I think anyone who thinks chromosomes determine gender needs to read this article:
http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews

At the end of the article, there's this quote from one of the scientists:

“My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.

In these rare, fringe cases with significant genetic mutation, I'd be inclined to agree. For such an individual, gender identity would be a confusing and difficult issue for which there is no simple answer... and any kind, respectful person would defer to that individual's choice of identify.

But that sort of extremely rare case is not what we're talking about, is it?

Am I full of hate and fear, and in need of jack-booted authoritarian censor, if I say that even if I respect Caitlyn Jenner's choice to self-identify as a woman, she is still not biologically female?

I disagree with the prescription, and kind of agree with the diagnosis.

I think we have found the new model - it's more decentralized governance, more direct democracy at the communities level. All of which facilitated by technology a la "shared" economy. So more Uber, AirBnB etc... but translated for other kinds of services and entertainment, including basic utilities and needs.

I'm afraid however we will neither see our dream come true. I think we have been trending towards a conformist / repressive era since WW2 pretty much, and I am saddened by it to no end. :(

I know right!

Unless you are claiming all transgendered people have this abnormality, then this falls as yet another case of an exception to the rule. The existence of hermaphrodites of various degrees is well-known. At this point, there is no solid scientific evidence which shows transgendered people as a whole are a result of a specific physical/genetic situation.

I'm sorry, but just because you think something, don't mean everyone else has to agree with you. And until there is good scientific evidence, most people will not. And let me caution you in advance. What happens is something is found? Something that explains it in half of all transgendereds. How would the other half feel? Are they frauds? Be careful what you wish for.

The biggest problem with activists like you is you want to throw away 100's of years of established science which has been shown to work in favor of small studies and isolated exceptions where often the researchers are breaking the golden rule of studies...let the results be the results, don't let the conclusion you want affect your results.

Thanks for the link. Interesting article.

Actually, you would be wrong. Her hormones, to my understanding, are in the female range, and she has female breasts. The same can be said of any trans woman on hormones.

Even if you ignore that, you haven't defined "biological". There is a biological basis for gender identity.

If you mean that "thought" is biological...then there is also a biological basis for people being space aliens or Jesus.
Don't you think it's a little dishonest to claim taking hormones makes one biologically a woman?

Thus far, the only proven biological basis involves people such as those described in the article you linked. Certainly, not all people who claim to be transgendered fall under that category. Likely very very few, given the community has been trying for decades to "prove" some sort of biological basis for it.

But don't get me wrong...I think anyone is entitled to live as they chose. Believe in a God, don't believe in a God. Dress and act as a woman...all up to you.

But that doesn't give someone a right to special treatment nor the right to rewrite science on a flimsy basis.

Curious about that myself.

And I know I'm going to regret stepping into this mess. :P

Only one? And you call yourself a gamer... Here's another Messiah

That game is SOOOOOOOOOO bad! :P

I suspect that though the analogy is sound, he may object to the Islam-Nazism comparison swimming below the surface. (Just by virtue of proximity, really.) I do think that it is possible to make such an analogy without implications, even exactly as stated. At the same time, I can imagine Dawkins intending more here than a pure analogy.

Just a guess.

Although many here seem to agree with this, it is one of his opinions that I personally disagree with.
Everybody should read the Quran before judging if what IS does "isn't true Islam" and it won't hurt to read "Mein Kampf" either, although some brain cells may die in the process. Imho you can't properly discuss any religion/sect without knowing the most basic foundations. I've had some weird discussions with self proclaimed "buddhists" too and could never face-palm as often as I would want to on those occasions. At least those seem to be open minded although usually quite uneducated.

With a bit of luck, you'll get reborn as a sea snail. Both males and females have the ability to -actually- change genders and still reproduce.

Very non-binary!

Here's an article about it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131112091007.htm

The only problem is that, as a sea snail, you won't be able to make forum posts which would constitute a great loss (for you, that is).