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

Does every outrageous nonsensical claim need to be disproven now or it's deemed possible? I guess humans could grow wings and fly since no one can prove they can't, but in real life everyone knows that actually that's impossible without needing a paper to refute the claims. Same with humans literally changing sex. Maybe in the future science will find a way but right now, not a chance.

that's a logical fallacy

I mean your post

just because the burden isn't on someone to prove something, and they haven't proved it, doesn't mean they CAN'T prove it

I presume it's just so self evidently true that no one thought to prove it, it's just a given.

I'm sure if you read his work he'll have 'proved' it implicitly though, something along the lines of 'from the moment of conception, you possess every gene you'll ever have' or whatever…

are you still hung upon the 'proving a negative' thing?

I'll take that as avoidance of the question

(just as an example, if you said 'the colour pink is in the rainbow', the burden of proof would be with you, but I could prove the negative by showing pink isn't a pure colour, but a mixture of wavelengths)

Objection your honor, the user did not say 'Dawkins could prove it', he said 'he was sure he could prove it', so the only thing the user would have to prove (if we were in a court of law, and we're not) is that 'he is sure', not 'that Dawkins could prove it'.

In any case, the other user who brought Dawkins up did not say Dawkins was 'an authority' he said 'he carries a lot of weight'. I agree with this, Dawkins' option on the matter would carry more weight that say the option of a drag queen publican of no academic background like Rory O'Neil, for example.

as I’ve said already his credentials are not in the topic of this thread he’s made no papers theses or dissertations on the topic especially with regard to sport etc. so I continue to fail to see how this gets us anywhere. That several users seem to want to keep dragging him up without any evidence or proof that carries the conversation forward as some means of confirmation bias is very pointless.

Go ahead and link to any excerpt from his books you want that touch on the topic relevant to the thread, that you think prove the claim, that you are trying to invoke his name by to push as your agenda.

I'd imagine he probably hasn't written in any of his books that males have a physical advantage over females as it's too basic to put in

If he hasn’t written anything academically/in his expert capacity about the topic then we seem to agree this tangent about Dawkins is entirely pointless.

When 2GreyFoxes brought him up they were pointing out that he was aghast that sporting organisations have been duped to believe otherwise.

which is just an opinion. Therefore clear case of appeal to authority fallacy as I detailed before.

Richard Dawkins isn’t talking in this thread. And for 3 or 4 days now nobody can link to anything he’s authoritatively said about the topic. “Aghast” isn’t an academic position or a thesis or a proof, it’s an opinion. This is as “tedious” as you make it by dancing on the pin of a needle about the fact that Dawkins being invoked here in this capacity is appeal to authority fallacy. I’ve suggested for several days now that we move on but clearly, folks would rather persist with this fallacious, “tedious” sideshow.

Yes, there is clear authority fallacy here, as I plainly outlined in an earlier post:

You can just admit you don't know what the appeal to authority fallacy is, but that would be hard to do since I so plainly laid it out in that post.

Being an authority on biology does not make him immune from being wrong, especially of all on his matters of opinion, which is being touted here (that he is "aghast" at the sports topic). To reiterate:

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

And, you want the sporting organizations to prove the negative?

Nah, just a certain user twisting what I said to absurdity, and still unable to refute the point.