Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[Sheldon]

I doubt that Dawkins's views are similar to Shapiro's

Both Dawkins and Shapiro want scientific standards by which to judge whether a person is male or female. In this their views are similar. 

No they don't, as I said Schapiro's only interest is justifying his own religious bigotry, if science found out that being trans or gay were genetic tomorrow, his faux support for science would likely  evaporate. 

It's very likely that their motivation for reaching these views are different. But people may have different motivations for reaching identical views -- whether these views are true or false. 

Their views on trans rights are not "identical". It is facile to pretend they are. 

Since we're making guesses about other people's opinions here, I'll hazard a wild guess: I think that Dawkins would say he cares about the question because some things are true and some things are false, and we should care to believe only true things. Even if this is not what some people want. 

Did I guess? I quoted Dawkins own email, stating his reasons for resigning. Shapiro's opinions are littered with religious bigotry, regardless of whether they have any basis in objective reality.  

We should have logical arguments for what we believe, and not just punt because we want it to be a certain way.

Indeed, but morality isn't based on objective truth, all moral claims ultimately rest on subjective opinions, are you then suggesting we abandon all pretence of morality, or accept subjective belief as a credible standard for all beliefs? 

This seems an absurd position to me, it was of course the argument Shapiro tried to peddle with NdGT, and he gave it the contempt it deserved. Just because one sets a bar for credulity that requires beliefs be supported by sufficient objective evidence, does not mean one can't have a favourite colour based on an entirely subjective view, and the same for moral judgements. I can abhor actions like rape and murder that cause harm to others unnecessarily, but this does not mean I delude myself that it is objectively true that harming others is wrong. 

You seem to be wrongly conflating objective truth, with moral judgments, and while we should endeavour to make more informed judgments, those judgments ultimately will rest on subjective assertions. Shapiro is using an objective scientific truth, to pretend this lends some weight to his subjective moral assertions. Whereas Professor Dawkins is making a statement about objective truth over subjective ideology, and keeping his subjective moral views separate, as he should.