Richard Dawkins Is Wrong: Why “Trans Women Are Women” Is Not Scientifically False

A trans woman’s evidence-based response to Dawkins’s latest claims.

Richard Dawkins has long been celebrated as one of the world’s most prominent science communicators. From The Selfish Gene (Dawkins, 1976) to The God Delusion (Dawkins, 2006), his reputation rests on presenting evolutionary biology in accessible language and defending rational inquiry against religious dogma. When such a figure speaks, the media listens. So when Dawkins declared in September 2025 that the slogan “trans women are women” is “scientifically false” (Knapton, 2025), the words carried weight far beyond academic debate. They reinforced a familiar narrative that science and trans existence are in conflict.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate why Dawkins is wrong, and not simply wrong in a narrow or technical sense, but wrong in a way that misrepresents biology, misapplies philosophy, and perpetuates damaging social myths. This will not be done through slogans or appeals to emotion alone. Instead, I will catalogue Dawkins’s claims, test them against the best available evidence, and show how they collapse under scrutiny. Where counterclaims exist, I will present them in full before refuting them. The goal is clarity, not rhetoric.

Dawkins’s arguments rest on three main pillars: first, that sex is binary and reducible to gamete size (anisogamy); second, that slogans like “trans women are women” are a denial of scientific truth; and third, that activists and institutions undermine science through postmodern ideology and censorship. Each of these claims has surface appeal if accepted uncritically. Each also falls apart when tested against biological evidence, philosophical reasoning, and social data.

Why does this matter? Because when a public intellectual invokes “science” to delegitimise a minority group, the results ripple outward into politics, policy, and daily life. I know this not as an abstract point but from personal experience. On one night out, I was ejected from both the male and female toilets of the same establishment. In neither case was safety the concern. It was exclusion. Definitions imposed from outside, however “scientific” they are claimed to be, have real consequences.

This article therefore proceeds in four movements. First, I will document Dawkins’s own statements, past and present, to show how his rhetoric has hardened over time. Second, I will present the actual state of biological science on sex, demonstrating why his binary framing is reductive and inaccurate. Third, I will show how gender, understood as a schema rather than a mere synonym for sex, is essential both conceptually and practically. Finally, I will address the social and political consequences of his misuse of authority, drawing on evidence about trans people’s safety, wellbeing, and rights.

In short, this is not an argument between science and feelings. It is an argument between misapplied science and a fuller, evidence-based understanding of both human biology and human society. Dawkins may believe that slogans distort truth. But the greater distortion is to pretend that science ends where his personal definitions begin.

2. Dawkins’s Claims in Detail

2.1 The Telegraph 2025 article

In September 2025, The Telegraph published an interview with Dawkins to coincide with his book The War on Science. In it, Dawkins declared that the slogan “trans women are women” is “scientifically false” (Knapton, 2025). He argued that the claim, taken literally, “logically entails the right to enter women’s sporting events, women’s changing rooms, women’s prisons and so on” (Knapton, 2025). For Dawkins, this is not a matter of politics but of biology.

The article presents several recurring elements of his position:

• Binary sex defined by anisogamy. Dawkins identifies the defining feature of biological sex as gamete size. Females are those who produce large gametes (ova), males those who produce small gametes (sperm). Since this definition admits only two categories, he concludes that sex is fixed and immutable.

• Slogans as threats to truth. He insists that slogans such as “trans women are women” embody “postmodern counter-factualism” and represent a denial of scientific reality (Knapton, 2025).

• Activism as distortion. Dawkins frames trans activists as “astonishingly vicious,” accusing them of hounding academics out of jobs and pressuring publishers into censorship.

• Rejection of sex as a spectrum. He explicitly labels the idea that sex is a spectrum as “nonsense” and “a pernicious lie,” situating it as a symptom of postmodern ideology rather than scientific evidence (Knapton, 2025).

At the core of these claims is a rhetorical move: by equating “science” exclusively with gametic sex, Dawkins frames all alternative understandings of womanhood as distortions. He suggests that to accept trans women as women is to accept falsehood over fact.

2.2 Earlier statements and consistency

Dawkins has not always framed his position in such hardline terms. His earlier comments show a trajectory from qualified acknowledgement of complexity toward outright dismissal.

• 2015: semantics and courtesy. In an October 2015 tweet, Dawkins 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.” (Dawkins, 2015a). This reveals that a decade ago he saw the issue as one of language rather than scientific impossibility.

• 2021: Rachel Dolezal comparison. In April 2021, he tweeted: “In 2015 Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women… You will be vilified if you deny they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.” (Flood, 2021). The American Humanist Association revoked his “Humanist of the Year” award in response, citing his “demeaning” and “divisive” remarks (Independent, 2021).

• “Sex is pretty damn binary.” In a 2015 blog essay titled Race is a Spectrum. Sex is Pretty Damn Binary, Dawkins positioned biological sex as fixed at conception and dismissed the term “sex assigned at birth” as misleading (Dawkins, 2015b).

Taken together, these statements reveal a shift. In 2015, Dawkins treated gender as “semantic” and acknowledged self-identification as valid in its own domain. By 2021, he was publicly equating gender identity with racial identity fraud. By 2025, he was declaring the foundational slogan of trans rights “scientifically false” and aligning the acceptance of trans women with an attack on truth itself.

This trajectory matters because it shows his arguments are not a neutral description of biology but an escalating rhetorical campaign. Each stage has seen more certainty, fewer concessions, and a stronger claim to scientific authority.

3. The Science of Sex

3.1 Gametes and anisogamy

Dawkins grounds his definition of sex in anisogamy: the difference in gamete size between male and female. In many organisms, this distinction is clear. Females produce large gametes (eggs), males produce small gametes (sperm). From this Dawkins concludes that sex is a binary rooted in biology and fixed at conception (Dawkins, 2015).

This framework, however, is reductive when applied to humans. First, it defines sex exclusively in terms of gamete production. Yet many individuals, including cis women after menopause, cis men with infertility, and intersex individuals with atypical development, cannot or do not produce gametes (Ainsworth, 2015). Their sex is not rendered indeterminate by this fact. Second, gamete production itself can vary. Some intersex conditions involve mixed or ambiguous gonadal tissue, with both ovarian and testicular elements (Hughes et al., 2006).

Developmental biology further complicates the gametic model. Human sex determination is a process involving chromosomes, genes, hormones, and tissue differentiation. Mutations in genes such as SRY or AR can produce individuals whose gonadal development diverges from chromosomal expectations (Lee et al., 2006). This demonstrates that the pathway from gamete type to phenotypic sex is not a single binary switch but a network of biological processes with points of variation.

3.2 Chromosomes and their limits

Another common claim, often echoed by Dawkins’s defenders, is that sex is defined by chromosomes: XX equals female, XY equals male. Yet chromosomal reality is more complex.

Some individuals carry additional sex chromosomes, such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), Turner syndrome (XO), or XYY karyotypes (Graves, 2008). Mosaicism, in which different cells within the same individual carry different chromosomal complements, also occurs. In these cases, chromosomal makeup does not always align with reproductive anatomy or function.

Moreover, chromosomal definitions cannot account for individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), who possess XY chromosomes but develop female external anatomy and are typically raised as girls (Hughes et al., 2012). This demonstrates that chromosomes alone cannot serve as the definitive determinant of sex.

3.3 Hormones and secondary sex characteristics

Hormonal environments shape much of what people perceive as sexed bodies: voice pitch, fat distribution, body hair, breast tissue, and more. Yet hormone levels vary widely, both naturally and through medical intervention. Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for example, is associated with elevated androgen levels in cis women (Azziz et al., 2016). Cis men with hypogonadism may have testosterone levels lower than typical female ranges (Nieschlag et al., 2019).

Medicine recognises this diversity under the umbrella of differences (or disorders) of sex development (DSDs). Clinical guidelines explicitly acknowledge that such variations complicate binary definitions (Lee et al., 2006). If sex were strictly binary, the existence of these well-documented conditions would be anomalies. Instead, they are accepted features of human biology.

3.4 Spectrum or diversity?

Dawkins dismisses the idea of sex as a spectrum as “nonsense.” Yet many biologists and medical researchers recognise that human sex is best described as a complex system with multiple dimensions: chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, anatomical, and behavioural (Fausto-Sterling, 2012). Some prefer the term “diversity” rather than “spectrum,” but the point is the same. Binary categories fail to capture the full range of variation.

A review published in Nature emphasised that “biological sex is not strictly binary in humans” and that intersex traits occur in up to 1.7 percent of the population (Ainsworth, 2015). This is comparable to the prevalence of red hair, a fact that undermines claims that intersex conditions are vanishingly rare or irrelevant.

Counterclaim and Rebuttal

Counterclaim: Sex is binary because gametes are binary.
Rebuttal: The gametic definition excludes individuals who cannot or do not produce gametes, which includes millions of cis as well as trans people. It also fails to explain cases where chromosomal, gonadal, or hormonal development diverges from expectations. Biology recognises these exceptions as part of natural variation, not as violations of science. To define sex purely by gametes is to ignore the complexity of human biology and misrepresent what biologists themselves describe.

4. The Distinction Between Sex and Gender

4.1 Definitions in science and social science

A central problem in Dawkins’s framing is his refusal to distinguish sex from gender. In biological sciences, “sex” typically refers to chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical features. “Gender,” by contrast, refers to identity, roles, and expectations shaped by both biology and culture (World Health Organization, 2023). Social scientists further refine this distinction by emphasising that gender is a schema: a way individuals and societies organise concepts of male and female, masculinity and femininity (Bem, 1981).

To conflate the two is to ignore decades of research. Psychology recognises that gender identity emerges early in childhood and remains robust even when it conflicts with external assignment (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Neuroscience has identified patterns in brain structure and connectivity that correlate with gender identity, although not in a simple deterministic fashion (Bao & Swaab, 2011). These findings reinforce that gender is not a superficial choice or whim, but a core element of selfhood.

4.2 Medical and legal recognition of gender identity

Medical bodies across the world recognise gender identity and gender dysphoria as clinically significant phenomena. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR) defines gender dysphoria as distress arising from a mismatch between experienced gender and assigned sex (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Treatment guidelines recommend affirming interventions, including social transition and, where appropriate, medical transition. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) explicitly recognises gender identity as distinct from biological sex and endorses gender-affirming care (Coleman et al., 2022).

Legal systems also reflect this distinction. The UK’s Gender Recognition Act 2004 provides a mechanism for legally recognising a person’s affirmed gender, independent of chromosomal or gametic status. Internationally, many jurisdictions now issue passports, driving licences, and birth certificates reflecting gender identity rather than chromosomal assumptions (Winter et al., 2016). These changes rest on medical consensus that gender identity is real, stable, and deserving of recognition.

4.3 Why Dawkins collapses sex into gender incorrectly

Dawkins insists that to call trans women “women” is to deny science. This collapses two separate questions into one. The scientific question of sex describes reproductive biology. The social and psychological question of gender describes identity and lived experience. By presenting the latter as a corruption of the former, Dawkins sets up a false dichotomy: either accept his biological reductionism or abandon truth altogether.

Yet science itself does not support this collapse. Medicine, psychology, and sociology all treat gender as a distinct but related domain. To ignore this is to misrepresent the state of knowledge. A trans woman can be recognised as female in terms of gender identity while also acknowledging biological complexity. This does not erase science. It reflects it.

Counterclaim and Rebuttal

Counterclaim: Science deals only with sex, so gender identity is irrelevant.
Rebuttal: This misunderstands what “science” encompasses. Psychology and psychiatry are scientific disciplines. They explicitly study gender identity, finding it to be a consistent and measurable phenomenon (Zhou et al., 1995). Neuroscience identifies structural and functional brain correlates of gender identity (Guillamon et al., 2016). Genetics research has suggested heritable contributions to transgender identity (Ganna et al., 2019). Medicine integrates these findings into treatment protocols. To say that gender identity is irrelevant to science is to deny the evidence of entire fields.

5. Dawkins’s Misuse of Language and Rhetoric

5.1 Framing of “truth vs feelings”

Dawkins often frames debates about sex and gender as a conflict between “scientific truth” and “personal feelings” (Knapton, 2025). This framing is rhetorically powerful because it sets up a hierarchy: facts are hard, emotions are soft. But it is misleading. Medical science itself relies on patient-reported experience as valid evidence. Pain, fatigue, and anxiety are all subjective phenomena that cannot be measured directly, yet they are integral to clinical practice (Merskey & Bogduk, 1994). To dismiss gender identity as mere “feelings” ignores how science already treats lived experience as a crucial source of data.

5.2 Problem with dismissing lived experience

For trans people, lived experience is not anecdotal “feelings” but observable reality. Studies show that gender-affirming care improves mental health outcomes, reduces depression and suicidality, and increases overall wellbeing (Turban et al., 2020; Bränström & Pachankis, 2020). These are empirical findings, not sentiment. To deny their validity because they originate in experience is to reject the methodology of evidence-based medicine itself.

My own life illustrates the cost of such dismissal. Being forced out of both men’s and women’s toilets on the same night was not an expression of personal whim. It was the social enforcement of a false binary definition. To reduce that reality to “feelings” is not only disrespectful but analytically empty.

5.3 Examples of rhetorical overreach

Dawkins’s language frequently goes beyond biological argument into rhetoric. In the Telegraph interview, he derided the routine media use of phrases like “her penis” as an example of “postmodern counter-factualism” (Knapton, 2025). Yet medical professionals regularly use affirming language to reduce stigma and support patient wellbeing (Deutsch, 2016). His sneer is therefore not a scientific objection but a cultural judgment.

Similarly, his description of a “trans lobby” that is “astonishingly vicious” (Knapton, 2025) frames trans people as a monolithic political bloc. In reality, trans communities are diverse, fragmented, and often marginalised. The language of a powerful “lobby” exaggerates influence and fuels moral panic (Pearce et al., 2020). Such phrasing does not clarify science. It inflames culture war narratives.

5.4 Impact of careless language in public debate

The words of high-profile intellectuals shape how the public understands contested issues. When Dawkins labels recognition of trans women as “scientifically false,” he legitimises exclusionary policies under the guise of defending truth. Research shows that negative framing of trans identities in the media contributes to increased stigma, discrimination, and violence (McNeil et al., 2012; Bachmann & Gooch, 2018).

Careless language has real-world consequences. Trans people already face disproportionately high rates of harassment, unemployment, and poor health outcomes. When public figures dismiss their identities as lies or delusions, these inequalities deepen. Rhetoric masquerading as science does not merely misinform. It harms.

6. The Social and Political Context

6.1 Dawkins’s claims about women’s rights

In the Telegraph interview, Dawkins warned that accepting the statement “trans women are women” threatens the rights of women by granting trans women access to “women’s sporting events, women’s changing rooms, women’s prisons and so on” (Knapton, 2025). This argument rests on the idea that trans inclusion automatically undermines cis women’s safety and fairness. Yet this is not a conclusion grounded in evidence. It is a presumption based on fear.

The suggestion that women’s rights and trans rights are mutually exclusive sets up a false conflict. In practice, feminist scholars and organisations have long recognised that protecting women’s spaces and protecting trans people are compatible goals (Hines, 2019). Positioning them as opposing camps is a rhetorical device, not a scientific or legal necessity.

6.2 Evidence on inclusion in sports, prisons, and changing rooms

Sports. Research into trans women’s participation in sport is ongoing, but current evidence shows no systematic advantage once hormone therapy has been undertaken. Studies have found that testosterone suppression reduces haemoglobin levels and muscle mass, diminishing performance differences (Harper et al., 2021). Sporting bodies such as the International Olympic Committee now adopt evidence-based policies rather than categorical exclusion (IOC, 2021).

Prisons. Claims that trans women in women’s prisons endanger other inmates are not supported by data. Ministry of Justice figures from England and Wales show that the number of trans prisoners is very small, and incidents involving them are rare (Ministry of Justice, 2021). Conversely, trans women housed in male prisons face disproportionate risk of sexual violence and assault (Tarzwell, 2006).

Changing rooms. Public debate often fixates on bathrooms and changing rooms. Yet research from jurisdictions with inclusive policies shows no increase in public safety incidents. A peer-reviewed study examining US localities with trans-inclusive laws found no rise in crimes in public restrooms (Hasenbush et al., 2019). The only measurable pattern is that trans people themselves are more likely to be harassed in these spaces (James et al., 2016).

6.3 Research on trans people’s rights and safety

Trans people experience disproportionate levels of violence, unemployment, and poor health outcomes. The UK National LGBT Survey reported that 67 percent of trans respondents had avoided being open about their identity for fear of a negative reaction, and 40 percent had experienced a hate crime in the previous year (Government Equalities Office, 2018). Stonewall’s Trans Report documented widespread discrimination in healthcare, employment, and housing (Bachmann & Gooch, 2018).

Far from posing a threat to others, trans women are more often at risk themselves. Exclusionary policies that bar access to appropriate facilities increase vulnerability. When public intellectuals claim that trans inclusion endangers women, they invert reality. The evidence shows that trans women are endangered by exclusion.

Counterclaim and Rebuttal

Counterclaim: Trans women in women’s spaces threaten safety.
Rebuttal: Crime statistics and empirical studies consistently show no link between trans inclusion and increased harm. No jurisdiction with trans-inclusive bathroom or changing room laws has documented a rise in sexual assaults attributable to these policies (Hasenbush et al., 2019). By contrast, trans people face significantly elevated risks of violence, harassment, and assault in both public and institutional settings (James et al., 2016; Ministry of Justice, 2021). To deny trans women access to women’s spaces is not a safeguard. It is a danger.

7. Academic Freedom and the Postmodern Strawman

7.1 Dawkins’s critique of academia

In The War on Science and its accompanying publicity, Dawkins argues that universities have succumbed to “postmodern counter-factualism” and that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies suppress truth in favour of ideology (Knapton, 2025). He suggests that academics who question gender identity risk being silenced, citing the resignation of Kathleen Stock from Sussex University as evidence. For Dawkins, academic freedom is under threat because dissent from what he calls “the trans lobby” is no longer tolerated.

7.2 Reality: academic consensus on sex, gender, identity

This claim distorts the state of academia. Far from silencing debate, universities continue to host vigorous discussions about sex, gender, and identity. Surveys of academics and students reveal a diversity of opinion, not ideological uniformity. For instance, a 2024 Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) report on trans and non-binary students documents both support and tension around trans inclusion, showing that views are complex and contested rather than monolithic (Mountford-Zimdars & Hubble, 2024).

Moreover, the academic consensus is not that sex does not exist, but that sex and gender are distinct and both matter in research. Disciplines from medicine to sociology recognise gender identity as a legitimate subject of study (Hines, 2019). Universities have produced peer-reviewed research on gender identity, brain development, intersex biology, and legal frameworks - none of which can be dismissed as mere “ideology” without disregarding the very standards of evidence Dawkins claims to defend.

7.3 DEI policies: evidence of necessity and impact

DEI policies exist to ensure that marginalised groups have equal access to education and employment. Evidence shows they improve outcomes. For example, a systematic review found that inclusive campus policies significantly reduced harassment and improved retention among LGBTQ+ students (Garvey et al., 2018). Similarly, staff diversity programmes correlate with improved wellbeing and productivity (O’Meara et al., 2019).

Dawkins frames these policies as threats to academic freedom. In reality, they are designed to extend it. A trans student cannot freely participate in academia if they are excluded from facilities or face harassment from peers and staff. DEI initiatives protect the conditions in which free inquiry is possible.

7.4 Postmodernism as misrepresented

Dawkins frequently invokes “postmodernism” as the source of what he sees as anti-scientific thinking. Yet he uses the term in a caricatured sense. Postmodernism is a broad intellectual movement with many strands. While some postmodern theorists have critiqued science as a social construct, others have argued for a more reflexive science that recognises the influence of culture on knowledge (Lyotard, 1979; Haraway, 1988).

Mainstream gender studies does not deny biology. Instead, it analyses how societies interpret biological facts and how those interpretations affect people’s lives. To dismiss this as “postmodern nonsense” is to flatten an entire field into a strawman.

Counterclaim and Rebuttal

Counterclaim: Universities censor science to protect ideology.
Rebuttal: Surveys and research show ongoing debate rather than censorship (Mountford-Zimdars & Hubble, 2024). Research on sex, gender, and identity continues to be published in leading journals. DEI policies are not mechanisms of suppression but safeguards against harassment and exclusion, which themselves are threats to free inquiry. The claim that “science is being censored” is not supported by evidence. What is being challenged is not science, but rhetoric masquerading as science.

8. The Ethics of Scientific Authority

8.1 Responsibilities of a public intellectual

Richard Dawkins does not speak as a private citizen alone. His reputation as a world-renowned evolutionary biologist gives his words authority in public discourse. Public intellectuals have a responsibility to use that authority with care, particularly when addressing matters outside their narrow expertise (Said, 1994). When Dawkins invokes “science” to make pronouncements about gender identity, many readers assume he speaks with the same authority he does when explaining natural selection. Yet expertise in evolutionary biology does not automatically translate into expertise in psychology, sociology, or medicine. Ethical intellectual practice requires acknowledging those limits.

8.2 Consequences of oversimplification

Simplifying complex issues can help audiences understand. But oversimplification can distort. By reducing sex to gamete size, Dawkins erases the biological reality of intersex people, the medical recognition of differences of sex development, and the lived realities of trans people. This is not simplification for clarity. It is simplification that misleads.

The consequences are not abstract. Misrepresentations of science have historically fuelled harmful ideologies, from scientific racism to eugenics (Kevles, 1985). When Dawkins portrays trans identity as a denial of scientific truth, he risks legitimising policies that restrict healthcare, deny legal recognition, or exclude trans people from public life. The authority of “science” becomes a weapon, not a tool for understanding.

8.3 The harm caused by misleading claims on vulnerable groups

Trans people are among the most vulnerable groups in society. They face elevated risks of unemployment, homelessness, violence, and poor mental health (Bachmann & Gooch, 2018; James et al., 2016). When public figures frame their existence as “false,” these risks increase. Studies show that exposure to transphobic rhetoric in the media correlates with higher stress and worse mental health outcomes among trans people (McNeil et al., 2012).

The ethical principle of nonmaleficence - do no harm - applies not only to medicine but to public communication. A scientist who misrepresents evidence about a minority group cannot excuse the harm caused by claiming fidelity to truth. Truth without context or care can still mislead. Authority without responsibility is not science. It is negligence.

9. Why Dawkins is Wrong: A Point-by-Point Refutation

Claim: Sex is binary

Dawkins’s position: Sex is determined by gametes and is therefore binary.

Refutation: Human biology is more complex than Dawkins allows. Intersex conditions demonstrate that sex is not strictly binary. Differences of sex development (DSDs) include chromosomal patterns such as XXY, XO, and mosaicism, as well as gonadal and hormonal variations (Hughes et al., 2006). Medical consensus recognises these as natural variations rather than errors (Ainsworth, 2015). To reduce sex to gamete size is to erase these realities and to ignore developmental biology, which shows multiple pathways between chromosomal patterns and phenotypic outcomes (Lee et al., 2006).

Claim: “Trans women are women” is scientifically false

Dawkins’s position: The slogan “trans women are women” denies biology and undermines truth.

Refutation: Science does not adjudicate identity. It can describe bodies, brains, and development, but whether a person is recognised as a woman is a question of gender, not gametes. Medicine and psychology explicitly recognise gender dysphoria and support gender transition as an evidence-based treatment (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; Coleman et al., 2022). Legal systems across the world recognise trans women as women in official documents, from passports to birth certificates (Winter et al., 2016). To claim the statement is “scientifically false” misrepresents what science can and cannot say.

Claim: Activists distort truth

Dawkins’s position: Trans activists are “astonishingly vicious” and pressure universities and publishers to censor science (Knapton, 2025).

Refutation: Peer-reviewed evidence supports recognition of trans identities. Neuroscience shows structural and functional brain differences aligned with gender identity (Guillamon et al., 2016). Genetics research suggests heritable contributions to transgender identity (Ganna et al., 2019). Psychological research demonstrates the stability of gender identity across the lifespan (Zhou et al., 1995). These findings arise from mainstream science, not activist distortion. To frame them as ideology is to deny evidence because it contradicts personal preference.

Claim: Women’s rights are harmed

Dawkins’s position: Accepting trans women as women infringes on women’s rights, especially in sport, prisons, and changing rooms.

Refutation: No evidence supports this. Studies of sports participation show that hormone therapy reduces performance advantages (Harper et al., 2021). Research on prisons demonstrates that trans women are more at risk when housed with men, while incidents in women’s facilities are rare (Ministry of Justice, 2021; Tarzwell, 2006). Studies of bathroom and changing room policies show no increase in crimes against women or children following inclusive laws (Hasenbush et al., 2019). By contrast, exclusion demonstrably harms trans women, exposing them to higher risks of violence and discrimination (James et al., 2016). The evidence shows that trans inclusion does not harm women’s rights, but exclusion harms trans women’s rights.

10. Conclusion

Richard Dawkins presents himself as the guardian of scientific truth, yet on the subject of sex and gender he repeatedly misrepresents biology and misuses his authority. By reducing sex to gamete size, he erases the complexity of developmental biology, intersex conditions, and medical consensus (Ainsworth, 2015; Hughes et al., 2006). By collapsing sex and gender into one category, he denies the scientific recognition of gender identity in psychology, neuroscience, and medicine (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; Coleman et al., 2022). By framing trans people as a “lobby” that distorts truth, he substitutes rhetoric for evidence and delegitimises peer-reviewed science that validates trans identities (Guillamon et al., 2016; Ganna et al., 2019).

The consequences of such oversimplification are severe. When public intellectuals mislead their audiences under the banner of science, they lend legitimacy to policies and prejudices that harm vulnerable people. Research consistently shows that trans people face heightened risks of violence, discrimination, and poor health outcomes (James et al., 2016; Bachmann & Gooch, 2018). Misrepresentations of science do not merely confuse public debate. They increase stigma and exclusion.

Clarity is possible. Evidence exists. The biological sciences recognise variation. The social sciences recognise gender as a schema, not a whim (Bem, 1981). Medicine recognises that affirming transition improves wellbeing and saves lives (Turban et al., 2020; Bränström & Pachankis, 2020). Legal systems recognise trans women as women in passports, birth certificates, and human rights frameworks (Winter et al., 2016). Together these fields form a coherent body of knowledge.

The statement “trans women are women” is not postmodern relativism. It is a conclusion grounded in scientific, medical, ethical, and social reality. To deny it is not to defend science but to distort it. If truth matters, then accuracy matters. And accuracy requires acknowledging that trans women, in every domain where evidence counts, are women.

---

References for Introduction

• Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press.

• Knapton, S. (2025). ‘Richard Dawkins: “Trans women are women” slogan is scientifically false’. The Telegraph, 25 September. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/25/richard-dawkins-trans-women-slogan-scientifically-false/ [Accessed 27 September 2025].

References for Section 2

• Dawkins, R. (2015). Race is a Spectrum. Sex is Pretty Damn Binary. The Richard Dawkins Foundation. Available at: https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Flood, A. (2021). Richard Dawkins loses ‘humanist of the year’ title over trans comments. The Guardian, 20 April. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Independent. (2021). Richard Dawkins stripped of humanist award over comments about trans people. The Independent, 20 April. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-trans-humanist-aha-b1835017.html [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Knapton, S. (2025). ‘Richard Dawkins: “Trans women are women” slogan is scientifically false’. The Telegraph, 25 September. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/25/richard-dawkins-trans-women-slogan-scientifically-false/ [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Wikipedia. (2025a). Views of Richard Dawkins. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Richard_Dawkins [Accessed 27 September 2025].

References for Section 2

• Dawkins, R. (@RichardDawkins). (2015a). Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic… [Tweet]. 25 October. Available at: https://x.com/RichardDawkins/status/658622852405534721 [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Dawkins, R. (2015b). Race is a Spectrum. Sex is Pretty Damn Binary. Richard Dawkins Foundation. Available at: https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Flood, A. (2021). Richard Dawkins loses ‘humanist of the year’ title over trans comments. The Guardian, 20 April. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Independent. (2021). Richard Dawkins stripped of humanist award over comments about trans people. The Independent, 20 April. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-trans-humanist-aha-b1835017.html [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Knapton, S. (2025). Richard Dawkins: “Trans women are women” slogan is scientifically false. The Telegraph, 25 September. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/25/richard-dawkins-trans-women-slogan-scientifically-false/ [Accessed 27 September 2025].

References for Section 3

• Ainsworth, C. (2015). ‘Sex redefined’. Nature, 518(7539), 288–291. doi:10.1038/518288a.

• Azziz, R., Carmina, E., Chen, Z., Dunaif, A., Laven, J.S., Legro, R.S. and Lizneva, D. (2016). ‘Polycystic ovary syndrome’. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 2(1), 16057. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.57.

• Dawkins, R. (2015). Race is a Spectrum. Sex is Pretty Damn Binary. The Richard Dawkins Foundation. Available at: https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World. New York: Routledge.

• Graves, J.A.M. (2008). ‘Sex chromosome specialization and degeneration in mammals’. Cell, 124(5), 901–914. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.024.

• Hughes, I.A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S.F. and Lee, P.A. (2006). ‘Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders’. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 2(3), 148–162. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2006.03.004.

• Hughes, I.A., Deeb, A., & Maimoun, L. (2012). ‘Androgen insensitivity syndrome’. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 26(2), 215–226. doi:10.1016/j.beem.2011.12.004.

• Lee, P.A., Houk, C.P., Ahmed, S.F. and Hughes, I.A. (2006). ‘Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders’. Pediatrics, 118(2), e488–e500. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0738.

• Nieschlag, E., Behre, H.M. and Nieschlag, S. (2019). Andrology: Male Reproductive Health and Dysfunction. 4th edn. Berlin: Springer.

References for Section 4

• American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5-TR. 5th edn, text revision. Washington, DC: APA.

• Bao, A.M. and Swaab, D.F. (2011). ‘Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders’. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32(2), 214–226. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.02.007.

• Bem, S.L. (1981). ‘Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing’. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354.

• Coleman, E., Radix, A.E., Bouman, W.P. et al. (2022). ‘Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8’. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(Suppl 1), S1–S259. doi:10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.

• Ganna, A., Verweij, K.J.H., Nivard, M.G. et al. (2019). ‘Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behaviour’. Science, 365(6456), eaat7693. doi:10.1126/science.aat7693.

• Guillamon, A., Junque, C. and Gómez-Gil, E. (2016). ‘A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism’. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7), 1615–1648. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5.

• World Health Organization. (2023). Gender and health. Available at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Winter, S., Diamond, M., Green, J. et al. (2016). ‘Transgender people: health at the margins of society’. The Lancet, 388(10042), 390–400. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00683-8.

• Zhou, J.N., Hofman, M.A., Gooren, L.J. and Swaab, D.F. (1995). ‘A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality’. Nature, 378(6552), 68–70. doi:10.1038/378068a0.

References for Section 5

• Bachmann, C. and Gooch, B. (2018). LGBT in Britain: Trans Report. London: Stonewall.

• Bränström, R. and Pachankis, J.E. (2020). ‘Reduction in mental health treatment utilization among transgender individuals after gender-affirming surgeries: a total population study’. American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(8), 727–734. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080.

• Deutsch, M.B. (2016). Guidelines for the Primary and Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender and Gender Nonbinary People. 2nd edn. San Francisco: UCSF Center of Excellence for Transgender Health.

• Knapton, S. (2025). ‘Richard Dawkins: “Trans women are women” slogan is scientifically false’. The Telegraph, 25 September. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/25/richard-dawkins-trans-women-slogan-scientifically-false/ [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Merskey, H. and Bogduk, N. (1994). Classification of Chronic Pain: Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definitions of Pain Terms. 2nd edn. Seattle: IASP Press.

• McNeil, J., Bailey, L., Ellis, S., Morton, J. and Regan, M. (2012). Trans Mental Health Study 2012. Edinburgh: Equality Network.

• Pearce, R., Erikainen, S. and Vincent, B. (2020). ‘TERF wars: An introduction’. The Sociological Review Monographs, 68(4), 677–698. doi:10.1177/0038026120934713.

• Turban, J.L., King, D., Reisner, S.L. and Keuroghlian, A.S. (2020). ‘Pubertal suppression for transgender youth and risk of suicidal ideation’. Pediatrics, 145(2), e20191725. doi:10.1542/peds.2019-1725.

References for Section 6

• Bachmann, C. and Gooch, B. (2018). LGBT in Britain: Trans Report. London: Stonewall.

• Government Equalities Office. (2018). National LGBT Survey: Research Report. London: GEO.

• Harper, J., Martinez-Patino, M.J., Pigozzi, F. et al. (2021). ‘How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation’. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(15), 865–872. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-103106.

• Hasenbush, A., Flores, A.R. and Herman, J.L. (2019). ‘Gender identity nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations: a review of evidence regarding safety and privacy in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms’. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16(1), 70–83. doi:10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z.

• Hines, S. (2019). The Feminist Frontier: On Trans and Feminism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

• International Olympic Committee (IOC). (2021). IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations. Lausanne: IOC.

• James, S.E., Herman, J.L., Rankin, S. et al. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

• Knapton, S. (2025). ‘Richard Dawkins: “Trans women are women” slogan is scientifically false’. The Telegraph, 25 September. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/25/richard-dawkins-trans-women-slogan-scientifically-false/ [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Ministry of Justice. (2021). Offender Equalities Annual Report 2020/21. London: Ministry of Justice.

• Tarzwell, S. (2006). ‘The gender lines are marked with razor wire: Addressing state prison policies and practices for the management of transgender prisoners’. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 38(1), 167–219.

References for Section 7

• Garvey, J.C., Taylor, J.L. and Rankin, S.R. (2018). ‘An examination of campus climate for LGBTQ community college students’. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(11), 757–774. doi:10.1080/10668926.2018.1528906.

• Haraway, D. (1988). ‘Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective’. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. doi:10.2307/3178066.

• Hines, S. (2019). The Feminist Frontier: On Trans and Feminism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Knapton, S. (2025). Richard Dawkins: “Trans women are women” slogan is scientifically false. The Telegraph, 25 September. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/25/richard-dawkins-trans-women-slogan-scientifically-false/ [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Lyotard, J-F. (1979). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

• Mountford-Zimdars, A. and Hubble, S. (2024). Trans and Non-Binary Student Experiences in UK Higher Education. HEPI Report 174. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.

• O’Meara, K., Culpepper, D.K. and Templeton, L. (2019). ‘Equity-minded faculty development: An intersectional approach’. Journal of Faculty Development, 33(2), 67–74.

References for Section 8

• Bachmann, C. and Gooch, B. (2018). LGBT in Britain: Trans Report. London: Stonewall.

• James, S.E., Herman, J.L., Rankin, S. et al. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

• Kevles, D.J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. New York: Knopf.

• McNeil, J., Bailey, L., Ellis, S., Morton, J. and Regan, M. (2012). Trans Mental Health Study 2012. Edinburgh: Equality Network.

• Said, E.W. (1994). Representations of the Intellectual. New York: Pantheon Books.

References for Section 9

• Ainsworth, C. (2015). ‘Sex redefined’. Nature, 518(7539), 288–291. doi:10.1038/518288a.

• American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5-TR. 5th edn, text revision. Washington, DC: APA.

• Coleman, E., Radix, A.E., Bouman, W.P. et al. (2022). ‘Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8’. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(Suppl 1), S1–S259. doi:10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.

• Ganna, A., Verweij, K.J.H., Nivard, M.G. et al. (2019). ‘Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behaviour’. Science, 365(6456), eaat7693. doi:10.1126/science.aat7693.

• Guillamon, A., Junque, C. and Gómez-Gil, E. (2016). ‘A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism’. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7), 1615–1648. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5.

• Harper, J., Martinez-Patino, M.J., Pigozzi, F. et al. (2021). ‘How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation’. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(15), 865–872. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-103106.

• Hughes, I.A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S.F. and Lee, P.A. (2006). ‘Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders’. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 2(3), 148–162. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2006.03.004.

• James, S.E., Herman, J.L., Rankin, S. et al. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

• Knapton, S. (2025). ‘Richard Dawkins: “Trans women are women” slogan is scientifically false’. The Telegraph, 25 September. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/25/richard-dawkins-trans-women-slogan-scientifically-false/ [Accessed 27 September 2025].

• Lee, P.A., Houk, C.P., Ahmed, S.F. and Hughes, I.A. (2006). ‘Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders’. Pediatrics, 118(2), e488–e500. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0738.

• Ministry of Justice. (2021). Offender Equalities Annual Report 2020/21. London: Ministry of Justice.

• Tarzwell, S. (2006). ‘The gender lines are marked with razor wire: Addressing state prison policies and practices for the management of transgender prisoners’. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 38(1), 167–219.

• Winter, S., Diamond, M., Green, J. et al. (2016). ‘Transgender people: health at the margins of society’. The Lancet, 388(10042), 390–400. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00683-8.

• Zhou, J.N., Hofman, M.A., Gooren, L.J. and Swaab, D.F. (1995). ‘A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality’. Nature, 378(6552), 68–70. doi:10.1038/378068a0.

References for Section 10

• Ainsworth, C. (2015). ‘Sex redefined’. Nature, 518(7539), 288–291. doi:10.1038/518288a.

• American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5-TR. 5th edn, text revision. Washington, DC: APA.

• Bachmann, C. and Gooch, B. (2018). LGBT in Britain: Trans Report. London: Stonewall.

• Bem, S.L. (1981). ‘Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing’. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354.

• Bränström, R. and Pachankis, J.E. (2020). ‘Reduction in mental health treatment utilization among transgender individuals after gender-affirming surgeries: a total population study’. American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(8), 727–734. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080.

• Coleman, E., Radix, A.E., Bouman, W.P. et al. (2022). ‘Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8’. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(Suppl 1), S1–S259. doi:10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.

• Ganna, A., Verweij, K.J.H., Nivard, M.G. et al. (2019). ‘Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behaviour’. Science, 365(6456), eaat7693. doi:10.1126/science.aat7693.

• Guillamon, A., Junque, C. and Gómez-Gil, E. (2016). ‘A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism’. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7), 1615–1648. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5.

• Hughes, I.A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S.F. and Lee, P.A. (2006). ‘Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders’. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 2(3), 148–162. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2006.03.004.

• James, S.E., Herman, J.L., Rankin, S. et al. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

• Turban, J.L., King, D., Reisner, S.L. and Keuroghlian, A.S. (2020). ‘Pubertal suppression for transgender youth and risk of suicidal ideation’. Pediatrics, 145(2), e20191725. doi:10.1542/peds.2019-1725.

• Winter, S., Diamond, M., Green, J. et al. (2016). ‘Transgender people: health at the margins of society’. The Lancet, 388(10042), 390–400. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00683-8.