Dawkins loses entire Facebook account for posting about putative men boxing women in the Olympics

August 10, 2024 • 8:15 am

UPDATE 1: I looked up Dawkins’s FB account and got this, showing no posts at all, even the ones from 2017 mentioned below:

UPDATE 2:  This report by 3Wire Sports and contributed by reader Isaac below gives quite convincing evidence that both boxers involved in this controversy had an XY (male) karyotype. The report’s author, Alan Abrahamson, has seen the IBA report and notes this:

The first page provides, along with basic identifying information for each athlete and date and time of sample collection, result summary – “abnormal” – and interpretation – “chromosome analysis reveals Male karyotype.” The second page offers photographic representation of the 22 paired autosomes and then, for each athlete, further depicts an X and a Y chromosome. Page three makes plain that the lab is a “national reference lab” and, as well, accredited by CAP, the Northfield, Illinois-based College of American Pathologists, and certified by the ISO, the Swiss-based International Organization for Standardization.

I continue to stand by my hypotheses that both of these boxers had XY chromosomes but likely had a disorder of sex development that may have given them ambiguous genitalia that led to their being raised as female. But my hypothesis adds that this DSD allowed them to go through male puberty, gaining an athletic advantages. In other words, both boxers were biological males.

UPDATE 3: It’s not clear what happened to get the Facebook account taken down. Some say it was hacked, removed, and fixed by Meta, and that may be the case. But if the hacking is because of Dawkins’s stand on gender and boxers, then it’s the same cause but not censorship by social-media networks. What makes me think that it may have been hacking is my failure to notice that Richard said his Facebook account had been deleted for something he “tweeted;” i.e., put on “X”, formerly Twitter. Twitter is run by Musk, who tends to lean toward Dawkins’s views, while Facebook is owned by Meta. Why would Facebook delete an account for something said on Twitter?  When I have definite info (I’ve written to Richard), I’ll add it here as Addendum #4. If I jumped the gun with my earlier post below, I’ll certainly admit it!

**************

I received this message from both the UK and US. Apparently Richard Dawkins’s Facebook account, except for two entries dating back to 2017, has been deleted because he criticized the Olympics allowing putative XY boxers, which are likely phenotypically and genetically male, to box against biological women in the Olympics. (See my posts here and here.)

I haven’t been much on the internet since I’m sightseeing and also have only sporadic connection to the world, so I’m not sure how this issue has shaken out. There are debates about whether the two boxers in question were of XY chromosome constitution, had high levels of testosterone (they had previously been disqualified in other competitions), or had genetic disorders of sex development (DSDs).

But regardless, to ban someone’s account for expressing the opinion that genetically male boxers shouldn’t fight against biological women is unconscionable. mRichard said that one of the boxers is “XY undisputed,” and since I’ve been out of touch, that may be the case.  And if that is the case, then there is a real debate to be had.

There’s a general debate to be had about these boxers anyway since, last I heard, people were arguing about every aspect of the two is subject to dispute.

Facebook botched this one very badly, and should restore Dawkins’s account.  What he wrote below is apparently on Twitter.

If some knowledge about these boxers has become generally accepted in the past week, please add it below. I know that Colin Wright has been following the case and wrote a Substack post a week ago called “Fact vs. fiction: Olympic boxer Imane Khelif is male and should not be allowed to fight women.” He also has a new post, which I haven’t yet read, subtitled, “There are no good reasons to doubt the IBA’s claim that both Khelif and Yu Ting have XY chromosomes.”

Richard’s Facebook post

93 thoughts on “Dawkins loses entire Facebook account for posting about putative men boxing women in the Olympics”

  1. I wrote a satirical take in support of Dawkins, but couldn’t at the last minute- sort of in haste.

    Instead, see this UN post for their gnostic wizardry of information :

    x.com/un/status/1822121696012476541?s=46

    There’s some weird stuff going down in the UK.

  2. I’m not convinced about this. FB is notoriously insecure, and it’s possible that Dawkins’ account was hacked and deleted by some rando. Speaking as some one whose brother’s late wife’s FB account was hacked, causing him a good deal of grief.

    1. This happened to my wife’s friend this past week. The friend — who depends a lot on Facebook for her DJ music gigs — had some success regaining the account, but she quickly lost it again (presumably to the same malicious hackers).

      As a possible example of confirmation bias, it does seem people are too quick to assume Facebook’s culpability, even if it ultimately turns out to be true. (Same for X-Twitter, though Musk’s political meddling makes confirmation bias more likely congruent to fact.)

  3. This seems wacky. Discussing the case and expressing an opinion doesn’t seem like it can be an infraction of policy.

  4. I’m in full agreement that there is such a thing as biological sex, based on gamete production. However, development of secondary sexual characteristics is more complex. Sally Jenkins, a sports writer for WaPo whom I highly respect, addresses that point in her column today. Bottom line – karyotype testing is far from conclusive. See below – link should not be paywalled.

    https://wapo.st/4dGgnev

    1. A human with XY who has been through puberty and whose reproductive system is organized to produce small gametes – i.e. sperm (as are the two boxers at the Olympics) is on average (far more likely) to be:

      1) Stronger and longer limbed
      2) More agile with optimized fast twitch muscles
      3) Higher bone density
      4) Greater lung capacity
      5) Stronger heart muscles
      6) and more…

      That’s because (wait for it) they are male. Organized that way by nature – by nature. The two boxers are not trans, they fit in the category of DSDs, but there is no doubt they are male – irrespective of the development of secondary sexual characteristics – the absence of a penis or a small penis (for example) does not negate the fact that these two are male. And males who have been through puberty (on average) have a massive advantage over women/females. It’s nature’s way of ensuring survival.

      A fitting analogy would be doping. Performing while on performance enhancing drugs. These two are preforming with an advantage akin to a firewall, one of nature’s (necessary) firewalls. It is not fair to females. Also the WAPO is captured and is most of MSM. WEIT wrote about this ~week ago. It may be worth trying to find that post and re-read it.

      1. Addendum:

        These characteristics are also secondary:

        1) Stronger and longer limbed
        2) More agile with optimized fast twitch muscles
        3) Higher bone density
        4) Greater lung capacity
        5) Stronger heart muscles
        6) and more…

        But again, the optimizing of these secondary characteristics are influenced by what type of puberty a human goes through, in the case of a male (XY – even if DSD) they are likely to land on the stronger (faster) edge, even if not as strong as the average male.

    2. The boxers were tested twice by two different legitimate laboratories which showed the same result: XY.

      There are two reasons an athlete might dispute this being a basis for being eliminated from the woman’s category.

      1.) Those results are wrong, I’m not XY but XX.

      2.) I’m XY but have a DSD in which my body did not respond to testosterone and thus I don’t have the male advantage which was the reason separate categories for men & women were formed in the first place.

      Both these claims are resolvable. For the first, have another cheek swab and send it to a lab which you feel can be trusted. For the second, request different tests which require a blood sample.

      Neither one of those boxers has made any move whatsoever to undergo even one more test, despite it being critical, easy, and a simple way to stop the “harassment” they’ve been complaining about. The IOCs pathetic “we accept what’s on the passport which is easily tampered with and often allows self-identification” test — which is no test at all, but Affirmation — is apparently good enough.

      2. Agree. The IOC shows no inclination whatsoever to test for biological sex and DSDs, which in my view is evidence of their strong misogyny and lack of regard for women’s sports, well-being and safety. The IOC needs to drop the woke ideology and start being fair.

      4. The DSDs vary in whether or not an adult will have male strength. 5-ARD have male strength (eg Caster Semenya). Swyer Syndrome and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome don’t have male strength.

        No these individuals have released no information.

        One of them won the gold medal in boxing.

        1. I was going to mention that Imane Khelif had won the gold medal in her weight class.

    3. Sorry, but if several independent tests show you’re XY, then you’re XY. You can also do DNA testing to see if there are Y-specific genes after that.

      I’m sorry that you respect Jenkins, who seems hopelessly confused to me over the real issues involved–whether the boxers went through male puberty. To do that, you have to have high levels of testosterone, almost certainly meaning that you’re XY, and if your genitals are ambiguous, you are a male with a disorder of sex development. And that means that your “secondary sex characteristics” of musculature, oxygen consumption, and so on, give you a decided average advantage over biological women.

      If the boxers were truly XX females, why did they refuse a retest, to which they were entitled? Read the two pieces by Colin Wright above.

      I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say.

      2. Even if the don’t test for chromosomes don’t they still do androgen testing at and before the Olympics?

        1. I don’t think they do they for boxers, though I’m not 100% sure. But each sport now has the responsibility for making its own rules about who competes in the male or female categories.

        2. The Olympics do not do any sex testing at all anymore, leaving it, as Jerry says, up to the governing bodies of the individual sports to decide who can compete in their women’s events. In the case of these boxers, their boxing association had DQ’d them on the basis, we now know, of their having Y chromosomes. The IOC overruled the boxing association for political reasons and allowed the two boxers to compete in the women’s bouts on the strength of their passports saying “F”.

          The World Anti-Doping Association polices the use of pharmaceutical testosterone by female competitors. They would issue a “clean” certificate provided that no pharmaceutical testosterone was detected in the boxers. If the level of T was high but didn’t show the biochemical stigmata of a pharmaceutical preparation, WADA would not report that as a violation. WADA does not get involved in gender/sex testing. It only seeks to determine if athletes are taking prohibited pharmaceuticals.

          If the boxers wanted to play it safe, they could take high doses of estrogen, as trans-identified male athletes still do legally in some sports, to bring their T levels down to the female range. This would allay any suspicion of doping and would still allow them to beat female boxers easily.

          For the record, the IBA says it did not test the boxers’ testosterone levels as a sex test, other than the separate anti-doping regimen that WADA runs.

          1. Thanks. I didn’t know that pharmaceutical testosterone can be distinguished from the natural.

    4. 5-ARD males bell curve with men in all things except development of male genitalia. A 5-ARD Jordan would still have a 48 inch vertical, a 5-ARD 19 year old Mike Tyson would still be able to punch out a brick wall. It is the male body that beats the heck out of a woman in the ring, not the genitalia.

    5. Just about everything that Sally Jenkins says is wrong. That’s quite an achievement. Even the reference to complete androgen insensitivity, the one condition that is widely understood to warrant a clear exemption to the rule that XY is a DQ for competing as a woman, is misleading in this case. If either boxer had CAIS their appeals would almost certainly have been accepted. Jenkins doesn’t even mention the condition that would explain their apparent appearance as female at birth and subsequent masculinization at puberty: 5-alpha reductase deficiency in an XY conceptus.

      Homozygotes for this autosomal recessive condition who have XY sex chromosomes are men, not women with mysteriously high testosterone levels that put them on some spectrum between the poles of male and female. Recognition of this fact evaporates a lot of the argument that “karyotyping” doesn’t suffice for sex determination in sport. (Since the undescended testes that are the rule in this condition are often unable to produce spermatozoa or normal amounts of testosterone, it would not be surprising for masculinization after puberty to be sub-normal. This doesn’t matter for eligibility: any masculinization is an exclusion.)

      The reference to sex testing as bureaucratic hands reaching up the skirts of female athletes is invidious and loathsome. Her article does underline what I had said earlier about how one faction of feminism seems determined to not help women’s sport.

  5. Many others have posted about this case including myself, so maybe this is some kind of algorithm running in FB which counts the number of reports a post attracts and if you have a post which gets more than a specific number of reports, your account is automatically deleted. I posted a lot of similar stuff and indeed about this particular incident myself along with pretty much everything that has appeared in this forum which related to pseudo-Woke Puritanical FAKE Left ideological attacks on Western Civilization and so far all that has happened is that random posts and comments of mine have resulted in multi-day suspensions of the ability to post on FB.

      1. The trouble with automated bot/algorithms is their ability to make foolish mistakes. Posts about breast cancer have been deleted because the bots assume “breast” implies porn. And then there’s the “pro-family” news site bot that changed the name of Olympic runner Tyson Gay to “Tyson Homosexual.”

        1. Perhaps, but this “foolish mistake” didn’t remove just certain posts; it removed an entire history of Facebook posts extending over a decade or so.And what about an automated algorithm that removes posts discussing the karyotype of a boxer? Someone has to make a decision about what is to be removed: robots don’t do it by themselves? My tentative hypothesis is that the post was removed because it questioned the sex of an Olympic athlete. At any rate, one has to explain the removal somehow.

          1. I don’t disagree. There’s a human behind every bot. And every bot gets updated. The latest update may have introduced a “no tolerance” policy. The ability to question the wisdom of “no tolerance” policies has to be programmed into a bot, and somehow I don’t see programmers rushing to do so.

  6. This seems extreme. Though possible. Richard should give it a day or two and check again.

    All my posts related to sex/gender/reality have also been removed. All of them. Though the rest of my posts are “still there”.

    The only way this *s*h*i*t*e is going to end is if women (by that I mean females whose reproductive systems produce -or are organized to produce- sessile gametes) boycott any sport where an XY presents as a “woman”. This is a tough call for women who have practiced for eons and have struggled/fought to win. BUT. It must be done.

    We also need to stop voting DEM. Until. That party wakes up from its stupor, buttressing the far left and underwriting unscientific rubbish/lies that harm children and women. The democrats and their far left allies (Walz is one) are -collectively- promoting an ideology that is deeply (deeply) harmful causing untold pain and suffering. America has imported this horse manure to the world, the rest of the world is waking up and backtracking (particularly after the Cass Review), but there’s too much money in it in the USA – so will be sustained for -perhaps- another generation.

    FB is sucks anyway. Go to twitter (which is also a cess pool) but where -at least- one can speak one’s mind freely. In good news, GARM (the Global Alliance for Responsible Media – hardly!) is dead. Happy about that. And thanks to Elon Musk and congress for it.

    Best to Richard. 💙

    1. NOW you’re talking. Until people stop participating (in the sports where this is allowed) and voting (for the party that peddles the nonsense) this won’t stop. And it only empowers the other extreme. Back to normal, please!

    2. I won’t be following your voting advice. I’m pretty much a one-issue voter but it ain’t this one.

    3. I find it odd that you expatiate, at length, on trans politics every chance you get, and you suggest people should stop voting (D) until all is fixed. Yet I don’t recall you ever mentioning anti-abortion politics (sorry if I’ve missed it), an issue that affects millions (and I mean MILLIONS) more women than trans issues. If I were a woman, I’d be much more disgusted, outraged and alarmed at losing my bodily autonomy, or the use of IVF or being denied life-saving healthcare than by being beaten at a sport by a trans woman. Thousands of women have been criminalized, some prosecuted for miscarriages and some have been pushed to death’s door because of the Dobbs decision. Not to mention the thousands that have had to travel to get abortions or in cases where they don’t have means to travel, forced to take their unwanted pregnancies to term. I’m not implying there aren’t serious issues with mismanaging trans kids and their care, or that trans-women in sports aren’t a big deal. I’m just pointing out that if people should stop voting (D) because of the trans issue, then surely, they should stop voting (R) because of the abortion issue. So perhaps people should only vote 3rd party or write-ins, or should stop voting all together until everything in this country is resolved to one’s own satisfaction. Unfortunately, politics is messy, and throwing away one’s vote, or not voting at all doesn’t solve anything in a two-party democracy like ours. I’ll continue to vote (D) since from where I’m sitting, it is far less dangerous than the GOP and their theocratic politics enmeshed with a personality cult of grievance and hate.

      And yes, Best to Richard!

      2. You are right. You are not a woman.

        If I expatiate on the trans issue every chance I get, it may be because someone I knew and loved who was caught up in this issue took her life – at 19 – caught up in a lie promoted by almost every single DEM in congress and our POTUS/VP; there are many others (many hundreds) like her. Some who have been subject to gender reassignment surgery who are (now) pleading for euthanasia – because they have been medicalized for life, they cannot experience sexual pleasure, may never have children, never breast feed – many are under 30.

        I will keep talking about this issue every chance I get. Not odd. Necessary. Those who think like me don’t want everything to be *perfect* – as you allege; we want children to have a childhood, to experience puberty (as nature intended) and as adults to have a joyous sex life. This is not a call for perfection, but a call for living in reality.

        I am curious, do you think WEIT is also odd for bringing the issue up frequently?

        The abortion issue has been resolved (in my book), it goes to the states – it did not belong in the supreme court via the 14th amendment. Most European countries have a 12-15 week limit (plus if the life of the woman/child is at risk – at any stage). This is reasonable, and most states will settle on this (or something similar) in due course. Abortion should be not be an easy decision. Any decision that underscores life (or death) should be measured and thoughtful. The European model works. It will eventually become the US model.

        Which party is more dangerous depends on how you interpret the assaults on democracy by both the far left/right.

        The rejection of reality and of science and the belief in fantasy (via DEI, critical theories and the mutilation of children), the border, playing with Israel’s future (a nation fighting Iran by proxy on our behalf). These represent for more damaging consequences to our democracy. Trumpism will disappear. Dismantling the damage caused by woke may take generations. From where I stand, the democrats are more of a threat.

        And hate? Where does most of the cancelling happen? Who engages in struggle sessions (on social media) against reality? Why are people being fired from their jobs for simply advocating science? Why are children being affirmed after a 30 minute briefing?

        The campus protests against Israel were not (exactly) kind. Many were rabidly antisemitic and supported by many DEMS – including pandering words by Harris.

        The democrats are the fantasy party. The party waiting for and planing for utopia via woke.

        When you lose someone you love because of a lie/fantasy, things change, sometimes drastically – they have for me; and this is the same (or similar) reason I believe strongly in gun control. Imagine Sandy Hook, imagine those parents.

        I want to live in reality.

        1. I imagine the Sandy Hook parents, not to mention the tens of thousands of others who lose loved ones to gun violence every year, would prefer the D approach to firearm regulations rather than the R attitude. The “European model” to those seems to work well, but I doubt it will eventually become the US model under anything other than a D executive, legislative (both chambers) and judicial majority.

        2. Well said. I appreciate the stand you take against the crazy unscientific and ultimately harmful ideas of the trans movement and the associated far left woke mob. It needs to be said repeatedly and I hope you have other forums alongside of WEIT in which you can tell your story and speak the truth.

        3. “Most European countries have a 12-15 week limit (plus if the life of the woman/child is at risk – at any stage). This is reasonable, and most states will settle on this (or something similar) in due course.”

          First, it is important to remember that most of those European countries have universal health care that includes fertility management, pre-natal care, etc. As Jordan noted in her classic study “Birth in Four Cultures,” in Holland and Sweden, her two European models, every child is planned and every child is wanted — an exaggeration, perhaps, but it highlights important differences with the U.S.

          Second, the anti-choice movement in the U.S. has as its goal the complete elimination of abortion, and I think it is naive to imagine that this movement will be satisfied with a 12-15 week cut-off. The “personhood” movement is the legal version of that goal: designating a zygote a “person” for legal purposes allocates the right not to be killed — aborted.

          Finally, it’s not clear why a 15 week cut-off for abortion is “reasonable” but a 20-22 week period (the cut-off under Roe v Wade) was not.

          1. Quick correction. Roe v. Wade did not mandate a 20-22 week cut-off for legal abortion. It only said the states could not criminalize abortion done before that cut-off (increased to 24 weeks in a subsequent ruling.) States were, and remain after Dobbs, free to permit abortion for any reason after that cut-off if they so choose. Many blue states do allow abortion at any stage in pregnancy for pretty much any maternal health reason including mental anguish. No European country allows this and neither does Canada from a regulatory standpoint. Canada is the only country in the world with no abortion criminal law yet almost no abortions are permitted after 20-24 weeks. (Abortion is an insured service and it is therefore illegal to provide it outside the public system controlled by provincial Ministries of Health.)

            The only definition of “reasonable” is what legislatures are willing to enact. Few places, even enlightened secular liberal utopias that sneer at religion, think it is reasonable to abort a 24-week (or later) fetus without a good reason. One criterion used in the extraction of reasonableness it that there are more brain cells at 24 weeks than at 15.

        4. I have a similar though not as drastic story of a relative drawn into the maw of the gender affirmation/mutilation machine. Its a bitch.
          D.A.
          NYC

        5. I’m sorry for the loss of someone you loved.

          Others above have argued effectively enough why abortion and gun control are best left out of the GOP’s jurisdiction. Much you say is pure speculation “Trumpism will disappear,” but it will take generations to undo woke damage? Trump appointed 3 radical theocratic justices to SCOTUS, creating a super-majority. They are young and have lifetime appointments; how does that reality “disappear?” They won’t stop trying to turn American democracy into a theocracy. “Religious Freedom” (for Christians, that is) is their bailiwick. And that’s just one aspect of their ideological bent. Unlimited money in politics, is another of their hairbrained obsessions.

          Jerry can write or focus on anything he wants, it’s his website. Why do you care what I think?

          I think most people, including myself, want to live in reality. One reality I’d like to continue to live in is one where a zygote is not a human being with the same rights as one and having an abortion or miscarriage is akin to murder. I’d also like to live in a reality devoid of superstition and religion; I know, wishful thinking.

          Lastly, many trans/nonbinary people have committed suicide who didn’t receive gender affirming care. And many have found that gender affirming care relieved anxiety and suicidal ideation. I don’t see the issue as black and white as you do, especially when it comes to adults.

          You can respond if you want, but I’ve said everything I wish to say on this thread.

          1. You mention “trans/nonbinary people”, as if that is a fundamental part of their identity, that they were born with.
            I am sure there are some people like that, but the overwhelming majority are just normal kids who have been convinced to identify as trans.
            Being sort of uncomfortable with changes to your body during adolescence or puberty is normal, not a sign that you were born into the wrong body.
            It puts the kids into a no-win situation. Sure, some people engage in self-harm if they are prevented from pursuing the medical changes they have been told will solve all their problems.
            Then again, many people who have undergone transitions engage in self-harm, when they inevitably discover that what they have been promised is not possible.
            Every single trans kid I know suffer from serious anxiety and depression. A big part of that is the hormone treatments. So they end up taking medicine to offset the emotional toll of the hormones, and other drugs to offset the side effects of those drugs. It is very precarious, and they will inevitably crash when the balance is upset.

            My strong suggestion is that we stop the adults in positions of authority who are indoctrinating our kids with this crap, and just let them grow up.

        6. Very wise outlook, Rosemary. You are allowed to have your own precious, something that matters to you that you believe you can actually do something about through your own actions. That you don’t share someone else’s precious is not something you should have to apologize for, and you didn’t. I liked the way you elaborated it.

          (This is just a salute to you. I’m not meaning to pick a fight with anyone else.)

      4. Mark R, you seem to be a reasonable man, and I agree with your comments here, though a critic might suggest that a man can’t have valid comments about the rights of women, and that he can’t defend women against wannabe dictators and theocrats.

        The North won the American Civil War, but only after a very bloody battle that was extended by people who continued to criticize the imperfections of the North. A few of those criticisms may have been valid, but at some point committed people were either with the North or with the South.

        I’m with the North in history, and with the Democrats now … along with the many outspoken Republicans who have defected from what was fairly recently — until Trump and some years before — a fairly reasonable opposition party. The many high-ranking Republicans leaving the current Republican Party realize that only the Democrats (and not any third party) have a hope of keeping democracy alive in America.

      5. Sorry, but I don’t agree with you that if I don’t vote for President I somehow fail to “solve” the problems that we face. Please tell me how, in a state that will go Democratic for Harris with 100% certainty, I am obliged by your lights to withhold my vote from either candidate.In a swing stat4e, perhaps, but not in Illinois. You are more or less telling me that if I don’t vote for Harris, Trump will be elected, and frankly, I find that admonition risible.

        1. Huh? I said nothing of the sort that not voting for Harris is a win for Trump. I didn’t even mention the Presidential candidates, I only referred to the two parties. I’m also talking in broad terms. In a two-party system, voting for anything outside those parties is essentially throwing your vote away. And by throwing your vote away (broadly speaking) you don’t have a voice and “nothing” will change. That’s why I’d prefer more than two parties, or at least rank choice voting, but that’s a different discussion. I’m not telling anyone how to vote, I’m simply stating one reason why I’d vote for a Democrat over a Republican in today’s electorate.

    4. Please do not confuse the Democratic party with the extremists in the Trans debate. They are not the same, I am Dem and I am appalled that anyone can’t tell the difference between a woman and an intersection man. This is NOT a Trans issue to begin with. Walz cannot be blamed for any of this shift, he is just everyone’s favorite grandpa. Politics has no place in this debate. Worry about living in Nazi Germany instead of the country we all love.

  8. While I can’t rule out the possibility of a Facebook hack in this case, there has been a broader and more disturbing trend of government pressure on social media to “censor” views counter to those of the ruling class. This has gone mostly unnoticed by those who tend to share views with that ruling class, but ask any number of international experts in public health what happens on Youtube, Facebook, [former] Twitter, and the other platforms when one spreads “misinformation.” The fact that your “misinformation” turned out to be true in many cases changes nothing. The deed is done. And the audience of potential dissenters got the message—especially if they have prominent careers.

    Dawkins is spreading “hate” and “misinformation” by the lights of the new clerisy. Why shouldn’t he be banned? I’m being facetious, of course, but I do hope that those people might reconsider who still believe that charges of “hate” and “misinformation” are being used as anything other than cudgels both to silence dissent and to manufacture the illusion of reasoned consensus on certain issues.

    It’s also quite interesting when one is banned for no given reasons at all. Kafka, anyone? Fortunately, Mr. Dawkins isn’t having that problem on X.com.

  9. Reading some of the replies – note well :

    There is ample incentive to “randomly”/”accidentally” crack and delete an account – in the name of the varieties of “information”. This incentive comes from any of the big names like the UN or, currently, Ingsoc.

    Wouldn’t there be more fun things to do to an account if it got cracked than simply “delete” it?

  10. “If you don’t want to be censored, don’t say the wrong things. It really is that simple.”
    ― Titania McGrath, Woke: A Guide to Social Justice

  11. Pretty sure FB is censoring people with forbidden view points. You can use the hashtag #XY but not #XX.

    https://x.com/salltweets/status/1821859997757878479

    It’s pretty obvious to me.

    On trans issues men should remember if the authorities take away women’s rights it won’t be long before they take away everyone’s rights. Britain is starting to look very totalitarian.

    1. Excuse me? In what respects, exactly, is my country looking “very totalitarian”? This Government, and its predecessors, have been pretty clear about women’s rights. Both of them have affirmed the Cass report, which the relevant US authorities have deliberately ignored or denigrated. Mote and beam, pal!

  12. Both athletes who are at the centre of this dispute won the gold medal in their weight category.
    Which is a bad sign for the IOC.

  13. “I tweeted that genetically male boxers such as Imane Khalif (XY undisputed)…” – R. Dawkins

    His Facebook ban is an outrageous case of left cancel culture, but how does he know that Khalif is really genetically male?
    As far as I know, no independent medical information about her actual sexual condition is publicly available. As Carole Hooven suggests, she may have been born with the DSD called XY DSD 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD); but that’s not an established fact, is it?

    1. Alan Abrahamson, an award-winning former NBCSports and LA Times journalist and current USC School of Journalism professor, got his hands on the test results (from Dr Lal PathLabs in New Delhi) showing both Khelif and Lin are XY.

      3wiresports.com/articles/2024/8/5/fa9lt6ypbwx5su3z20xxnfzgtao0gy

      1. Here’s another tweet from Emma Hilton, which seems to confirm that someone in Khelif’s team knew that her karyotype was XY: https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1822578496851308576
        What Hilton seems to be saying generally is that some XY DSDs, such as testosterone insensitivity, and other syndromes, can lead to people with such disorders to develop physically in a way that is indistinguishable from typical females, except of course that they will be infertile and would not develop ovaries. However, it seems that both these boxers have been recorded as having high testosterone levels in the past, and there if there is no suggestion of T insensitivity their muscle development will have followed, at least to some extent, the typical male pattern so they probably do have some testicular tissue in their bodies. This, in my opinion, should rule them out of contention and they should be excluded.
        Although I suppose people who might have an XY karyotype but who haven’t gone through the typical male developmental pattern should not automatically be excluded. It all should depend on the particular DSD the athlete has, but this brings with it questions of intensive, intrusive and possibly humiliating medical testing interventions but if an athlete wants to compete at that level, in order to be fair, that’s how it must be.

  14. I am referring to the police saying that they will arrest people for observing the riots. You don’t even have to participate or anything else. That is a terrible and inflammatory response by the authorities.

    https://x.com/GOVUK/status/1821502879590494358

    https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/1822249927143014723

    The fact that one person was sentenced to 20 months jail for a social media post about the riots and another person was sentenced to I think it was 6-12 months for killing a 14 yo child with a machete.

    Wes Streeting is your man I agree but the Labour Party has many stupid women MPs who do seem to uphold the TWAW bollocks. The NHS is captured.

    https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/1821543816828252358

    Disproportionate and controlling responses seem very totalitarian to me. I do believe in freedom of speech and thought. If you think the trans issue nightmare is over then great but I am not so sure.

    1. The police cannot arrest people simply for being observers at a crime scene or a confrontation. They have had a go on occasion in the past, but the Public Order Act 2023 clarified the position: they can’t. If you can produce evidence for your allegation, it would be interesting to see it.

      Incitement to violence or to racial hatred is an offence in the UK, whether it is on social media or anywhere else. It is not freedom of speech.

      James Esses’ disgraceful treatment was perpetrated by the UK Council for Psychotherapy and the provider of his university course. His action against the latter is ongoing. Neither is a part of the NHS. The NHS as an organisation has supported and affirmed Cass, even if some individuals (including, unfortunately, some leaders of the doctors’ trade union, the BMA) haven’t.

      Lastly, the Labour Party is not defined by the views of its more extreme members.

  15. On X, someone named Dani Lever (@Dani_Lever) recently posted the following:

    This is not what happened. Dawkins’ account appears to have been compromised, or hacked, so we took action to secure the account and prevent wrong usage of the page. That step was taken on July 30th. His last post was on July 25th, before the Olympics even started, and was not even topical to boxing. This action had nothing to do with any content Mr. Dawkins posted, and we are in the process of restoring the page as soon as it is secured. While we were focused on securing the page, we regret that we weren’t able to communicate this to the account holder more promptly.

    If this is accurate it’s a relief. Not that being hacked isn’t bad, but that’s different than being censured.

    2. “.. Dawkins’ account appears to have been compromised, or hacked ..”

      Left out of that is where from and by whom – as in, couldn’t possibly be deliberate yet botched from within Facebook — we are meant to think it was the proverbial random mean person – and trust in the saintly Facebook.

      Meta is manipulated by the ESG cartel. There is plenty of corrupt incentive with ESG alone that could account for the results from the manipulation seen here – and as I gather from other users – in the name of Inclusion.

  16. Crotchety old boomer at times or not, this isn’t right.

    The only thing offhand I found distasteful from him was in the doco series “The Genius of Charls Darwin” when he referred to those late teen adolescents as “children”, I admit I found that condescending.

    As for the two athletics in question, not enough medical data is out there as it is well… medical.

  17. This whole mess is of the Olympic Committee’s doing. It has not kept up with medical/technological advances that should be recognized as being able to resolve this nonsensical farce. The Olympics, quite properly, distinguishes between male and female competitors, and yet the Committee can’t get its act together regarding how to determine who, in this technologized world of ours, is male or female. How idiotic is that? …I wouldn’t know where to begin. As for Elon Musk and his ventures, well, to me at least, it’s no surprise that he would silence those of reasonable opinion with whom he disagrees.

      1. Musk is free speech oriented (whatever else you may dislike about him).

        Zuckerberg is typically censorious. I wouldn’t try posting anything controversial on Facebook.

  20. Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist) had an interesting take on Richard Dawkins’s situation, which is worth reading. He said it would be unusual for Facebook to censor someone for things they posted on X (formerly Twitter). He also said that Facebook regularly offers warnings when posts begin raising concerns and that it always informs users if something will be deleted and why this is being done.

    As it turns out, Dawkins was not being censored by Facebook for his comments on X. Someone from the company said that Dawkins’s account was hacked, and his page was taken down until things could be verified. Dani Lever, public affairs and communications director at Meta, issued this statement:

    “This [censorship] is not what happened. Dawkins’ account appears to have been compromised, or hacked, so we took action to secure the account and prevent wrong usage of the page. That step was taken on July 30th. His last post was on July 25th, before the Olympics even started, and was not even topical to boxing. This action had nothing to do with any content Mr. Dawkins posted, and we are in the process of restoring the page as soon as it is secured. While we were focused on securing the page, we regret that we weren’t able to communicate this to the account holder more promptly.”

    Here’s a link to Hemant Mehta blog posting:

    https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/richard-dawkins-lied-about-the-algerian?fbclid=IwY2xjawEli5FleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTxHa72rmRe6Vllwd5YoW8lWrQyloyi1PpO8njaj0YGMCfFlEvpUnH_n-Q_aem_MRN3_SHlQThI1DCE-UwHbQ

  21. “I continue to stand by my hypotheses that both of these boxers had XY chromosomes but likely had a disorder of sex development that may have given them ambiguous genitalia that led to their being raised as female. But my hypothesis adds that this DSD allowed them to go through male puberty, gaining an athletic advantages. In other words, both boxers were biological males.”

    I’m curious why you aren’t considering Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome as the DSD in question. In this case, a person has XY chromosomes, but a single mutation that makes their cells unable to receive signals from testosterone and other androgens. This results in a female phenotype, and no competitive advantage.

    This is a fairly common DSD, and a reason why excluding women from competition based on either karyotypes or testosterone levels is a difficult proposition.

    1. The reason I don’t consider AIS here is because the two competitors had physiques and strengths that suggested that they did not have “no competitive advantage,” which, as you noted above, something characteristic of AIS. Khelif did win the gold medal in the women’s welterweight division. The way to settle this definitively is, of course, a DNA test that looks for the relevant mutations.

      1. By your logic, we should be re-scrutinizing every female winner in the Olympics, even though the Olympics has its own gender testing procedures prior to the events.

        Why is no one screaming for further genetic testing of Katie Ledecky, or Simone Biles, or Sha’Carri Richardson? They won events, they have incredible physiques, so why aren’t we suspicious of them?

        1. The short answer is that we have every right to be suspicious of such women. Their sporting governing bodies can require they provide evidence that allays suspicion, by proving they are female.

          No, The Olympics does not have its own sex testing procedures. It abandoned sex-testing before the 2021 Olympics owing to lobbying from activists who have been opposing for decades what they call the policing of female bodies. The controversy over trans athletes (in addition to male ringers competing surreptitiously as women, and people with DSDs being treated in a high-handed manner) gave it the excuse it needed. It allows any athlete to participate in a women’s event, provided the national sporting association of the athlete’s country accepts that the athlete is female. (If the country does not have a national governing body for that sport, then the international body’s policies are supposed to govern. But the IOC over-ruled the boxers’ association for political reasons and allowed their self-declaration of sex.)

          It is quite reasonable to be suspicious of any outstandingly strong or fast female athlete or one who has an incredible physique, which is how these boxers were caught. How do you know that the athletes you cite have not had genetic testing (for genes specific to the Y chromosome) done by their sport governing bodies at least once during their careers as elite athletes? Lab testing is confidential unless someone is disqualified. The reason for the DQ would be released with the detail necessary for the sporting community to understand that the process was fair. (All elite athletes in sanctioned competition undergo tests for doping. Only those caught are ever publicized.)

          If an athlete tests as XX (or has no Y-specific genes) there is no reason to ever do any “further” genetic testing unless there was a claim of fraud in the testing procedure. Additionally, in the tightly-knit world of elite women’s sport, it would be very unlikely that a Ledecky or a Biles who was really a man would get away with masquerading as a woman over a years-long career. Someone who had shared a locker-room way back before she was famous would surely have outed her by now.

          Squeaky-clean yet inclusive World Athletics, who governs track and field, does have a written procedure for whistle-blowers to raise suspicions that a female athlete is not all she appears to be, warning that spiteful and baseless accusations intended to put an athlete off her game before an important competition will be punished also.

        1. Male. By body plan.

          This condition illustrates how chromosomes are only the vehicles by which genes are shuffled and packaged into gametes. They don’t define or even determine sex. An XX conceptus with a complete translocation of the SRY onto the paternal X will develop a body plan organized (with testes) to make small motile gametes and will suppress the Mullerian structures. He will be therefore a male, albeit infertile because you need an intact Y chromosome with at least three named genes in cis to make spermatozoa. He would be observed to be male at birth and would masculinize normally at puberty. It would likely never occur to him to try to compete in women’s events. The diagnosis is usually made during workup for infertility and comes as a surprise to him and his sexual partner(s). Many men are probably never diagnosed.

          Not all men found to be XX have detectable SRY material and the mechanism remains obscure in them. But with testes, a Wolffian body plan, and male external genitalia they are clearly male with normal responsiveness to androgens.

          23andMe presumably picks up these men randomly, and so do student lab exercises looking for Barr bodies in cheek swabs. (We were warned about the possibility of discovering a variety of unexpected things about ourselves.)

  22. That Twitter post that you showed is apparently no longer available on Twitter also. I don’t know if Twitter deleted it or Richard himself deleted it.

  23. I was “off-line” for some time and I get back to more gender woo…. Perhaps the Richard Dawkins Facebook thing was not what it seemed, but as for the rest. Yikes!
    I don’t understand how seemingly otherwise intelligent people don’t seem to get the power of testosterone and the differences in sexes, including the DSDs.
    I’ve started telling people that I was “gender non-conforming” before it was cool… Just because I was a girl who wasn’t afraid of snakes, and good at math, etc.
    I may need to just stay off-line more for my mental health. This drives me crazy.

Comments are closed.