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 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