Dawkins quits atheist group for censoring biological definition of sex

Professor Richard Dawkins has resigned from an atheism foundation after it censored an essay criticising trans ideology from a biological perspective.

The US-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) removed a piece by distinguished biologist Jerry Coyne from its website for challenging an article by gender activist Kat Grant which argued there is no biological definition of ‘woman’.

Prof Dawkins said FFRF’s decision to publish Grant’s “silly and unscientific” article was a “minor error of judgment”, but resigned over its removal of Coyne’s rebuttal.

Ideology

Grant had argued that it was “deeply impractical” to define womanhood on the basis of sexual and reproductive organs, the ability to conceive children, or genetics.

Rather, the activist advocated a “gender diverse model” which “allows womanhood to be defined on internal, personal terms”. The writer, who identifies as non-binary, therefore concluded that “there is an answer to the question ‘what is a woman’”, that “A woman is whoever she says she is.”

In response, Coyne accused Grant of rejecting “a long biological history”, conflating sex and gender, and attempting to “force ideology onto nature”.

The Emeritus Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago said that in biology “a woman can be simply defined in four words: ‘An adult human female.’”

‘Hysterical squeals’

Coyne continued: “it is not ‘transphobic’ to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology”.

Coyne said the organisation’s “incursion into gender activism” had little to do with its mission combatting the influence of religion in government and social policy.

In his letter of resignation, Prof Dawkins described the board’s decision to retrospectively censor Coyne’s rebuttal “was an act of unseemly panic” done in response to “hysterical squeals from predictable quarters”.

He concluded: “Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own Honorary Board. A Board which I now leave with regret.”