I'm amazed Richard Dawkins wrote this, primarily because it makes cold hard factual errors about biology (you're very unlikely to get a Y chromosome from your m

I'm amazed Richard Dawkins wrote this, primarily because it makes cold hard factual errors about biology (you're very unlikely to get a Y chromosome from your mother, sex is not defined by him but all his examples of it are non binary etc). The fact he doesn't answer his title question. Or that there is no comment on the social side of any of this are huge issues with the article, but you can miss them given the much bigger issue that he is just plain factually wrong!? If it were funnier I'd have assumed it was a spoof piece. Or maybe someone else is called Richard Dawkins and is trading on the name of the famed author?