you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.