Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

I've directly addressed everything that was brought into this thread tonight about Dawkins in fact, see post #7491

If what little was brought in from Dawkins tonight, reinforces the viewpoints you already held, more power to you. You seem to have placed some personal value on his opinion, I am holding no value on his opinion. To re-emphasize: "it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person […] of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person […] holds does not have any intrinsic bearing on whether their claims are true or not."

That is entirely keeping in mind that he has studied biology and is a degreed expert and even an authority in his professional field. That doesn't change the very simple fact, that like any person of authority, or any person in general for that matter, that his opinions are open to being wrong. He has opinions on sport, great, I don't believe he has any degrees in sports, sports biology, or published any papers relating to the topic of the thread that have been peer reviewed in this field (open to correction, I don't see any) - his professional pedigree is overwhelmingly focused on zoology and animal behavior, not human biology and he is not an MD, nevermind played any professional or amateur-college-level or HS-level sport in a competitive setting of record. It has therefore done nothing to change my viewpoint tonight, and my own opinion is concern that we're holding up a guy who openly courts the same views as Hitler by direct namecheck in direct quotes of his. Seemed perfectly fair to bring up his eugenics when his zoology background was equally brought up, both zoology and eugenics overlapping in the field of biology. I guess we should just leave it there and move on to something else. I'm not interested in your attempts to ad hominem my understanding of biology either, just as I have shown no interest in whether you have any knowledge of biology at all (something which is equally irrelevant anyway by the same ad hominem fallacy).

For those not up to date with the latest version of Gender Ideology, Richard Dawkins weighed in on the gender wars to ridicule the assertion by trans activists that a person can change sex. As in from biologically female to male, male to female. Peter Thatchel on X has been supporting this idea by tweeting examples of how this happens naturally in the animal kingdom. The claim is of course made to retaliate against those who say 'yeah well even if a transwomen is of gender women they are still biologically male, which of course is particularly relevant to sport. Some are now claiming that transwomen who medically transition are no longer of the biological male sex but female sex.

Dawkins states as a FACT that this is not possible. If Dawkins is not an authority on this then who is also not an authority on the claim that one can change sex? Peter Thatchel for one anyway. Dawkins' views on eugenics and abortion are his opinions, here he's not stating facts, so points made related to his options are entirely irrelevant. It would be a fallacy to say if one doesn't agree with someone's opinions that any facts they state can be dismissed.

Dawkins states as a FACT that this is not possible

Dawkins is a zoologist and doesn't have any publications in the field of gender studies or transgenderism, so his opinions laundered as facts or not, in this field, hold no intrinsic value.

If he's published some peer reviewed argument that this is factually not possible, please link it. He hasn't published in over a decade though, and shows no previous work in this field, he is not an MD, he's never even played a competitive sport. I'm not even sure any of his publications concern an expertise in the realm of human biology, he is an expert in evolutionary theory and animal behavior. I don't think his 1991 publication titled "Pornophilosophy" falls under the category either, to be plain. It is a fallacy therefore to hold him and his opinions up as authoritative on the thread's topic. If you wanna talk evolution elsewhere however, sure great, he's an expert on that. Not on this.

edit: I checked through my institution login… for the sake of due diligence, "Pornophilosophy" is a short editorial column .. it is a criticism of some other person's book titled Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality, I would attach the PDF but it is marked as expressly forbidding reproduction of copyright. It has nothing to do with transgenderism or any mention of it; it is not an academic thesis or argument of fact but as I said opinion and editorial. Sophist nonsense about the word 'semen' etc., quoting the other author's smut, "she lustily stands speadeagle…" etc. Dawkins writes … "Personally, if I must have porn, I prefer it shown of pretension," as he gets to his argument, calling Mystery Dance pulp in a genre he refers to as 'Pornophilosophy.' ""How a scientist of Margulis' calibre and riguor can be gulled by this pretentious drivel is far beyond comprehension as the prose itself. Let us be charitable and hope that she had an argument with her coauthor and lost. But if, rightly, youvalue [sic] Lynn Margulis and her reputation, do her a favor and ignore this book."

Yes, it's all part of the 'everything is fluid, sex isn't binary' school of thought. If something is fluid then it can invert.

Is of intrinsic value if he can explain why one can't change sex and I'm sure he could. Who would be the professor of can't change sex anyway, haven't needed one of those till last week, and who is the professor of can change sex we should be hearing from? Giz the link. Don't think Peter Thatcell has written any academic papers on this topic and of course he studied 'sociology' so hardly a scientist unlike Dawkins.

You know some day with science people might actually be able to change sex. Men might be able to have babies etc. But as of now they can't.

I respect transgenders as in they change genders (the type of person they are).

But transsexuals don't exist. You can't actually change your sex. Out of respect I might call you what you identify as but in reality you're not that so in certain real world situations you'll have to accept that.

Examples:

Bathrooms

Sports

Hospital visits

Legal fiction... that is something I was not aware of.

Juust so I am clear, this is knowing something to be false, but ruling as if it were true?

If so, that is quite damning, and shows that the courts are compromised.

Is that a product of a Legal based system as opposed to a justice based system?