Richard Dawkins has attempted to answer the question “what is a woman” by inventing a definition, while simultaneously decrying attempts to answer such a question with a definition. It’s a sad state when he is reduced to such blatant sophistry.

It’s a long, far too long, article, not at all crisp and succinct, which is what you can expect when a man is floundering to impose untenable nonsense as objective biological fact. I’ll give you the one key paragraph.

How can I be so sure that there are only two sexes. Isn’t it just a matter of opinion? Sir Ed Davey, leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, said that women “quite clearly” can have a penis. Words are our servants not our masters. One might say, “I define a woman as anybody who self-identifies as a woman, therefore a woman can have a penis.” That is logically unassailable in the same way as, “I define “flat” to mean what you call “round”, therefore the world is flat.” I think it’s clear that if we all descended to that level of sophistry, rational discourse would soon dig itself into the desert sand. I shall make the case that redefinition of woman as capable of having a penis, if not downright perverse, is close to that extreme.

I have to first mention that he’s wrong, that Davey is not imposing a definition in his argument; he’s making a reductio, that you can defeat a claim that a woman can’t have a penis by…finding a woman who has a penis. He has left open the criteria for womanhood, implying that it is a complex multidimensional problem that can’t be resolved with a single criterion.

To which Dawkins responds by inventing a single criterion that he calls the Universal Biological Definition! If you’re going to complain incorrectly that someone has fallaciously tried to resolve a problem by simply defining the problem away, don’t then indulge in your own attempt to resolve it with a definition! But here we go, Dawkins’ Universal Biological Definition:

I shall advocate instead what I shall call the Universal Biological Definition (UBD), based on gamete size. Biologists use the UBD as the only definition that applies all the way across the animal and plant kingdoms, and all the way through evolutionary history.

Problem: it is not a universal definition, and Richard Dawkins does not have the authority to tell all biologists what is true. If you ask the American Society for Reproductive Medicine or the NIH (at least, recently — they may not say this anymore as the Trump administration takes a wrecking ball to our research institutions) what the universal definition is, they’ll tell you:

The National Institutes of Health defines biological sex (“assigned sex”) as “a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones,” also referred to by some as “sex traits.” All animals, including humans, have a sex.

Ideologically driven policymakers have introduced or enacted legislation and policies defining legal sex based on biological characteristics at birth, such as genitalia, chromosomes, or reproductive anatomy.

For example, a 2023 Kansas law defines males and females based on reproductive anatomy at birth, stating that females are individuals whose reproductive systems are developed to produce ovaries, and males are those whose systems are developed to “fertilize the ova” of a female. A 2023 Tennessee statute defines sex as a person’s immutable biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.

All the scientific societies I have been associated with say something similar. It is rather arrogant of Dawkins, who is not a reproductive biologist, a developmental biologist, an endocrinologist, or has any other relevant credentials to think that he can ignore a consensus and simply decree that his simplistic definition is absolutely and completely universal and true.

Dawkins’ expertise is as an ethologist, someone who studies animal behavior. I don’t understand how an ethologist can come to the conclusion that there is only one simple parameter that determines everything, but I guess that’s the power of motivated reasoning.

He tries to justify it ethologically, but this whole section falls flat.

If you define females as macrogamete producers and males as microgamete producers, you can immediately account for the following facts (see any recent textbook of Ethology, Sociobiology, Behavioural Ecology or Evolutionary Psychology):

1. In mammals it’s the females that gestate the young and secrete milk.
2. In those bird species where only one sex incubates the eggs, or only one sex feeds the young, it is nearly always the females.
3. In those fish that bear live young, it is nearly always the females that bear them.
4. In those animals where one sex advertises to the other with bright colours, it is nearly always the males.
5. In those bird species where one sex sings elaborate or beautiful songs it is always the male who does so.
6. In those animals where one sex fights over possession of the other, it is nearly always the males who fight.
7. In those animals where one sex has more promiscuous tendencies than the other, it is nearly always the males.
8. In those animals where one sex is fussier about avoiding miscegenation, it is usually the females.
9. In those animals where one sex tries to force the other into copulation, it is nearly always the males who do the forcing.
10. When one sex guards the other against copulation with others, it is nearly always the males that guard females.
11. In those animals where one sex is gathered into a harem, it is nearly always the females.
12. Polygyny is far more common than polyandry.
13. When one sex tends to die younger than the other, it is usually the males.
14. Where one sex is larger than the other it is usually the males.

Notice all the qualifiers? In this particular clade it works this way, “usually,” “nearly always,” “more common,” etc., etc., etc. Not so universal, then, is it, when even your best examples have to be padded with exceptions. Do polyandrous or monogamous species not exhibit anisogamy? If a female exhibits bright colours, is she no longer a true female (conversely, are drag queens the most female of us all)? If males of a species incubate eggs, are they all faggoty cucks, not deserving to be called male? It seems to me that anisogamy does not and cannot explain all of the complexity of sex. As his own examples show, sex is a diverse phenomenon that you can’t just sweep into one catch-all bin.

I would also note a fallacious sleight of hand: he starts by complaining about a definition of “woman” that allows for women having a penis, and then hinges his entire argument on gametes. Men and women are more than a pile of gametes! There’s a vast body of cultural baggage associated with the human categories of man and woman, and you don’t get to jettison them all as inconvenient to your claim…and similarly, you can’t pretend that all those ethological variations in the sexes of non-human species are unimportant. I know that Richard is exercising his well known penchant for extreme reductionism, but sometimes that just breaks and produces nonsensical visions that do not reflect biological reality at all.

An evolutionary biologist ought to embrace variation and diversity rather than discarding it. That only harms the individuals who are part of the normal range of variation, but don’t belong to the typical median — and this is particularly problematic when you’re dealing with a species that has exploded the range of cultural, phenotypic variation, as humans have done. We’re not penguins or hyenas or ticks, you know. Why ignore all the diversity within a species notorious for its behavioral flexibility?