With a simply uttered sentence to British journalist Piers Morgan, famed biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins sent those in the shamefully lucrative transgender industry to their fainting couches.

Said Dawkins: “As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it.”

That’s all there is to it. Now if we can only get the guy to admit that God created us, male and female, in His image.

Morgan’s discussion with Dawkins had been focused on a list of “problematic” words published by the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Language Project, a collection of do-gooding leftist academics looking to impose speech-stifling political correctness upon the public square.

The EBB’s proposed list contains troublingly gendered words such as male, female, man, woman, mother, father, and others that the organization considers to be “harmful terminology.” Instead, it’d like to see us adopt language like “sperm-producing” and “egg-producing” and the roll-right-off-the-tongue “XY/XX individual” to avoid reinforcing “societally imposed ideas of a sex binary” (read: to avoid reinforcing the fundamental scientific truth that there are two sexes).

Morgan certainly seemed to agree with Dawkins. “I mean, it’s incontrovertible,” he said. “There’s no scientific doubt about this.” Nevertheless, he lamented, a “small group of people have been quite successful actually in reshaping vast swathes of the way society talks and is allowed to talk.”

That’s when Dawkins spoke out. “It’s bullying,” he said, referring to the way these science-denying Rainbow Mafiosi had demonized the likes of J.K. Rowling and others. “They’ve stood up to it. But it’s very upsetting the way this tiny minority of people has managed to capture the discourse and really talk errant nonsense.”

Our Emmy Griffin has written about Rowling’s plight, noting that she’s refused to back down to the transgender activists. “She is an example,” Griffin writes, “of a woman using her platform to properly shame those who would endanger other women and children through their dangerous and ‘progressive’ agenda.”

Clearly, Rowling is also an example of the sort of person Dawkins feels compelled to defend. He continued: “There are two sexes. You can talk about gender if you wish, and that’s subjective.”

When Morgan pointed out that there are those who claim there are “a hundred genders,” Dawkins said dismissively, “I’m not interested in that.”

Neither are we, except insofar as those who embrace this science denialism try to impose it upon the rest of us and groom our children.

All of this, of course, as our Mark Alexander has repeatedly pointed out, is an effort by the Left to appeal to the hearts and minds of women, especially in the voting booth. He writes:

When it comes to support for the homosexual agenda, Democrat Party strategists believe female voters are emotionally incontinent dupes and are thus too irrational to discern and reject emotive political bait. And a majority of women have proven those strategists correct, demonstrating themselves to be the most dependable and easily swayed of the collective constituencies that Demos fire up ahead of general elections. Thus, promoting the homosexual agenda, much as the abortion agenda, attracts female voters.

It’s one thing to try to attract voters. It’s another thing to do so by demonizing others and propagating lies from the pits of hell. Ultimately, we must engage and defeat the transgender industrialists no matter how loudly they shriek.

“They believe their cause is that of righteousness,” Griffin writes, “and they fall into a trap that many on the Left do: They live in a world of ideas and theories, and when those theories are put to the practical test, they fail utterly and destroy those in their path — namely, the most vulnerable.”

We can’t allow it to stand.