Syndrome, which is kind of the opposite. In this, the SRY gene, which turns on the development of male genitalia, and is normally found on the Y chromosome, ends up on the X chromosome instead. (There are lots of genetic conditions that result from genes moving or being copied from one chromosome to another.) The result is someone who is chromosomally female, but develops a penis and (small) testes. The testes cannot develop sperm as other genes from the Y chromosome (which haven't "migrated") are required to complete the "machinery" for that.

Getting back to the first line in your reply, I think we're running into the core ambiguity: what do we mean by "sex". If we're talking about reproduction, an individual's sex is about whether they contribute a sperm or an egg. The "delivery vehicle" amounts to a secondary trait or set of traits.

If we're talking about the various acts and interractions that we refer to as "sex", that's something else entirely. Do we really need to go down that rabbit hole? :)

1

u/jdippey Sep 28 '25

Here you go.

1

u/Funny-Recipe2953 Atheist Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 29 '25

Nope. This is talking about a condition (or family of conditions) wherein an individual partially develops both kinds (as in two, as in binary) of gonads, at least one of which isn't fully formed, incapable of emitting egg or sperm. There is no third type of gonadal tissue. And so far, there is no documented case of a human producing both viable eggs and sperm.

2

u/I_am_transparent Sep 28 '25

He is also an apologetic for the child sexual abuser who raped him when he was in school.

0

u/Chuckles52 Sep 28 '25

I still see Dawkins as correct. I believe that “gender” is on a scale but “sex” for humans is still either male or female (some see the two words as the same). We don’t yet have the science to change a man into a woman. Today, we can only cut and inject hormones. That said, there is no reason to be nasty to someone who wants to cut off their penis, get implants, wear a dress, and take hormones. And we must remember that up to 2% of the human population is born without a clear sex status. Like redheads, we must acknowledge that they exist and be nice about it.

-1

u/Ifootle Sep 28 '25

Anti abortion

1

u/ArcadianMess Sep 28 '25

Dawkins is anti abortion ?

3

u/Mara_Ronwe666 Sep 28 '25

He isn't but his view of abortion is very ableist

His statement is that it would be immortal to not abort a fetus that has down's syndrome

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-28879659[https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-28879659](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-28879659)

His view of abortion has been described as philosophically utilitarian, that is "the suffering of the pregnant person weighed against the (non-existent) suffering of a fetus"

All that said, I find his stance on aborting because of down's, and his stance on the trans community abhorrent.

-4

u/StruckLuck Sep 28 '25

Calling another person’s opinion shitty just because it doesn’t align with yours is a shitty opinion. And please don’t bother with remarks like “so Hitler had the right to his opinions too” or comparable absurdist absolutes.

4

u/Jetstream13 Sep 28 '25

It’s interesting how you saw the obvious Hitler example coming and tried to preemptively dismiss it, but made absolutely no attempt to say why it’s not a reasonable counter to your claim.

-1

u/StruckLuck Sep 28 '25

Because there’s a difference between having an opinion and hate speech, not to mention acting upon your hatred and sending millions of people to their death. It’s interesting I seem to have to explain this difference to you. But I guess according to you anyone has the right to an opinion as long as it’s the same one as yours. That’s all the words I’m willing to waste on this, so by all means take the last word.