To everyone who hasn’t read the article, this kind of seems like nothing major to me. Before I continue, I want to say that I don’t know much about Dawkins’ stance on trans rights, so I’m just going exclusively off of what I read in this article. If someone knows something I don’t, please forgive my ignorance.
Basically, the freedom from religion foundation published a paper saying that they can’t define what a woman is. Another author published a rebuttal that was saying that, while that may be true for the psychological definition of a woman, the biological definition of one can be quantified by the presence of specific biological traits.
The freedom from religion foundation then retracted that article without telling the author that they were going to do so, and issued a statement saying that a woman is whatever she says she is. They seemingly ignored the intent of the article, making the author look like a bigot even though he expressly said he didn’t have any qualms with the LGBTQ+ community, and was only speaking about biology.
Dawkins found the retraction to be unprofessional, and then chose to withdraw from the board of that organization. It seems like it had less to do with a personal opinion about trans people, and more to do with the professional standards of an organization.
For the record, I support trans people and their rights, I’m just relaying what I got from this article since a lot of people here expressed that they would not read it.