Richard Dawkins loses ‘humanist of the year’ title over trans comments

[AGA]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments3

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

“In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black,” wrote Dawson on Twitter. “Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”

[Horus]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

[rhg2052]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

That's sex, not gender.

[Alben Barkley]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

That's sex, not gender.

People are now denying biological sex is a thing too. It made more sense when it was just “gender is a social construct distinct from biological sex,” but now people are saying actually no, there’s just no sex at all. Which is completely insane.

[John Dule]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

Race has basis in biology too, lol. The fact that you can determine a person's ethnic background based on their DNA and skeletal structure is proof of that.

[7,052,770]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

Race has basis in biology too, lol. The fact that you can determine a person's ethnic background based on their DNA and skeletal structure is proof of that.

Ethnicity is real, grouping those ethnicities into 3 (or 4 or 5 or more) "races" is not.

[John Dule]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

Race has basis in biology too, lol. The fact that you can determine a person's ethnic background based on their DNA and skeletal structure is proof of that.

Ethnicity is real, grouping those ethnicities into 3 (or 4 or 5 or more) "races" is not.

Anthropologists classify ethnic groups into larger categories all the time (but I get what you're saying).

[Big Abraham]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

Race has basis in biology too, lol. The fact that you can determine a person's ethnic background based on their DNA and skeletal structure is proof of that.

Ethnicity is real, grouping those ethnicities into 3 (or 4 or 5 or more) "races" is not.

Anthropologists classify ethnic groups into larger categories all the time (but I get what you're saying).

Indeed, this is literally what is done to classify species.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm surprised Dawkins wasn't cancelled earlier, given his history of incendiary comments. They haven't all been directed towards Christians.

[HisGrace]

As others have noted in this thread, and as I've noted many times on this site, feminists spent decades saying gender was a completely made up social construct and there were no intrinsic non physical differences between men and women. Anyone who disagreed was a sexist bigot. Now they are saying gender is an innate part of people's identities and if you disagree and take the same position they had about five years ago then you're still a bigot. Understandably there's some confusion here.

It's even more confusing when they continue to use the "OMGEE, GENDER ISN'T REAL" rhetoric in every other context besides trans issues and insist there are no differences between men and women, unless you're a transman/woman, in which case your gender is the defining tenet of who you are.

Feminist "theory" has been pretty incoherent for a long time, but geez, this might be a new low.

[John Dule]

As others have noted in this thread, and as I've noted many times on this site, feminists spent decades saying gender was a completely made up social construct and there were no intrinsic non physical differences between men and women. Anyone who disagreed was a sexist bigot. Now they are saying gender is an innate part of people's identities and if you disagree and take the same position they had about five years ago then you're still a bigot. Understandably there's some confusion here.

It's even more confusing when they continue to use the "OMGEE, GENDER ISN'T REAL" rhetoric in every other context besides trans issues and insist there are no differences between men and women, unless you're a transman/woman, in which case your gender is the defining tenet of who you are.

Feminist "theory" has been pretty incoherent for a long time, but geez, this might be a new low.

Um sweetie, why does everything have to make sense and be logical to you? Are you still hung up on the outdated idea that words have to have objective meaning? Is a little cognitive dissonance really that big a price to pay for supporting trans youth? That's a yikes from me my dude; I'm literally shaking rn.

[Person Man]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

That's sex, not gender.

How do we put the brakes on this sh**t?
People are now denying biological sex is a thing too. It made more sense when it was just “gender is a social construct distinct from biological sex,” but now people are saying actually no, there’s just no sex at all. Which is completely insane.

[HisGrace]

As others have noted in this thread, and as I've noted many times on this site, feminists spent decades saying gender was a completely made up social construct and there were no intrinsic non physical differences between men and women. Anyone who disagreed was a sexist bigot. Now they are saying gender is an innate part of people's identities and if you disagree and take the same position they had about five years ago then you're still a bigot. Understandably there's some confusion here.

It's even more confusing when they continue to use the "OMGEE, GENDER ISN'T REAL" rhetoric in every other context besides trans issues and insist there are no differences between men and women, unless you're a transman/woman, in which case your gender is the defining tenet of who you are.

Feminist "theory" has been pretty incoherent for a long time, but geez, this might be a new low.

Um sweetie, why does everything have to make sense and be logical to you? Are you still hung up on the outdated idea that words have to have objective meaning? Is a little cognitive dissonance really that big a price to pay for supporting trans youth? That's a yikes from me my dude; I'm literally shaking rn.

Yup it does.

This isn't necessarily an anti-trans thing. I'm completely open to the idea that there is such a thing as a "brain sex" and that the wiring is essentially switched in a small chunk of people. The thing with that is that it would mean that some gender stereotypes are actually true, like women being more emotional or men being more aggressive, for hypothetical examples. Of course feminists aren't willing to concede that so their position is nonsensical. You can't assert that there's such a thing as a  brain sex and not be able to provide a single example of how it manifests itself.

[Person Man]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

Race has basis in biology too, lol. The fact that you can determine a person's ethnic background based on their DNA and skeletal structure is proof of that.

Ethnicity is real, grouping those ethnicities into 3 (or 4 or 5 or more) "races" is not.

Anthropologists classify ethnic groups into larger categories all the time (but I get what you're saying).

Indeed, this is literally what is done to classify species.

All of these things have a base in biology but they are still subjective to a point. With sex, it’s a discrete value but there are rare exceptions and there could be a molecular sex and sex as defined at a functional level. Just because you have a Y chromosome doesn’t mean you can get someone pregnant but you can’t say that there’s more than two sexes.

[It’s so Joever]

As others have noted in this thread, and as I've noted many times on this site, feminists spent decades saying gender was a completely made up social construct and there were no intrinsic non physical differences between men and women. Anyone who disagreed was a sexist bigot. Now they are saying gender is an innate part of people's identities and if you disagree and take the same position they had about five years ago then you're still a bigot. Understandably there's some confusion here.

It's even more confusing when they continue to use the "OMGEE, GENDER ISN'T REAL" rhetoric in every other context besides trans issues and insist there are no differences between men and women, unless you're a transman/woman, in which case your gender is the defining tenet of who you are.

Feminist "theory" has been pretty incoherent for a long time, but geez, this might be a new low.

Um sweetie, why does everything have to make sense and be logical to you? Are you still hung up on the outdated idea that words have to have objective meaning? Is a little cognitive dissonance really that big a price to pay for supporting trans youth? That's a yikes from me my dude; I'm literally shaking rn.

Yup it does.

This isn't necessarily an anti-trans thing. I'm completely open to the idea that there is such a thing as a "brain sex" and that the wiring is essentially switched in a small chunk of people. The thing with that is that it would mean that some gender stereotypes are actually true, like women being more emotional or men being more aggressive, for hypothetical examples. Of course feminists aren't willing to concede that so their position is nonsensical. You can't assert that there's such a thing as a  brain sex and not be able to provide a single example of how it manifests itself.

Sir your sarcasm meter is broken.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

Well, you can if you're paying attention and not blinded by preconcieved notions about gender roles...
Famous Viking Warrior Was a Woman, DNA Reveals

More than a millennium ago in what’s now southeastern Sweden, a wealthy Viking warrior was laid to rest, in a resplendent grave filled with swords, arrowheads, and two sacrificed horses. The site reflected the ideal of Viking male warrior life, or so many archaeologists had thought.

New DNA analyses of the bones, however, confirm a revelatory find: the grave belonged to a woman.

Since the late 1880s, archaeologists had viewed the “Birka warrior” through this lens; textbooks had listed the grave as belonging to a man, but not because the bones themselves said so. Since the remains were found alongside swords, arrowheads, a spear, and two sacrificed horses, archaeologists had considered it a warrior’s grave—and, thus, a man’s.

As National Geographic magazine reported in its March 2017 cover story on Vikings, that all changed when Stockholm University bioarchaeologist Anna Kjellström closely examined the warrior’s pelvic bones and mandible for the first time. Their dimensions appeared to match those typical of a woman.

[DaleCooper]

You have to imagine that Jared Diamond and Steven Pinker are one step away from losing the distinction too. To say nothing of Margaret Sanger...

Probably so, but there seems to be a much bigger emphasis placed on gender-related issues today. I'm not surprised that Dawkins was targeted first for these comments.

[HisGrace]

As others have noted in this thread, and as I've noted many times on this site, feminists spent decades saying gender was a completely made up social construct and there were no intrinsic non physical differences between men and women. Anyone who disagreed was a sexist bigot. Now they are saying gender is an innate part of people's identities and if you disagree and take the same position they had about five years ago then you're still a bigot. Understandably there's some confusion here.

It's even more confusing when they continue to use the "OMGEE, GENDER ISN'T REAL" rhetoric in every other context besides trans issues and insist there are no differences between men and women, unless you're a transman/woman, in which case your gender is the defining tenet of who you are.

Feminist "theory" has been pretty incoherent for a long time, but geez, this might be a new low.

Um sweetie, why does everything have to make sense and be logical to you? Are you still hung up on the outdated idea that words have to have objective meaning? Is a little cognitive dissonance really that big a price to pay for supporting trans youth? That's a yikes from me my dude; I'm literally shaking rn.

Yup it does.

This isn't necessarily an anti-trans thing. I'm completely open to the idea that there is such a thing as a "brain sex" and that the wiring is essentially switched in a small chunk of people. The thing with that is that it would mean that some gender stereotypes are actually true, like women being more emotional or men being more aggressive, for hypothetical examples. Of course feminists aren't willing to concede that so their position is nonsensical. You can't assert that there's such a thing as a  brain sex and not be able to provide a single example of how it manifests itself.

Sir your sarcasm meter is broken.

I knew he was being sarcastic and just used it to leapfrog into something else.

[Kingpoleon]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

This is by no means a large consensus view among anthropologists - George W. Gill, probably the second or third leading expert on skeletal analysis, maintains that race is not merely a social construct.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html

IIRC, Gill maintains that there are multiple singular methodologies which yield a 80-95% correct result in race, while those on sex yield a 90-95% correct result.

[Kingpoleon]

As others have noted in this thread, and as I've noted many times on this site, feminists spent decades saying gender was a completely made up social construct and there were no intrinsic non physical differences between men and women. Anyone who disagreed was a sexist bigot. Now they are saying gender is an innate part of people's identities and if you disagree and take the same position they had about five years ago then you're still a bigot. Understandably there's some confusion here.

It's even more confusing when they continue to use the "OMGEE, GENDER ISN'T REAL" rhetoric in every other context besides trans issues and insist there are no differences between men and women, unless you're a transman/woman, in which case your gender is the defining tenet of who you are.

Feminist "theory" has been pretty incoherent for a long time, but geez, this might be a new low.

Um sweetie, why does everything have to make sense and be logical to you? Are you still hung up on the outdated idea that words have to have objective meaning? Is a little cognitive dissonance really that big a price to pay for supporting trans youth? That's a yikes from me my dude; I'm literally shaking rn.

These are all decent points, but none of them really address the thread title.

Dawkins is the Jungian archetype of an Arrogant Twitter Academic. Other examples include Nassim Taleb, Debra Soh, and Gad Saad. Such people may be talented in their own fields, but they are so overwhelmed by those who love them that they tweet out stuff which is just plainly nonsense. See Dawkins “apology” tweet which may be the worst argument in human history.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1381665011127451652

“I would never agree with Republicans!”

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As others have noted in this thread, and as I've noted many times on this site, feminists spent decades saying gender was a completely made up social construct and there were no intrinsic non physical differences between men and women. Anyone who disagreed was a sexist bigot. Now they are saying gender is an innate part of people's identities and if you disagree and take the same position they had about five years ago then you're still a bigot. Understandably there's some confusion here.

It's even more confusing when they continue to use the "OMGEE, GENDER ISN'T REAL" rhetoric in every other context besides trans issues and insist there are no differences between men and women, unless you're a transman/woman, in which case your gender is the defining tenet of who you are.

Feminist "theory" has been pretty incoherent for a long time, but geez, this might be a new low.

Um sweetie, why does everything have to make sense and be logical to you? Are you still hung up on the outdated idea that words have to have objective meaning? Is a little cognitive dissonance really that big a price to pay for supporting trans youth? That's a yikes from me my dude; I'm literally shaking rn.

These are all decent points, but none of them really address the thread title.

Dawkins is the Jungian archetype of an Arrogant Twitter Academic. Other examples include Nassim Taleb, Debra Soh, and Gad Saad. Such people may be talented in their own fields, but they are so overwhelmed by those who love them that they tweet out stuff which is just plainly nonsense. See Dawkins “apology” tweet which may be the worst argument in human history.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1381665011127451652
“I would never agree with Republicans!”

It's a pretty bad argument, but also, as I put it last month:

Look, it's just easier to feel ever more comfortable when you have created a walled garden, where the only people who agree with you on any issue of significance are the "good people"™. The "bad people"™ agreeing with you, regardless of context, is enough to make you very likely to feel uncomfortable. It's so odd not to want more people to agree with your stance on an issue, but here we are. It's infantile, I agree, but sadly normal. Politics isn't a set of beliefs - it's a lifestyle! Only cool people can have this lifestyle! Or even the smallest shred of it!

[TheReckoning]

Well, race has no basis in biology and gender does, but I get where he's coming from. You can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton almost instantaneously but it takes all kinds of tests and stuff to determine the race.

Race has basis in biology too, lol. The fact that you can determine a person's ethnic background based on their DNA and skeletal structure is proof of that.

You can’t tell someone’s ethnicity based on their skeleton, lmao. You think a Scottish person and an English person have different skeletons?

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Remember cancel culture doesn't exist.

[Santander]

I'm going for misanthrope of the year, so I don't think I'll have a problem.

[Torrain]

Dawkins was a good biologist, several decades ago. For the last few decades, he’s just been a prick. I’m not even going to comment on this most recent scandal. It’s just the latest in a long list of Dawkins mocking anyone who doesn’t conform to his personal worldview.

There’s actually remarkable similarities with James Watson (one of the Nobel winning scientists who discovered the structure of DNA). Both did good work at the start of their careers, got famous on a couple of big discoveries, then spent the rest of their lives being angry reactionaries, lashing out at religion and minority groups.

Thankfully, we can separate the science from the scientist, and move on without them. There’s no other choice.