• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dawkins is written out of humanist studies.

That's a lie. If it were true than male hormones wouldn't make a woman more of a man for competition. It's hormones that makes the man - or the woman. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

And the lie continues. Olympics committees make their policies based on scientific data going back more than 50 years. If the high and low parameters of various performance enhancing hormones and natural steroid levels have to be narrowed to account for sex change, that can be accomplished easily enough, too. The comprehensive drug tests needed to level the playing field are readily available.

You’re confusing the effects of natural hormones and those of the artificial variety. Artificial hormones can temporarily boost bulk and thus performance, but for the most part take away the hormones and the effects fade.

Thomas was born a man. His/her hormones had years to develop his body a certain way, irrespective of how Thomas thought about the process. I don’t care that he /she identifies as a woman; that’s not a lie as such. He/she only lies when claiming to be competing on a level field with biological women— even those born with high testosterone— because he/she underwent some hormone suppression for a year. That’s an illegitimate use of trans identity, and though I’m no fan of Dawkins, that’s a legitimate ethical question to raise.
 
Last edited:
You’re confusing the effects of natural hormones and those of the artificial variety. Artificial hormones can temporarily boost bulk and thus performance, but for the most part take away the hormones and the effects fade.
No, I'm not confusing anything. The proper increase in female hormones, and a decrease in male hormones, will reduce male performance characteristics. If you reduce male hormones enough, and increase female hormones enough, those males can no longer compete equally with other males. It doesn't matter how their body developed. Muscle mass is reduced.
Thomas was born a man. His/her hormones had years to develop his body a certain way, irrespective of how Thomas thought about the process. I don’t care that he /she identifies as a woman; that’s not a lie as such. He/she only lies when claiming to be competing on a level field with biological women— even those born with high testosterone— because he/she underwent some hormone suppression for a year. That’s an illegitimate use of trans identity, and though I’m no fan of Dawkins, that’s a legitimate ethical question to raise.
It may be an ethical question to raise, but in the end the science will dictate what the hormonal limits of each gender should be to compete, and those limits in any individual can be altered by taking hormones. It doesn't matter if she was born Arnold Schwarzenegger, if her male hormones are dropped long enough, and her female hormones are increased long enough, her body will become weakened to the comparable point of a woman of that size. It's a biological fact. It's the reason that even men have to take male hormones to build up. Aging has the same effect. As men age, they lose muscle mass because they fail to produce enough of those male hormones.

It's not about what she once was - it's about what she is willing to become. If her body chemistry becomes that of a woman, then she'll probably be allowed to compete as a woman. In the end, how you feel about her competing won't matter. Only the science will.
 
No, I'm not confusing anything. The proper increase in female hormones, and a decrease in male hormones, will reduce male performance characteristics. If you reduce male hormones enough, and increase female hormones enough, those males can no longer compete equally with other males. It doesn't matter how their body developed. Muscle mass is reduced.

It may be an ethical question to raise, but in the end the science will dictate what the hormonal limits of each gender should be to compete, and those limits in any individual can be altered by taking hormones. It doesn't matter if she was born Arnold Schwarzenegger, if her male hormones are dropped long enough, and her female hormones are increased long enough, her body will become weakened to the comparable point of a woman of that size. It's a biological fact. It's the reason that even men have to take male hormones to build up. Aging has the same effect. As men age, they lose muscle mass because they fail to produce enough of those male hormones.

It's not about what she once was - it's about what she is willing to become. If her body chemistry becomes that of a woman, then she'll probably be allowed to compete as a woman. In the end, how you feel about her competing won't matter. Only the science will.

It’s hilarious that you’re trying to do a “facts don’t care about your feelings” thing on me, when you’re the one attributing magical powers to artificial hormones.

I don’t know if you’ve seen pictures of Lia Thomas, but whatever hormone suppression she’s taken, she’s still five-eight, an atypical height for biological women, and she still has very mannish features. Her detractors assert that her development as a male has given her larger lungs, larger muscles and a larger heart. This we can’t know without a comparative autopsy, but those outward signs are enough to indicate an unfair advantage over biological women.

Ironically, the Olympics people are so desperate to keep the trans activists off their backs that they let Thomas get away with using her male musculature to break all female records, while they force Semenya— a biological woman and a rare example of one as tall as most men (five-ten)— to adjust her naturally high testosterone.

Lia Thomas is a liar, and so is any trans who defends her chicanery.
 
Last edited:
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.
Why does this matter to the truth value of a claim?
 
Gender roles are indeed social in origin, though informed by biology (there are few historical examples of societies, for example - certainly few successful ones - that prize men who take care of small infants and women who march off to war to do hand-to-hand combat with other tribes).

That, however, does not mean that by cutting off your nuts, you become a girl, any more than you can become a lizard by surgically forking your tongue and getting scales tatooed on your body. It merely leaves you maimed.

So. If an individual is a genotype female and phenotype female, what gender is that individual?
Female and woman. Female is sex, woman is a gendered term. That person who is genotypical female and phenotypical female can be non binary. What society does to trans people is essentially the same as what Dr. Money did to David Reimer which has the same effect with many committing suicide.
 
It’s hilarious that you’re trying to do a “facts don’t care about your feelings” thing on me, when you’re the one attributing magical powers to artificial hormones.
What's hilarious is you calling biological science "magical powers".
 
Why does this matter to the truth value of a claim?
It reminds me of an old lawyers adage: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both are against you, attack the plaintiff.
 
Female and woman. Female is sex, woman is a gendered term. That person who is genotypical female and phenotypical female can be non binary.

Etymologically, this is not entirely accurate. We started saying "Gender" as a synonym for sex because we thought Sex was a dirty word. "Adult Male Human" and "Man" are different the way that "Female Adult Horse" and "Mare", or "Human" and "Homo Sapiens" are different.

One interesting expression - those who claim a different gender from their sex will try to change their sex to match. If Gender and Sex were truly divorced... then why the need to change the physical to female in order to become a woman?

But they are not divorced.

What society does to trans people is essentially the same as what Dr. Money did to David Reimer which has the same effect with many committing suicide.

This is actually accurate - society does, in fact, do exactly what Dr Money did to David Reimer to little boys today that it decides are "actually" little girls, and, we do, in fact, see that many of the individuals harmed by that program of cutting and messing with their bodies and minds do, in fact, commit suicide :(
 
It reminds me of an old lawyers adage: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both are against you, attack the plaintiff.
I didnt attack the plaintiff. Still has nothing to do with the truth value of his claims. They stand or fall on their merits alone regardless of any attacks. This whining about “oh em gee i was attacked” does not make what someone said true.
 
Etymologically, this is not entirely accurate. We started saying "Gender" as a synonym for sex because we thought Sex was a dirty word. "Adult Male Human" and "Man" are different the way that "Female Adult Horse" and "Mare", or "Human" and "Homo Sapiens" are different.

One interesting expression - those who claim a different gender from their sex will try to change their sex to match. If Gender and Sex were truly divorced... then why the need to change the physical to female in order to become a woman?

But they are not divorced.



This is actually accurate - society does, in fact, do exactly what Dr Money did to David Reimer to little boys today that it decides are "actually" little girls, and, we do, in fact, see that many of the individuals harmed by that program of cutting and messing with their bodies and minds do, in fact, commit suicide :(
Umm really? You going to start changing around what i said into your narrative. You are wrong. They commit suicide because society keeps telling trans people they are cisgendered when they are not. They do tell little boys they are actually girls. You have been over this in other threads but still persist in faulty sources.

Also you are forgetting the fact that societies across the globe also viewed the word man as a rite of passage that one had to become through completing trials. Mares do not have to go through trials. If man was purely biological there would have never been a rite of passage.
 
Umm really? You going to start changing around what i said into your narrative.

Not at all - what you said was correct, but not in the way you meant it.

You are wrong. They commit suicide because society keeps telling trans people they are cisgendered when they are not. They do tell little boys they are actually girls. You have been over this in other threads but still persist in faulty sources.

No, they are already suffering, often from a variety of factors - society exacerbates several of them, and one in particular under discussion. Monocausalism, however, is usually a poor analytic methodology.

Also you are forgetting the fact that societies across the globe also viewed the word man as a rite of passage that one had to become through completing trials.

Societies around the globe have different words because they speak different languages, but did often have different words for adult males (men) v younger males (boys).

Mares do not have to go through trials. If man was purely biological there would have never been a rite of passage.
Neither did I to become a man. I simply had to turn 18.
 
Not at all - what you said was correct, but not in the way you meant it.



No, they are already suffering, often from a variety of factors - society exacerbates several of them, and one in particular under discussion. Monocausalism, however, is usually a poor analytic methodology.



Societies around the globe have different words because they speak different languages, but did often have different words for adult males (men) v younger males (boys).


Neither did I to become a man. I simply had to turn 18.
I didnt say it was monocausal in all, but the biggest factor in suicide is non acceptance and usually being treated as a threat by the wider society. If you think society at large has a huge agenda of turning boys into girls, you would be living in fantasy land and are by your definition delusional. Such liberal use of diagnostic terms is not really helpful.
 
I didnt attack the plaintiff.

We were discussing the attacks on Dawkins

Still has nothing to do with the truth value of his claims. They stand or fall on their merits alone regardless of any attacks.

Concur - my point was only that it was notable that, instead of attempting to counter his points, activists went for the ad-hominem....

...suggesting that, in fact, they didn't have a good counter. You don't need to cancel someone who has a bad argument that can't win over any audience.

This whining about “oh em gee i was attacked” does not make what someone said true.

🤷‍♂️ cancel culture is real, and it is a problem. A strategy of mocking it's victims into silence will work for a while, until it becomes a - very - ugly backlash.
 
What's hilarious is you calling biological science "magical powers".

I’m comparing your false interpretation of science with a belief in magic powers, not science itself.
 
We were discussing the attacks on Dawkins



Concur - my point was only that it was notable that, instead of attempting to counter his points, activists went for the ad-hominem....

...suggesting that, in fact, they didn't have a good counter. You don't need to cancel someone who has a bad argument that can't win over any audience.



🤷‍♂️ cancel culture is real, and it is a problem. A strategy of mocking it's victims into silence will work for a while, until it becomes a - very - ugly backlash.
I dont think Dawkins should be denied recognition for the things that he accomplished even when we criticize him for things that he does that are harmful just as i like to give credit even if i overall do not like a person when they are correct or do something good.
 
I didnt say it was monocausal in all, but the biggest factor in suicide is non acceptance and usually being treated as a threat by the wider society.

Without acccepting that claim at face value without supporting evidence, is also not the same as "society doesn't tell me I'm a boy who's really a girl enough".

Depression is linked to quite a few mental illnesses, it is hardly surprising to find multiple issues with someone who is suffering.

If you think society at large has a huge agenda of turning boys into girls, you would be living in fantasy land and are by your definition delusional. Such liberal use of diagnostic terms is not really helpful.

Society has absolutely moved in this direction, much to the misfortune of those involved :(
 
I dont think Dawkins should be denied recognition for the things that he accomplished even when we criticize him for things that he does that are harmful just as i like to give credit even if i overall do not like a person when they are correct or do something good.
It is not "harmful" to have a different opinion than you, or one that is based on physical reality rather than prioritizing feelings.
 
Without acccepting that claim at face value without supporting evidence, is also not the same as "society doesn't tell me I'm a boy who's really a girl enough".

Depression is linked to quite a few mental illnesses, it is hardly surprising to find multiple issues with someone who is suffering.



Society has absolutely moved in this direction, much to the misfortune of those involved :(
“When you’re out in public, and you don't have very many hormones on board, and you’ve changed but not that much, you’re at a real high risk of violence, discrimination and also being cut off from your family,” she said.

If society has absolutely moved in this direction why would so many fear being kicked out of their homes because they came out? Why would so many fear coming out if that is where society has moved? Why would there be a historical epidemic of violence against trans people that continues today?

Why would there still be a trans panic legal defense?
In a 2017 national survey, 60% of LGBTQ students said they felt unsafe at school, 70% experienced name-calling or threats in the previous year, and 30% said they’d been physically harassed. Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have anti-discrimination or anti-bullying laws that explicitly protect LGBTQ students.

Why would there still need to be anti bullying laws?
 
It is not "harmful" to have a different opinion than you, or one that is based on physical reality rather than prioritizing feelings.
Well no its not really based on physical reality. What gender is someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome? What gender is an androgynous person?
My understanding of gender expands it while Dawkins limits it to the most basic understanding of the subject.
 
“When you’re out in public, and you don't have very many hormones on board, and you’ve changed but not that much, you’re at a real high risk of violence, discrimination and also being cut off from your family,” she said.

If society has absolutely moved in this direction why would so many fear being kicked out of their homes because they came out? Why would so many fear coming out if that is where society has moved? Why would there be a historical epidemic of violence against trans people that continues today?

Why would there still be a trans panic legal defense?
In a 2017 national survey, 60% of LGBTQ students said they felt unsafe at school, 70% experienced name-calling or threats in the previous year, and 30% said they’d been physically harassed. Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have anti-discrimination or anti-bullying laws that explicitly protect LGBTQ students.

Why would there still need to be anti bullying laws?
To me sometimes it makes more sense to make predictions based on a certain claim to see if it really matches up.
 
Well no its not really based on physical reality.

well.... yeah, it generally pretty much is. You do get very rare instances of people with chromosomal disorders or huevos al doce, or

androgen insensitivity syndrome

etc.; however, the "trans" argument is not "the extremely small percentage of people whose physical bodies have an atypical physical reality have an atypical physical reality", and appealing to them is a motte and bailey argument.


My understanding of gender expands it while Dawkins limits it to the most basic understanding of the subject.

The point of definitions is to limit. To say what something is is also to say all the things it is not.
 
In a 2017 national survey, 60% of LGBTQ students said they felt unsafe at school, 70% experienced name-calling or threats in the previous year, and 30% said they’d been physically harassed.

While

1. I completely believe there are lots of instances of bullying or name calling in high school....

2. .... the idea that people get called names in middle school or high school is.... not exactly, shall we say, shocking.

60% LGBTQ students said they were called names or made fun of or bullied? Well, that puts you about 38 percentage points below the score for the general populace of the middle and high schools I grew up in.
 
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.
He is not a pseudo scientist. He is one.

Only fools would believe there is a god, he is not a fool.

He has forgotten more than you will ever learn simply by facts alone.
So rant about him all you want, nothing will change. There is no God and never has been.
 
He is not a pseudo scientist. He is one.

Only fools would believe there is a god, he is not a fool.

He has forgotten more than you will ever learn simply by facts alone.
So rant about him all you want, nothing will change. There is no God and never has been.

So does your post mean that you oppose anyone, including trans activists, who labels Dawkins a pseudo scientist?
 
well.... yeah, it generally pretty much is. You do get very rare instances of people with chromosomal disorders or huevos al doce, or



etc.; however, the "trans" argument is not "the extremely small percentage of people whose physical bodies have an atypical physical reality have an atypical physical reality", and appealing to them is a motte and bailey argument.




The point of definitions is to limit. To say what something is is also to say all the things it is not.
What that something is described as has not been limited to just a binary through all cultures. I tend to take a descriptive view of the dictionary instead of a prescriptive view :).
 
Back
Top Bottom