He's had some very strange output on biological gender, where he tries to handwave away the existence of intersex people. And he's a biologist.
I'm not sure what a "gender proponent" is, but Dawkins has come out and written some pseudo-scientific bullshit about there only being two sexes/genders, and that everyone fits nearly into one of them. Which is patently false. Intersex people are a real phenomenon, and are not clearly classifiable into either sex. Dawkins has made a fool of himself by claiming that a real biological phenomenon can simply be ignored when conceiving a theory of sex (and gender).
In other words, Dawkins has gone off the deep end. He doesn't really have credibility as a researcher or public intellectual. He's with the grifters now.
This embarrassing conservative grift is part of an anthology filled with drivel from other grifters: The War on Science", edited by sex pest Lawrence Krauss [1].
[1] https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-War-on-Science/Da...
I don't know about cranks and conservative grifters, but it's definitely not a feature of the "gender critical" position which I thought Dawkins was broadly aligned with. That's more that "sex" is absolutely binary, with your "intersex people" being umambiguously classified through genetics, while "gender" is too vague and undefined a term to be useful for much of anything in the public sphere.
> Dawkins has come out and written some pseudo-scientific bullshit about there only being two sexes/genders, and that everyone fits nearly into one of them
It'd be surprising for Dawkins to make any kind of definitive statement about gender. I do think that your use of "sexes/genders" in that sentence is symptomatic of exactly the kind of conflation you're complaining about. "There are only two sexes" is a completely different statement from "there are only two genders", and far more defensible.
You are wrong about intersex people being genetically classifiable. There is no deterministic causal relationship between genetics and sex characteristics: as an example, a person with XX chromosomes may develop external male genitalia and v.v. for XY chromosomes. But of course, for most people with XX and XY chromosomes develop, this is the other way around. See how genetics do not explain this?
Your second para's argument would only be valid if you thought that sex is defined by external characteristics. I'm pretty sure you don't think that. And as far as I'm aware, while some DSDs certainly have a gene-expression component, there's no reason to think that they don't all ultimately have a genetic basis. There's a strong whiff here of "it's all terribly complicated so let's just agree that nothing means anything".
Obviously people can disagree about the merits or otherwise of a genetic classification. But it's not straightforwardly wrong or insane, particularly since credible alternatives have been notably lacking.
"There's no reason to think they don't all ultimately have a genetic basis". Oh, so you have groundbreaking research results you want to share? Something that would explain luteoma as having a "genetic basis"?
And yes, external sex characteristics is how sex is determined by doctors at birth. And throughout life. If you live as female/male/ambiguous intersex, but have some other set of chromosomes, that does not change your sex.
While you invent the terrible menace of the "anti-math woke" (it doesn't exist), the current president and secretary of health - who have actual power of nuisance over all Americans and a large part of the world - are unable to do correct basic percentage calculations and openly boast of it: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/apr/23/robert-f-k...
Meanwhile, yes, gender is a social construct, sex is another thing completely, and both can be changed.
See: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Personally I'm sympathetic to the idea that CAIS individuals should be a reasonable exception, i.e. they're still biologically male, but in most social contexts there's no obvious gain to treating them as such. I can see why many people have arrived at a hardline "XX or GTFO" position given the absolute state of activism on the other side, but yes, there's definitely room for nuance. On the other hand, obviously, testicular cancer doesn't care what you were "assigned at birth"; there is a fact of the matter, and it matters.
Appreciate the civil discussion, btw. It's a rarity in this subject.
The way I see it, the sex binary is fundamentally about reproduction. It's why we can use the same concept for everything from pondweed to platypuses. All across nature, male=small gametes, female=large gametes. In humans that's driven (with the potential for things to go haywire occasionally, sure, but still driven) by the XX/XY system, so that strikes me as a reasonable thing to base a definition on.
Side note re "nobody knows whether anyone is a man or a woman until they get tested" - I'd say that giving birth or fathering a child is a pretty big clue. AFAIK the only cases where that doesn't line up perfectly with genetic sex relate to mosaicism, where I'll freely admit my intuition goes completely kablooie.
My mental scenario is one of these guys trying to go into the women's restroom they are now legally obligated to use, and a whole bunch of bystanders bringing violence to the table to prevent it.
That's the desired outcome for them. They want us to either die or comply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Women_Scotland_Ltd_v_The_S...
Though in practice I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually converge on "women only" and "unisex" as some sports have done. The risks posed by self-identification are very much one-way; this isn't a symmetrical situation.