His wording is a bit harsh, but I don't think what he says should receive such a backlash. He expresses hard stances on religion as well, which can hurt people in a similar way as that's also part of their identity.

I think he's not entirely accurate here though, as there can really be biological mixes / nuances in the sex of people. Even if you exclude the gender discussion on top. It's all just a gradual thing I'd guess, even possibly inconsistent in 'percentage' on different parts of the body.

And all in all it's also dependent on our culture how we perceive some things as feminine and masculine.

I don't get why we can't agree that biologically people tend to be on a multidimensional spectrum, which sometimes is too ambiguous for the naked eye to pin a binary value on. Even scientifically it could be difficult to determine. Above all, on the gender side we indeed should have the courtesy to trust how someone feels and likes to be perceived in this world.

But we can also not blame people for expressing uneasiness if the biological sex and gender are too far apart in how we defined it culturally over thousands of years. One cannot avoid some conflict there.

Hopefully we can try to better ourselves and respect others, in both ways.

Remember that time he excused a woman getting sexually assaulted in an elevator by an Atheist, and he just shrugged it off as "A Muslim would have done worse" and claimed she was overreacting... haha... Dawkins is a piece of shit.

He has also argued for Non-Local Consciousness and claims to be a "Cultural Christian", so I wonder if he's even an Atheist anymore....