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

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.