I don't see what the issue is. He's a biologist. He knows far more than you on the subject and his response seems both accurate and polite. Just because you wish to believe some very debatable brain scan studies, doesn't mean he HAS to agree with you. This leads to the next point...

As to the speaker, he is just advocating free speech. That a university is supposed to be a place of learning. And to harass, threaten and ban a speaker with some sort of "outrage mob" just because you take issue with a person's stance on some issue you seem to think is offensive, isn't right and isn't correct for an institution like a university which is supposed to be a place of sharing of all thoughts and ideas. Should Mr. Dawkins not be allowed to speak at a university if a bunch of Christian students start a mass protest against him? How about a transgendered speaker if a group of cis-students form a protest? Be careful what you wish for. Outrage can take many forms and just because you believe your own special flower is the "right" one, doesn't mean others have to agree.

I'm an asshole. Now give me back that microphone. :)

If you replace "transphobic" with "racist", does your opinion change at all?

Also, here is a case of transphobia from a tweet by the man himself:
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/658622852405534721

Note that he says he will only call a trans woman "she" "out of courtesy", as opposed to because a trans woman is a woman.

(Also, the chromosome argument is false: There are cis men with XX chromosomes and cis women with XY chromosomes, as well as people with other chromosome configurations.)

There is a difference between free speech and hate speech. As I just mentioned, how would you react if the speaker is racist? Should racism be tolerated under the guise of "free speech"?

I simply cannot conceive of the world in which you live.

If you tell me you're a woman, and you believe you're a woman with all your heart and soul, I too will pay you the common, decent, human courtesy and regard you as you wish to be regarded.

But you still can't give birth.

What this really is is a commentary on the incredible levels of global affluence we've achieved that we can take the time to fabricate such issues.

Dawkins has said absolutely nothing in those articles you link to that aren't polite, humanist, uplifting pieces of common sense. Fascism is evil. Suppressing free speech is evil - yes, even against racists. Biology is facts, not wishful thinking. The world is facts, not wishful thinking.

You can believe anything you want that isn't so, but that just won't make it so.

Strange that Dawkin feel that a transphobic nutters should be allowed in universities cause 'freedom of speech', all the while he fights to avoid giving the same 'right' to creationist nutters.

I had almost forgot that one. :)

Being able to give birth is not a requirement for being a woman. There are women born without a uterus, or who are otherwise unable to give birth.

Also, as I mentioned, the fact that transgender people exist is a fact, not wishful thinking. It is not a fabricated issue.

Biology is not as simple as you seem to think. For nearly every rule, an exception can be found. (There is, for example, a snail species capable of photosynthesis.)

Well, I see you like to partake in slander...
I looked at your Tweet. He DID NOT say he would ONLY refer to her as "she" out of respect. He just said he would refer to her as "she" out of respect. A big difference there.

Hate speech? Here we go, dtgreene telling everyone else what they should think and who anyone else should be allowed to listen to....

Should Mel Gibson be banned from speaking at a college about acting merely because of his Jewish rant caught on tape? Should that speaker be banned from talking about feminism because you found something she said in the past that you find offensive. Should you be banned from this forum for adding the word "ONLY" to Mr. Dawkin's Tweet in your vain attempt to make him look worse?

The answer in all cases should be "No".

I could point out one other factor:

Typically, a speaker is specifically invited, and more importantly, paid, by the university to speak there. Free speech is one thing; being paid to speak is another, and being paid to give hate speech is clearly not fair for the targets of that hate speech.

You seem to have a lot of "hate" in these posts. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to go to a university? Your views borderline on fascism. You sound like Stalin...and if someone disagreed with Stalin they were shot or sent to the Gulag. Who made you judge, jury, and executioner?

No, it does not. If you want racial segregation then you are more than welcome to argue for it and the rest of us will then argue against, mock and ridicule you for it. But when you silence someone that you disagree with you don't just prohibit their freedom of speech but you also remove other people's ability to listen. If what someone says is blatantly stupid then it should be easy to argue against it with reason and logic.

As for the tweet I don't see an issue there. He states that biologically a trans-person is still their original sex no matter what the person may feel like. So he chooses to address a trans-woman as "she" out of courtesy and respect for her wishes even if she is still technically a man (has a penis). It's like a celebrity that insist on being called their stage-name rather than their birth-name - you can do so out of courtesy even if their real name is something else.

Even the last woman on earth can not get pregnant nor give birth if the last man on earth would not fertilize the egg. Just remember it takes two to make a thing go right.

Religion is bullshit, period!

Do you have a source for the latter?

Let me tell you a little story from college. In that city, the Nazi party had an annual "march" and speech.

I stand for social justice, my view was if someone wanted to listen to that speech, more power to them, because its a grand example that the world has hateful people.

There were others that I knew (social justice warriors of the time) who went to watch and throw rocks at the Nazis. They even organized and would take road trips to other marches so they could throw more rocks...

Personally, I'm not sure who were worse, the Nazis or the rock-throwing people who called it hate-speech...

My advice, don't be the rock-thrower. You can't legitimately fight for your own tolerance while you are showing intolerance to your enemies.