I have always been a fan of Richard Dawkins for his no-nonsense attitude to myths and superstition, science works on evidence not 'imaginary friends'. It appears he feels the same about transgender people which has led the American Humanist Association to withdraw an award they gave him 1996, as humanist of the year.
I suppose I can see why he may hold that view, that in a biological sense, sex is determined by genes and chromosomes, and he is a biologist and thus must be aware of the wonderful variations in life, of which we are one. I hadn't realised he saw things in such black and white terms. I am disappointed because I held him in great esteem for his writing and thinking and his championing science against the religious anti-evolutionists. I suspect Lady Cameron will be very disappointed as well.
I am doubly pissed off because I only bought one of his books yesterday and started reading it last night. Story of my fucking life...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkin...
Comments
80
He's 80 years old. Maybe he's not the man he used to be. Doesn't devalue his earlier work, although it is sad to see the rigor mortis setting in.
he's been like this for years
And doing this shit for years
This time was him deliberately starting a fight to drum up media attention for the new book
"deep rifts"
There are a couple of atheist blogs I follow because they're also concerned with social justice issues. (I'm not really an atheist, more of an "apatheist" -- I don't care whether God exists.) Among captial-A Atheists (i.e., people for whom atheism is kind of a part of their identity), there is a split between what might be called the "progressives", who tend to be feminist, anti-racist, LGBT-inclusive, and the "conservatives," who want to see an end to religion, but are otherwise happy with the systems of power and privilege that exist, in many cases because they benefit from them. One of the popular terms for this is "deep rifts."
Ever since I have been following things (probably 10 years or more), Dawkins has come down squarely on the conservative side. When women complained about being groped, pressured for sex, and in some cases actually being raped at atheist conventions, frequently with no sympathy from the convention organizers, Dawkins mocked them, saying that they shouldn't complain because they were better off than women in conservative muslim countries. There are also his views on eugenics ("it works for farm animals, why not humans?") and muslims (implying that they are terrorists.) I seem to recall seeing other stuff, but I've seen enough to not see a reason to find out any more about him.
What We Ignore.
I used to be very devout as a Christian, but over the years my amateur study of Archeology and other human sciences, it has become clear that the religious doctor the facts to suit their own imaginings. It is very clear to me that lots has happened in the past that we can not explain clear back to the Sumerians and beyond. My own feeling is that Homo Sapiens gradually came to be about 170,000 years ago, or more. Things happened that we are wont to explain and no one needs to invent stories about Evolution or Gods. One day, perhaps we will know more, though it surely won't happen before I am gone. My own idea is that we've had Celestial visitors all along who have guided us and tailored our Genetics.
My own XY AIS nature has made me who I am and I try to live life peacefully. I say I am not in stealth. Cleaning out the other day, I found old pictures and Medical Records and I'll rest with that.
As to Dr. Dawkins, I think he has Daddy issues.
Gwen
It's a watercolor
Is it pen and ink or is it watercolor? Is it plush sculpture or is it an industrial process? How many trans definitions can fit on the head of a pin? Ideas are not responsible for the people who repeat them. Neither are the authors responsible for how they are misquoted.
Punishing Dawkins, or anyone for that mater, for making an unartful statement. A statement that was taken out of context by quote miners. Is unfortunate. And is a consequence of too many near synonyms in an imprecise language. Still offense is in the reception. And I, for one, fully support everyone's right to be offended.
We need to decide what words to use for the different layers and multidimensional aspects of sexuality and interpersonal relations. We need a way to talk about the biochemistry, the behavioral, social, political and beyond.
At the same time it is both too simple and too complex.
Perhaps you will indulge me in an old video of Dawkins talking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A
Your friend
Crash