Dawkins is written out of humanist studies.

Greetings to all.
The leader of the atheist movement, biologist Dawkins was selected for the award "Humanist of the Year", issued by the American Humanist Association in 1996.

The reason is "Using the semblance of scientific discourse to attack marginalized groups." This is a quote from the association's statement. That is, a world-class biologist is now relegated to a pseudo-scientist, and if science has facts that marginalized groups don't like, so much the worse for science.

The reason was Dawkins ' tweet about Rachel Dolezal, who was white, but asked to consider herself black, and everyone condemned her (it was 2015).
Now, Richard wrote, we condemn those who refuse to recognize men as women (or vice versa) if they simply identify themselves that way.

And Dawkins simply invited the audience to discuss the topic. He didn't even say what he was for or against. But the trans community, as in the Rowling story, declared jihad against the biologist.

It is clear that this is another demonstrative flogging, which should demonstrate to scientists, and especially to biologists, where their place should be in the discussion with ideologists.

If that's the way it is with Dawkins, it's even more so with you.
Be quiet, remember the correct pronouns.

The problem with Dolezal is she lied, repeatedly, fabricated a black family, called a black adopted brother her son, and a black friend her dad. Her life story was a lie, dishonest. That's why she was vilified. If she'd been honest about only 'identifying' as black, that's a different story, and a likely different outcome.

Dawkins could invite a discussion about how it was perhaps wrong to vilify Dolezal and how he believes she was unfairly ostracized given she was in his opinion, perhaps, operating from a position of genuine desire to help the black community, whatever. He didn't need to bring up trans people at all, whose situation is really nothing like hers. By comparing them to her, he was calling their lives as much a lie as hers, as dishonest, as fake. If he believes that, he should say it, own the position, and not hide behind an apples and dump trucks comparison to make the point, then act all surprised when his bullshit is called out. He knew what he was doing, or should have, because he's not an idiot.

Dawkins made a shit ton of money writing books that pandered to atheists.



.

JasperL said:

The problem with Dolezal is she lied, repeatedly, fabricated a black family, called a black adopted brother her son, and a black friend her dad. Her life story was a lie, dishonest. That's why she was vilified. If she'd been honest about only 'identifying' as black, that's a different story, and a likely different outcome.

Dawkins could invite a discussion about how it was perhaps wrong to vilify Dolezal and how he believes she was unfairly ostracized given she was in his opinion, perhaps, operating from a position of genuine desire to help the black community, whatever. He didn't need to bring up trans people at all, whose situation is really nothing like hers. By comparing them to her, he was calling their lives as much a lie as hers, as dishonest, as fake. If he believes that, he should say it, own the position, and not hide behind an apples and dump trucks comparison to make the point, then act all surprised when his bullshit is called out. He knew what he was doing, or should have, because he's not an idiot.

Click to expand...

Both these are examples where someone wants to be something they physically are not, and claims to be something they physically are not - and (the human mind is malleable) may be successful in lying to themselves, especially if reinforced by others.

But only in one case* do we have people who encourage these folks that clearly physical reality is wrong, and their preferences or perceptions are correct.


*at current. the Woke Borders are always expanding; it is certainly plausible that in the future we will be expected to consider Dolezal a Brave Pioneer, and organize online mobs to try to destroy the lives of those evil bigots who called her a liar at the time.


Dawkins likes to challenge others and provoke a response. I suppose the difference in his earlier life is that Christians felt obliged to intellectually defend their position, whereas Trans-Advocates simply seek to deny the legitimacy of anyone disagreeing with them.

Atheism isn't a movement. There's no dogma, rules, central tenets, holy books, club meetings or leaders.

It's so hard for you cult members to see human beings as individuals and that's a lot of the problem.

Reposting what I wrote in a similar thread a few months back.

_________________
After watching the Netflix documentary I understood more about Rachel Dolezal and came to feel some sympathy for her.
She was raised by abusive fundamentalists.
Her parents adopted several children from Africa. Rachel later gained custody of one of them after he alleged the parents had been abusive.
She began to identify as black around the time her parents adopted these children (in her early teens). If you watch the documentary you can hear more on how she came to identify with African and black-american culture.

Many people (researchers, profs in the humanities) wanted to explore the similarities between Dolezal, who identifies as black, and people who identify as the opposite sex. This was very unpopular to say the least. One example is the professor of philosophy, Rebecca Tuvell. She wrote a paper titled "In Defense of Transracialism". In it she explored the fact that, while Dolezal was attacked and dismissed, Caitlin Jenner was celebrated and named Women of the Year.
Tuvell was subjected to a witch hunt.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html

How can Christian be any more an intellectual defense of their position than that of the Trans? Both deny the facts contrary to their belief as having any affect on who they are. In culture, you are whom you say you are, who you practice as being, which is the case of all Trans and Christian. None of the above have a physical argument. Science cannot prove they are right in believing who they are for the reasons they give. Unless you call psychology a science. Socio-cultural anthropology, perhaps.

There was a case of a South African girl, legitimately born of 2 white parents, who had colored skin and was thus kicked out of what was then an all-white apartheid school. She was forced to go to an all-black school where her friends became, obviously, all black people and she dated a black boy. Her parents eventually proved to the authorities she was genetically “white” and she was allowed back in all white school, but refused for obvious reasons. Her family, every relative, disowned her.

I’ve known white guys whom only hung with black people. I’ve known white guys whom only dated black gals. I’ve had black guys tell me a white guy I knew was as black as they were, and that guy was as white and blond haired, other than albino, as could be. When sincere, you are who you say you are and as you act. Otherwise, you’d be lying to others and to yourself.

cpwill said:

Both these are examples where someone wants to be something they physically are not, and claims to be something they physically are not - and (the human mind is malleable) may be successful in lying to themselves, especially if reinforced by others.

But only in one case* do we have people who encourage these folks that clearly physical reality is wrong, and their preferences or perceptions are correct.

Click to expand...

Again, if you want to defend Dolezal, you can do that. But her fabricating a black life with a black "son" and black "dad" is at least a huge factor in what got her into trouble. She didn't "identify" as black - she claimed she was black. The trans people, at least in the public eye, by definition do not claim they're born as anything but what the birth certificate claims. They are open about who they are, their 'transition' or whatever. Dolezal lied about that, lied about her life.

And what you're doing is confirming what I said Dawkins did, which is say that the lives of trans people are just as dishonest, just as much a lie, just as deceptive as Dolezal. If you believe that, own the position. Dawkins implied that then denied that's what he's doing. He's a coward or an idiot.

cpwill said:

*at current. the Woke Borders are always expanding; it is certainly plausible that in the future we will be expected to consider Dolezal a Brave Pioneer, and organize online mobs to try to destroy the lives of those evil bigots who called her a liar at the time.

Click to expand...

Bullshit. She objectively lied about her past, who her "dad" was, and claimed a black brother as her "son." She didn't 'identify' as black. If you know a trans person, then they're by definition HONEST about who they were and are. That's a key difference between them and Dolezal. You've ignored it entirely for some reason.

cpwill said:

Dawkins likes to challenge others and provoke a response. I suppose the difference in his earlier life is that Christians felt obliged to intellectually defend their position, whereas Trans-Advocates simply seek to deny the legitimacy of anyone disagreeing with them.

Click to expand...

He didn't take a position - that would take courage. He used an apples and dump trucks comparison to backhandedly imply a position, then denied he was doing what we all know he did, which was take a position for whatever purpose that trans people are as dishonest about who they are as Rachel Dolezal. That appears to be your position and if you want to own it then invite discussion, fine.

JasperL said:

Again, if you want to defend Dolezal, you can do that. But her fabricating a black life with a black "son" and black "dad" is at least a huge factor in what got her into trouble. She didn't "identify" as black - she claimed she was black. The trans people, at least in the public eye, by definition do not claim they're born as anything but what the birth certificate claims. They are open about who they are, their 'transition' or whatever. Dolezal lied about that, lied about her life.

Click to expand...

Hm. I think you would probably be surprised at how all trans people do not, in fact, act exactly the same. Plenty of people who think they are one gender and are actually another will claim to be the first - and plenty of others will not only encourage them in that, but attack anyone who thinks they should, as you describe, tell the truth about who they are.

JasperL said:

And what you're doing is confirming what I said Dawkins did, which is say that the lives of trans people are just as dishonest, just as much a lie, just as deceptive as Dolezal.

Click to expand...

Both are people insisting that what they want to be, and feel like, is what they are, in contradiction to physical reality.

JasperL said:

If you believe that, own the position. Dawkins implied that then denied that's what he's doing. He's a coward or an idiot.

Click to expand...

Dawkins appears to be attempting to provoke discussion. This worked for him before because Christians felt obliged to actually intellectually defend their positions, whereas our modern Puritans simply deny the legitimacy of not-agreeing with them already, and move to Cancel and punish those guilty of believing something different than themselves.

JasperL said:

Bullshit. She objectively lied about her past, who her "dad" was, and claimed a black brother as her "son." She didn't 'identify' as black. If you know a trans person, then they're by definition HONEST about who they were and are. That's a key difference between them and Dolezal. You've ignored it entirely for some reason.

Click to expand...

Again, you might be surprised. A close friend I was raised with (who is basically a sister) was engaged to woman who claimed to be a fellow lesbian.... and then later, after a relationship that lasted for years, decided she was actually a man. Would you say she was lying before, lying after, or is this sexuality and sexual identity actually pretty mutable?

swing_voter said:

Dawkins made a shit ton of money writing books that pandered to atheists.



.

Click to expand...

I wonder how that compares to the hundreds of authors, and tens-of-thousands of books, written to pander those who buy into biblical mythology. I suspect all of that pandering escapes your scrutiny and disdain.

Talk about a shit ton of money, here's a single Amazon search with over 70,000 pandering titles.

cpwill said:

Both these are examples where someone wants to be something they physically are not, and claims to be something they physically are not - and (the human mind is malleable) may be successful in lying to themselves, especially if reinforced by others.

But only in one case* do we have people who encourage these folks that clearly physical reality is wrong, and their preferences or perceptions are correct.

<>

Click to expand...

Gender Dysphoria is a recognized mental illness. Crap comparison. Cut the crap.

Mr Person said:

Gender Dysphoria is a recognized mental illness. Cut the crap.

Click to expand...

Cool. That's a pretty politicized publication, and nothing on this forum is worth being deceptive or full of crap for.


Both Dawkins point, and the response to it remain telling. Trans advocates all too often aren't interested in defending their position intellectually - they are interested in trying to punish people who believe differently than they do.

cpwill said:

Hm. I think you would probably be surprised at how all trans people do not, in fact, act exactly the same.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they did all act "exactly the same." What's with the stupid straw man? There's a reason I qualified my statement - in the public eye. If you know they are trans, they are honest that they were born one gender and now identify as another. It's that simple.

cpwill said:

Plenty of people who think they are one gender and are actually another will claim to be the first - and plenty of others will not only encourage them in that, but attack anyone who thinks they should, as you describe, tell the truth about who they are.

Click to expand...

Yes, some people identify as trans. And I don't know how to interpret your 'attack anyone....tell the truth about who they are.' In what context should they tell the truth? It appears you think identifying as trans is inherently illegitimate, period. if you believe it, own the position. You'll have been more honest than Dawkins.

cpwill said:

Both are people insisting that what they want to be, and feel like, is what they are, in contradiction to physical reality.

Click to expand...

Your and Dawkins' butwhatabout ignores the lying part by Dolezal, that part where she fabricated a black 'dad' and a black 'son.' That matters. She didn't just 'identify' as black - she fabricated a false life.

cpwill said:

Dawkins appears to be attempting to provoke discussion. This worked for him before because Christians felt obliged to actually intellectually defend their positions, whereas our modern Puritans simply deny the legitimacy of not-agreeing with them already, and move to Cancel and punish those guilty of believing something different than themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes, you said that, and ignored that Dawkins took a position, then denied he did so, all under the pretense of 'provoking discussion.'

My own position on the trans community is pretty simple. If someone born as a man wants to live as a woman, and be called a different name, that's fine with me. Common courtesy dictates I respect their decision and their wishes, as legitimate, as long as their life doesn't harm another. I'm not them and don't feel I'm in a position to judge their lives or their feelings or decisions. I hope their new life makes them a happier person.

FWIW, the most judgmental people I've ever met in my life are so-called "Christians." So don't whine about 'cancel' culture when there is a long, long history of gay people and trans being beaten, killed, fired, not hired, shunned by "Christian" families, disowned by them, kicked out of the house and onto the streets, and actually, you know, cancelled for being different. "Christians" aren't the only people doing this, but they're VERY well represented in the "cancel them for being different" camp, and doing things like denying the legitimacy of actually being gay, or trans.

In fact it's a struggle with me sometimes to recognize those fake (as I see it) "Christians" aren't the entire group, and that some of the best people I know are also Christians. So, you know, as they say, take the log out of your own in-group's eyes....

cpwill said:

Again, you might be surprised. A close friend I was raised with (who is basically a sister) was engaged to woman who claimed to be a fellow lesbian.... and then later, after a relationship that lasted for years, decided she was actually a man. Would you say she was lying before, lying after, or is this sexuality and sexual identity actually pretty mutable?

Click to expand...

You appear confused. Rachel Dolezal claimed a black person as her dad - not like a dad, but her actual dad. That was a LIE. She claimed her black brother as her son - not 'like' a son, but her actual son. That was a LIE.

That's nothing at all like your acquaintance claiming trans at some later point in her life. I have no idea if she was lying then, or now or ever. I am not a psychologist so don't claim to know the 'mutability' of sexuality and sexual identity, of her or anyone else, and I'm not going to make a mental health diagnosis based on your description of this person I've never met.

But that 'lie', if it is that, isn't in the same universe as you claiming, say, Donald Trump as your daddy. If you want to compare you claiming Trump as your real daddy to someone coming out as gay or trans, as both equivalent sorts of lies, then you're engaged in the same dishonesty as Dawkins.

cpwill said:

Cool. That's a pretty politicized publication, and nothing on this forum is worth being deceptive or full of crap for.

Click to expand...

Which publication is that? And who's being deceptive or full of crap on this forum?

cpwill said:

Both Dawkins point, and the response to it remain telling. Trans advocates all too often aren't interested in defending their position intellectually - they are interested in trying to punish people who believe differently than they do.

Click to expand...

If we're going to smear entire groups, "they" - i.e. so-called Christians - have a long history of being interested in punishing people who believe differently than they do. Ask a gay or trans person, especially someone born into a fundamentalist family and community. Ask them how they were received when they came out as 'different.' You're likely to get an earful, and it won't be of the "Christian" compassion they received.

And if you want to generate honest discussion, don't start the process out with a dishonest and bullshit butwhatabout, like Dawkins did. Simple!

JasperL said:

The problem with Dolezal is she lied, repeatedly, fabricated a black family, called a black adopted brother her son, and a black friend her dad. Her life story was a lie, dishonest. That's why she was vilified. If she'd been honest about only 'identifying' as black, that's a different story, and a likely different outcome.

Click to expand...

Why would she need to only "identify" as Black. If she does then she is. It's the same reasoning that I hear all the time from trans activists. They say that the person is, and always was a female/male. They say things like "the female penis" and complain about verbiage for women's products that exclude them.

JasperL said:

Dawkins could invite a discussion about how it was perhaps wrong to vilify Dolezal and how he believes she was unfairly ostracized given she was in his opinion, perhaps, operating from a position of genuine desire to help the black community, whatever. He didn't need to bring up trans people at all, whose situation is really nothing like hers. By comparing them to her, he was calling their lives as much a lie as hers, as dishonest, as fake. If he believes that, he should say it, own the position, and not hide behind an apples and dump trucks comparison to make the point, then act all surprised when his bullshit is called out. He knew what he was doing, or should have, because he's not an idiot.

Click to expand...

He's drawing a parallel in how one was seen absurd and the other is seen as right. I don't see why you don't understand that bringing up Dolezal was the pretext for the actual discussion.

MamboDervish said:

I wonder how that compares to the hundreds of authors, and tens-of-thousands of books, written to pander those who buy into biblical mythology. I suspect all of that pandering escapes your scrutiny and disdain.

Talk about a shit ton of money, here's a single Amazon search with over 70,000 pandering titles.

Amazon.com : christian books

Click to expand...

While I'm not particularly a fan of Dawkins, he can make as much money as he wants writing w/e he wants. I don't get the point that's being made there either.

JasperL said:

Which publication is that? And who's being deceptive or full of crap on this forum?

If we're going to smear entire groups, "they" - i.e. so-called Christians - have a long history of being interested in punishing people who believe differently than they do. Ask a gay or trans person, especially someone born into a fundamentalist family and community. Ask them how they were received when they came out as 'different.' You're likely to get an earful, and it won't be of the "Christian" compassion they received.

And if you want to generate honest discussion, don't start the process out with a dishonest and bullshit butwhatabout, like Dawkins did. Simple!

Click to expand...

Oh yeah - Christians have absolutely punished people for believing something we didn't agree with before. Liberalism, and the importance of tolerance, grew out of that experience, out of the wars of religion. It is unfortunate that so many in our culture today are forgetting that lesson, as evidenced in this thread by the reaction to Hawkins

cpwill said:

Oh yeah - Christians have absolutely punished people for believing something we didn't agree with before. Liberalism, and the importance of tolerance, grew out of that experience, out of the wars of religion. It is unfortunate that so many in our culture today are forgetting that lesson, as evidenced in this thread by the reaction to Hawkins

Click to expand...

It's not a past-tense thing....

And you have yet to address the problem of his comparison, and conflate the equivalent of you claiming Donald Trump as your daddy, versus someone coming out as gay or trans.

Fishking said:

Why would she need to only "identify" as Black. If she does then she is. It's the same reasoning that I hear all the time from trans activists. They say that the person is, and always was a female/male. They say things like "the female penis" and complain about verbiage for women's products that exclude them.

Click to expand...

I'm never sure how to respond to claims about the mythical "they" with claims you have made up but not attributed to anyone so we can see the actual words someone identifiable has said. So I'll pass except to say the claim generally is NOT that a person born e.g. male IS female, but that they identify as female, despite being born male. There's a reason some trans undergo conversion surgery and all that entails....

Fishking said:

He's drawing a parallel in how one was seen absurd and the other is seen as right. I don't see why you don't understand that bringing up Dolezal was the pretext for the actual discussion.

Click to expand...

The parallel is terrible because a trans person doesn't fabricate a false history of their family. Dolezal did do that. She didn't claim to be transracial - she claimed to have a black daddy. Etc...................... I don't see how you don't get the problem. Seems simple enough to me.

The rough equivalent might be something like Caitlyn Jenner posting images of a girl in HS playing soccer and claiming that person is she. Then showing more pictures of a little girl playing with dolls, and claiming that's Caitlyn. And then someone says, hey, weren't you born Bruce Jenner, and didn't you compete in the olympics? And Caitlyn says, who me? No, that's not me, see that little girl playing soccer (who isn't me), I'll claim it is by fabricating a different life!!

Gosh, you think that kind of fabrication of her history might get some pushback that Caitlyn Jenner isn't getting by being HONEST about her past life as Bruce Jenner, that olympic gold medalist? Every single person you know is trans is honest about how they were born, and what they identify as today - it's definitional. To claim to be trans means to acknowledge your biological gender, and that you now identify as another. Every one, 100%. That's FAR more honesty than Dolezal ever showed before being outed.

JasperL said:

It's not a past-tense thing....

Click to expand...

You do have the small (but loud) Catholic Integralist types out there, certainly, but they are powerless. Both they and the modern Woke Crowd have forgotten one of the most important lessons of the Wars of Religion and the Enlightenment that followed - of tolerance for dissent and that conflict over ideas should be based in reason and dialogue.

JasperL said:

And you have yet to address the problem of his comparison, and conflate the equivalent of you claiming Donald Trump as your daddy, versus someone coming out as gay or trans.

Click to expand...

If I think something about myself that is not physically true, and I tell others that thing that is not physically true is true, then I think something about myself that is not physically true, and am telling others something about myself that is physically not true.

In one area, you wish to declare that physical reality is wrong and the mind's perceptions are correct, but deny it in others (shrug). A couple of years from now, perhaps you'll be apologizing for ever having been so thoughtless and hurtful as to not recognize someone else's Lived Experience As A {insert something else that is physically not true, but about which we have decided to instead accept delusion}.

cpwill said:

You do have the small (but loud) Catholic Integralist types out there, certainly, but they are powerless. Both they and the modern Woke Crowd have forgotten one of the most important lessons of the Wars of Religion and the Enlightenment that followed - of tolerance for dissent and that conflict over ideas should be based in reason and dialogue.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my own brother's partner was so thoroughly disowned by his evangelical family that they hung up if they called, he tried to visit, they slammed the door in his face, cards, letters, Christmas and birthday gifts were returned unopened, which took EFFORT versus just tossing them in the garbage. He was to KNOW they'd refused them. His mother died of cancer - they got around to telling him 6 months after the funeral. And of course all his childhood friends abandoned him as well. The only thing notable about that is how thorough the disownment was. Gays being disowned by family is how you get some of those kids on the streets engaging in prostitution to survive. So, yeah, it's just the Catholics.... All else in the "Christian" community for those with different ideas is all sweetness and patient understanding.

cpwill said:

If I think something about myself that is not physically true, and I tell others that thing that is not physically true is true, then I think something about myself that is not physically true, and am telling others something about myself that is physically not true.

Click to expand...

But if someone is openly trans, they're not telling you anything like that. To identify one's self as trans is to acknowledge they are living as a gender different than they were born. There is nothing dishonest about that. You object to how they see themselves, and are calling it dishonest. It's bullshit IMO, but you do you. (shrug)

cpwill said:

In one area, you wish to declare that physical reality is wrong and the mind's perceptions are correct, but deny it in others (shrug).

Click to expand...

Yes, it's different if you claim Donald Trump is your daddy than a person coming out as trans. One is honest, the other isn't. (shrug)

cpwill said:

A couple of years from now, perhaps you'll be apologizing for ever having been so thoughtless and hurtful as to not recognize someone else's Lived Experience As A {insert something else that is physically not true, but about which we have decided to instead accept delusion}.

Click to expand...

So basically, you believe the entire idea of trans is illegitimate. That's fine. You can own that position. I don't know why you give a damn - what's it to you to treat them with common courtesy and respect their decision? Does it harm you?

But at least you've claimed a position. Dawkins did what you are doing, but is too much of a chicken shit coward to do it overtly, so he did it indirectly with his comparison and acted all shocked people recognized it for what it was. THAT is the issue. He wasn't merely inviting discussion - he was making the same claim you are that trans people are liars, dishonest, and why don't we treat them as POS liars like we did to Dolezal?

JasperL said:

Yeah, my own brother's partner was so thoroughly disowned by his evangelical family that they hung up if they called, he tried to visit, they slammed the door in his face, cards, letters, Christmas and birthday gifts were returned unopened, which took EFFORT versus just tossing them in the garbage. He was to KNOW they'd refused them. His mother died of cancer - they got around to telling him 6 months after the funeral. And of course all his childhood friends abandoned him as well. The only thing notable about that is how thorough the disownment was. Gays being disowned by family is how you get some of those kids on the streets engaging in prostitution to survive. So, yeah, it's just the Catholics.... All else in the "Christian" community for those with different ideas is all sweetness and patient understanding.

Click to expand...

That's tragic that it went down that way. However, no, "my family does not talk to me" =/= "my family has mobilized a successful campaign to deny me access to broader society". One of these is refusing to interact with another yourself. The other is the attempt to keep that other from being able to interact with third parties.

JasperL said:

But if someone is openly trans, they're not telling you anything like that. To identify one's self as trans is to acknowledge they are living as a gender different than they were born. There is nothing dishonest about that.

Click to expand...

you are imposing an assumption of a single mode of behavior that does not match human experience or activity. My friend's fiance who later decided that, instead of being a lesbian, she was a man - was she lying beforehand, or after?

JasperL said:

Yes, it's different if you claim Donald Trump is your daddy than a person coming out as trans. One is honest, the other isn't. (shrug)

Click to expand...

Maybe I honestly believe Donald Trump is my father (shrug) the human mind is capable of twisting itself in some pretty messed up knots. :-/

JasperL said:

So basically, you believe the entire idea of trans is illegitimate. That's fine. You can own that position. I don't know why you give a damn - what's it to you to treat them with common courtesy and respect their decision? Does it harm you?

Click to expand...

I have no problem being courteous or respectful. But I do not define those things as enabling. It wouldn't be kind of me to respond to a paranoid schizophrenic by playing into his fears that They Were Watching Him All The Time.

But certainly one should be courteous and respectful to those who you meet in life, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the OP, that is a point lost on people who want to demand courtesy and respect for some, but not for others.

JasperL said:

But at least you've claimed a position. Dawkins did what you are doing, but is too much of a chicken shit coward to do it overtly, so he did it indirectly with his comparison and acted all shocked people recognized it for what it was. THAT is the issue. He wasn't merely inviting discussion - he was making the same claim you are that trans people are liars, dishonest, and why don't we treat them as POS liars like we did to Dolezal?

Click to expand...

He was inviting discussion. He is probably surprised because, when he did that to Christians, the left cheered him and Christians felt obliged to respond with their arguments.... now that he's done it to the Woke crowd, sadly, some on the Left are trying to cancel him, and feel no obligation to respond by engaging (as you put it) respectfully and with courtesy.

cpwill said:

You do have the small (but loud) Catholic Integralist types out there, certainly, but they are powerless. Both they and the modern Woke Crowd have forgotten one of the most important lessons of the Wars of Religion and the Enlightenment that followed - of tolerance for dissent and that conflict over ideas should be based in reason and dialogue.

Click to expand...

How was life for dissidents in "enlightened" revolutionary France (or revolutionary America)? Were they reasoned and dialogued with?

AmNat said:

How was life for dissidents in "enlightened" revolutionary France (or revolutionary America)? Were they reasoned and dialogued with?

Click to expand...

Well, Revolutionary France was certainly hardly Liberal, so yeah, they got their heads cut off - which is rightly seen as a failing in that movement, and not something we should replicate even in a less violent form

In the U.S., our First Amendment has been a good bit more protective of dissent, and you have major movements that have gone from niche small groups to majorities.

JasperL said:

The problem with Dolezal is she lied, repeatedly, fabricated a black family, called a black adopted brother her son, and a black friend her dad. Her life story was a lie, dishonest. That's why she was vilified. If she'd been honest about only 'identifying' as black, that's a different story, and a likely different outcome.

Dawkins could invite a discussion about how it was perhaps wrong to vilify Dolezal and how he believes she was unfairly ostracized given she was in his opinion, perhaps, operating from a position of genuine desire to help the black community, whatever. He didn't need to bring up trans people at all, whose situation is really nothing like hers. By comparing them to her, he was calling their lives as much a lie as hers, as dishonest, as fake. If he believes that, he should say it, own the position, and not hide behind an apples and dump trucks comparison to make the point, then act all surprised when his bullshit is called out. He knew what he was doing, or should have, because he's not an idiot.

Click to expand...

I am not familiar about the Dolezal's backstory. But even if she's a dishonest hack, that does not excuse Dawkins' transphobia.

It isn't as if he has a good track record, either. His BS is no better than that of some of the religious people he claims to be oh-so-much-better-than.