A
Anonymous10/17/25, 21:57No.16819590Dawkins thread - the squel
Dawkins thread continued from >>16813862 [/sci/thread/16813862#p16813862]
Rare to see a topic so popular on /sci/ so it'd be a shame to just let it die because it hit the bump limit.
79
Replies
A
Anon10/17/25, 22:57No.16819649
Ok here’s how I see it. Dawkins is right. I support trans rights but saying gender isn’t binary is political and not correct.
For all of human history. In 99% of all human societies. Gender has been male and female and it’s not a social construct like race. Everyone used to agree there was Male and Female. Maybe intersex but that’s between X and Y chromosomes. Intersex doesn’t come about from a Z chromosome.
That doesn’t mean I’m against trans right. Sure be yourself, but don’t change science.
A
Anon10/17/25, 23:08No.16819658
I wasn't in the previous thread but
>What causes people to think sex isn’t binary?
They're anarchists, simple as. First anarchists rebelled against the order of the absolute kings and the pope, when they replaced them with constitutional monarchies and heretical churches then they also rebelled against them and removed religion and monarchy altogether, then they rebelled against belief in God and whatever form of government they had reached, now they're rebelling against nature and reality itself, ultimately to end up rebelling against life by killing themselves.They don't actually believe what they're saying, they're rebelling against reality by telling you that something false is true, because they need it to be true to them, because nature and reality are wrong, so they must be corrected, until they conclude that life itself is wrong and must be corrected by death.
A
Anon10/18/25, 14:11No.16819965
I really, truly believe the transsexual movement is the enemy of science.
A
Anon10/18/25, 19:51No.16820242
I’m the Dick to the Dawk to the D-I-C, I’m smarter than you, I got a science degree!
A
Anon10/18/25, 20:02No.16820254
“Imagine going 200+ posts in about something even cavemen understood”Are we really going to do this again
A
Anon10/19/25, 01:20No.16820442
Dawkins is the JKR of /sci/
A
Anon10/19/25, 01:34No.16820446
Trans people exist and you can objectively show that their brains are different with CT scans. The problem isn't the existence of trans people the problem is that they can self-affirm their gender. Before it became trendy to transition, the data showed that less than 2 in 50 people who sought help for gender dysphoria were actually trans and the rest had other underlying issue and their dysphoria could be treated more effectively in a different way. Then self-affirmation became the talking point and the 48 out of 50 started mutilating themselves for no reason.
As far as what Dawkins said it's true but a bit outdated. Gender truly isn't binary and is a spectrum but it's extremely skewed to either male or female and the ones who fall in the middle are rare. Gametes aren't the only way to determine gender.
The problem is that there is no consensus on how gender is supposed to be defined. Trans activists say it's solely based on brain gender. Biologists say there are multiple criteria but the nuance is that 99% of population fits the bill on all of them. But what do you do for the 1%?
It is simultaneously true that many fetishists hijacked the trans movement and that conservatives are vilifying trans people for political gain.
The most annoying thing is that we had a proper system for this - the Other gender. People understood that this is simply an unfortunate thing that happens and let these people live in peace but that ended where parties from both ends of the political spectrum decided to weaponize it.
It's a really complex issue and it's difficult to please everyone and come up with a definition of gender that won't upset anyone. Now that the problem is extremely politicized you can forget about anyone arguing about it in good faith.
For most intents and purposes, yeah there are males and females. It's a fact. But there's a reason why we'd want to rigorously define this in accordance with modern biology. Don't dismiss the topic as stupid or solved science.
A
Anon10/19/25, 12:58No.16820679
lol…
A
Anon10/19/25, 22:47No.16821207
Why do you or anyone else care about this irrelevant boomer, still?
>but muh trannies
Okay the same generation of supercilious atheist which publicly avowed homosexuals and dykes cries about the slippery slope they built, and now have to deal with. Reap what you sow.
A
Anon10/20/25, 01:10No.16821297
A
Anon10/20/25, 03:19No.16821393
A
Anon10/20/25, 22:28No.16822254
the tranny meme peaked two years ago and is now on it's way out
A
Anon10/20/25, 23:19No.16822297
Imagine if perfect transitioning was possible. Whenever, wherever. You are a man and you take a pill and turn into a female version of yourself. It is almost like magic. You lose every secondary male characteristic and gain female characteristics including womb and ovaries etc. Similarly a female may do the same and gain functional male genitalia and whatever comes with it.
In short, this pill turns you from XY to XX and vice versa.
Trans people would become obsolete. Thus yes, there are two sexes. It is very simple.
If such a pill existed, these people who call themselves trans would find another word to either victimize themselves or to slap a unique label onto themselves. Like "I have transitioned 100 times, I am a centransitioner." It is all about that. They are just inventing new labels to feel important as they have no skill or anything of value to offer. I am not saying trans people don't have any value. I am saying those who don't are inventing these bullshit terminologies to feel special than the rest.