Richard Dawkins Says He Didn't Mean to "Disparage Trans People" By Asking How Identifying As Opposite Sex Is Different To Identifying As Another Race. Then He Disparages Gender Critical People As "Republican Bigots" In The Next Sentence

submitted by MarkTwainiac from twitter.com

all 28 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkTwainiac[S] 28 insightful - 5 fun28 insightful - 4 fun29 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Took him two days to do a turnaround. Appears that the Church of Genderology is the one religion he's too scared to take on.

[–]BiologyIsReal 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seriously?! Are you f***ing kidding me?! This guy is a renowned biologist and atheist, but he has so little selfrespect that he is kow-towing to all the wanabe biologists zealots who are forcing their nonsensical religion on everyone else in the world? Such coward! I'm 100% sure he didn't receive a single rape for an "unknown" reason. I'm fed up with him and all the others with a background in biological and health sciences enabling trans fantasies. It's pretty simple: men are not and wil never be women! There is not a single reason to going along with this TWAW bullshit when not even trans identified people themselves buy such a nonsense! We may as well give anorexics liposuctions and tell schizofrenics the voices are real at, too at this rate! It's exactly the same!

And no, I'm not going to moderate my language. I don't care if the unhinged idiots at the stupid stalking sub take at screenshot of my post. The people who take offense at my language, but at all the death and rape trhreats, all the racist and rapey, and othet garbage that transactivists say daily are a lost cause, anyway.

[–]BEB 19 insightful - 4 fun19 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Great quote from Twitter user:

"I do not intend to disparage Richard Dawkins, but I am so fascinated by the Great Men of Science who spend their days shadowboxing theocracies of centuries old but run to find the first rock to hide under when today's doctrines of faith-based authoritarianism come inquisitioning."

https://twitter.com/Holtwood06/status/1381684683524747264

Different Twitter user:

"Galileo, 1633: “And yet it moves” Dawkins, 2021: “So sorry, I’m going to hide behind politics now”

https://twitter.com/oldspeaker1/status/1381747612563472404

[–]lefterfield 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Beautiful. These people are disgusting cowards that make me ashamed to have ever identified with the left.

[–]WildApples 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think this one captures it quite well:

I don't expect most men to help women. I'd settle for them not calling up a pitchfork-wielding mob & screaming "take the women!" as they flee. Dawkins shoving women at advancing torches & crying "Republican bigots!" is a self-comforting lie: "They were probably witches, anyway."

https://twitter.com/fem_mb/status/1381789707055595522

[–]BEB 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly.

Another thing about Dawkins' Republican bigot comment that bothers me is that what exactly is "bigoted" about what the Republicans are trying to do, i.e., save women's sports for women and keep confused, mostly gay, kids from becoming expensive medical experiments for life?

There's nothing bigoted about either of those goals. Instead they are very sane and compassionate.

And as far as taking the side of the trans activists during the bathroom bills war, Dawkins is a fucking EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST - he knows that only female humans can be forced to reproduce, and are, so sex-segregated spaces are essential for women to be able to participate in the public sphere.

Therefore, I can only conclude that Dawkins is either a bloody idiot, ignorant of the realities of human reproduction, or a male chauvinist pig, or both.

[–]kwallio 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He was a misogynist first, anyway.

[–]BEB 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I mentioned this last time we discussed Dawkins:

Years ago, my boss and Dawkins were supposed to do a small project together. My job was to research Dawkins and have some contact with him.

The job fell through, and I don't remember much about the whole thing, but I do remember coming away not trusting Dawkins. I don't think we spoke, but I think we corresponded, and as I dug into Dawkins' work, I just got a...something that made me come away feeling he was a phony.

Same with Malcolm Gladwell.

[–]our_team_is_winning 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I used to think Dawkins was brilliant. But then he got politics in his science and I don't trust him on anything now.

Anyone with the mentality "Oh, Republicans believe this? Then I don't believe it!" proves they don't think for themselves.

"Oh look, men are running into a burning building to save children trapped inside! Let me help! Oh wait, those men voted for Rand Paul? Well, I'll just stand here and watch them all burn up then." Total lack of logic.

[–]MarkTwainiac[S] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Or, "I see Rand Paul & Tucker Carlson are amongst the people trying to save those kids, so fuck 'em. Better that those children burn to death than be rescued by Republican bigots."

[–]EventideSky 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How disappointing.

[–]cutenoobies 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I wonder how logical he is to push American political system on his dissenters because GCs are worldwide, and not just in America.

[–]lefterfield 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I mean, he already has to resort to ad-hominem attacks by calling GCers "Republican bigots." Nice logic-ing there, Dawkins.

[–]BEB 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know - like does Dawkins not pay attention to what's happening in his own F-ing country AKA "TERF Island"?

UK GCers are primarily from the Left, so WTH is Dawkins banging on about? Especially given that he obviously doesn't know enough to know that US Lefty GC feminists like WoLF have been pushing back on gender ideology for years.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know! Dawkins lives on "TERF Island" himself, and most UK GCers are Left wing - why didn't he bring that up, instead of finding monsters to destroy all the way over in the US?

[–]BEB 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What an F-ing tool.

Maybe a month of so ago, I had a discussion about whether Dawkins was GC or not with someone on this sub because she thought that Dawkins was obviously GC given that he's a FUCKING evolutionary biologist and atheist, and I remembered that I had seen something that led me to believe that Dawkins is not GC.

Yesterday, I found the old Tweet that led me to believe that Dawkins is not GC - turns out I was right. FUCKING TOOL.

https://twitter.com/TAFKAMacM/status/1380943742945869826/photo/1

[–]supersmokio6420 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

That was me. I would point out that that tweet is from the RDFRS, his society, not him. Although it bears his name its its own organization with staff and he won't be the one tweeting from that account. The phrasing doesn't sound like his writing and as you've pointed out, he's also endorsed a GC book. So I'd put that down as someone made a poor choice in hiring at the Foundation rather than suggesting anything about Dawkins' views.

My take on this tweet is look at it at face value:

I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this.

He clearly didn't intend to, and he's far from the first person to get attacked for asking questions and trying to have a discussion.

It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue.

This is the narrative that's presented, headlines about "Republican Anti-Trans Bills" and such. Its a common TRA attack - "you're just conservative/bigots/etc", even though that isn't the intent of GC people. So its a true statement.

What it suggests to me is that he doesn't know about GC as a 'thing'. He's baffled/bemused by the hostility of the response to his first tweet, and trying to issue reassurances that his question didn't come from a place of bigotry, assuming - as many have before - that honest questions will be well received.

I'd almost describe as like the moment when someone is pre-Peak Trans, except without ever having been acquainted with the Trans side first.

Its obviously unfortunate that that's what he chose to say. But I'd have to put it down to simply ignorance of the situation, not malice or having been taking in by unscientific arguments.

[–]BEB 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Thanks for weighing in! You are way more forgiving of Dawkins than I am.

I could understand if Dawkins has some recent gender-studies graduate handling his twitter, but at the end of the day, that tweet did cause a backlash and he could have clarified what he meant.

Plus, someone said that he or his foundation made a transwomen are women statement back during the US bathroom bills controversies. I will try to find it.

I do take offense to Dawkins' "Republican bigots" comment for a few reasons (and I am NOT a conservative on most issues):

-I read today (not sure if it is true) that in the past Dawkins retweeted conservative Abigail Shrier, or something about her or her book, IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE, which is about the craze among young girls to identify as transgender.

So Dawkins does know (I'm pretty sure, even if he isn't aware of Shrier and her book) that there are rational and compassionate critiques of gender ideology coming from the US conservative side.

  • Dawkins could have made clear that while he believes that the Republicans trying to put a halt to men in women's sports, and the transitioning of children, are bigots, there is criticism of gender ideology coming from Left-leaners all over the world, including in the US.

Instead, Dawkins' tweet made is sound like the only push back is coming from conservative "bigots" thus either ignoring all the Left-leaning GCers, or implying that we Left-leaning GCers are all conservatives in disguise.

  • Many Republican politicians are very genuinely concerned about the rewriting of the legal definition of biological sex, the transitioning of children, and the destruction of women's sports. Some are also genuinely concerned about men in women's sex-segregated spaces.

So for Dawkins to imply that Republicans are solely trying to stop the Trans Train for political reasons is not fair. Some of them are actually genuinely worried. The two Republican female Senators who stood up against the Equality Act during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing were heroines on this issue.

Whereas the Democratic females pushing the atrocious Equality Act - Tammy Baldwin, Pramila Jayapal, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Liz Warren, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi... are misogynistic rape enablers, setting women's rights back...centuries? for their own gain.

So yeah, I think I'll stick with, "He's a phony" (the impression I got from Dawkins when I interacted with him years ago) - or maybe dementia? Because he did endorse Helen Joyce's gender critical upcoming book. Who knows?

[–]supersmokio6420 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I definitely am more forgiving. I can't see him as a phony because his books on evolution are legitimate, they're what got me so fascinated by the topic and he is an accomplished scientist in his field.

But he does tend to weigh into things without getting the full picture, and you're right he could have been clearer. He should have at least put in a line after the Republican bigots bit saying that they aren't the only ones criticizing these things.

My dream right now would be for him to come out with a new book specifically on biological sex, how and why it evolved, sexual selection, how it works in plants vs animals, etc. Don't frame it as debunking trans ideology, just lay out the science as it really is. I doubt it will happen but something like that would be a great resource if it did.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

American biologist, and GC Super Heroine, Heather Heying is talking a lot about the science of sex on her Twitter.

[–]supersmokio6420 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm also a fan of her and have listened to her discuss it in podcasts. Its important for GC people to be on the ball with the science, and those kind of voices can cut through the bullshit and word salad.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't agree w all of Heather Heying's views, just as I don't agree w all of anyone's views, but I think that she is an incredibly powerful asset in the fight to save both women's sex-based rights, etc., and science itself.

Here's a Heying/biology thread from yesterday in which she takes down another "biologist" shilling for the gender mob - brava!

https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1382032777445474305

[–]anfd 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This would be my take as well. I don't really understand the disappointment in him in this thread, I think he's got a relatively narrow focus yet he weighs in on many things where he should take more time to get familiar with the context. That he's not some GC paragon should be no surprise. He's just a basic liberal guy (in the European sense) with a Twitter account who is heavy on science, evidence and atheism.

In the 2015 he tweeted, when he was defending Germaine Greer's right to speak at the university of Cardiff:

Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her "she" out of courtesy.

So ontologically he's got the GC line right. Also TRAs seemed to know which side he was on:

Richard Dawkins Insults Transgender Community

Richard Dawkins 'Claims' Trans Women Aren't Real By Defintion And These Are The Reasons Why He's Wrong

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I never though Dawkins would be a feminist hero or anything like that, but given his background I'd have though he would be alarmed because of all the anti-scientific stances of TRAs. That is why I was so disappointed.

[–]BEB 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dawkins has endorsed ECONOMIST journalist/editor and GCer Helen Joyce's upcoming book critical of gender ideology, so who knows why he's playing games on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1381888763006160898

[–]anfd 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not on Twitter so I can see only two tweets from him in that thread: the original and the one where he says he doesn't want to disparage trans people and refuses the (apparently) suggested amalgam between his views/aims and those of "Republican bigots". Are there other relevant comments from him in that thread that are available only to people logged on to Twitter?

If there are, ok fair enough, I'm not asking someone to take the time to summarise or quote them here, just wanted to know whether there's more context than is available to me.

[–]BEB 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can read Twitter without having an account. Just type a twitter handle and then "Twitter" into your browser and you can go straight into that person's timeline. From there you can read any twitter account, just type the twitter handle into the search function at the top right.

So, for example, put "@womenslibfront" (without the ") and twitter into your brower's search field and you will get to the twitter account of the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) and from there can see any twitter timeline by typing the accounts handle into Twitter's search field at the top right hand corner of your screen.

[–]purrfect 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So cowardly and dishonest. I'm disappointed, because I admire him. I love his work as a scientist and his fight to keep science classes free of creationism. Yes, I know he's old and his time as a fighter might be over, but I wish he went out with a bang and not with a whimper. Even if the oppsition to genderists was right wing (it isn't), he should know a claim is not less true, because it comes from a political opponent.