Ok gender and gender identity are different, thanks for pointing it out. Its small but ya never know when you'll need to talk about it again, and having more info is always better.

Isn't a person with XX or XY already a normal person then? What makes them intersex if they have normal chromosomal structure?

Yeah, I think we can bet medical science will advance to there some day.

But my main point is that we shouldn't classify what is necessary and un-necessary for other people to think / say. If they want to look at gender reproductive role wise, they should be free to do so. I mean, the point of all the advancement in all the fields through these years is to ultimately benefit the common person right? Then why should we impose such subjective things to monitor other subjective things? Its not anyone's business if anyone else drinks a de-caf, and I say the same to this.
Hmm seems fair. Are there any studies on this?

Richard Dawkins is just a very minor, populist figure in the intellectual world, a superficial here today gone tomorrow pied piper. He appeals to the masses who don't want to venture into philosophy proper and its extremely perplexing questions. I wouldn't mind figures like him so much if he would just stick to science, but he actually seems to believe himself that he is qualified to dismiss religion and philosophy with an arrogant wave of the hand. He is an embarrassment to Britain in my eyes, continuing our tradition of third-rate thinkers. He's like a poor man's David Hume, who himself is a poor man's Immanuel Kant, who is not a patch on Nietzsche, who is surpassed (just) by Martin Heidegger. Let the masses be beguiled by his whining sermons, he is not altering the opinions of anyone of any account.

I wouldn't exactly call myself religious either, but neither would I say i am an atheist. I deeply respect the solid metaphysical foundations of religion, unlike Mr.Dawkins. In philosophy "Being" and "Nothing" turn out to be the same (Hegel, Heidegger and others). If we use the concept "God" as a substitute for the concept of "Being" Is that a reason to conclude that "God does not exist" ? Or is it rather the case that we habitually assume the "existence" of everything which becomes and mistake becoming for Being ? From the point of view of becoming (the world of change), Being ("God") indeed does not "exist". But that is a relative (and thus false) point of view from the outset. Philosophy is the (in a sense futile) attempt to achieve the absolute point of view. We cannot judge the absolute by relative standards, that is patently absurd. The truth is that, strictly speaking, nothing in the universe exists, and neither does the universe itself. But astounding, mind-bending conclusions such as this do not reveal themselves in the course of ordinary, "commonsense" thinking, and Dawkins never leaves the plane of the ordinary. He appeals to the commonsense point of view and it is not surprising that he gains masses of followers.

Those YouTube videos are pretty obnoxious, I agree. You just have to remind yourself that Dawkins is only influencing shallow folk anyway, so it really doesn't matter. To equate religious belief with insanity is, from my point of view, rather ironic and amusing. "Philosophy is the world stood on its head" (Hegel). This statement is true, always has been true and always will be true. There will never be a time when philosophy does not look like madness to "the world".

I've upvoted your post but it looks like a lot of people don't like your perfectly reasonable complaints :)

I am just using it as an example to help explain the situation.

Also, many transgender people don't realize it until later in life. Some realize it at puberty, while some are unaware until adulthood.

Here are two pairs of statements :

1. Things exist.
Nothing does not exist.

2. Things do not exist.
Nothing exists.

It would be interesting to know which pair most people assume to be true. Richard Dawkins clearly assumes the truth of the first pair and bases all of his "arguments" on these assumptions. The great philosophers, however, begin from and arrive at the second pair. Who is right ? I know who my money is on....