Race is a Spectrum; Sex is Pretty Damn Binary. (1 Viewer)

[Visbek]

By all means, call out any BS.

'kay

I think it's pretty hilarious that you used your complaint to completely ignore the rest of my post. That kinda seems like BS to me.

Anyway... Dawkins openly states that we should not disparage transgender people; gender assignment surgery should be allowed, for those who genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria; and that when someone transitions their gender, the appropriate pronouns are based on the results of the transition.

Do you believe he's saying that in good faith? If so, do you agree with him on that point, or nah?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Here we go




Or: People are on to you, and have few qualms about calling out your BS. Anyway....


Maybe you should read it again. I think you missed this part.

If I chose to identify as a hippopotamus, you would rightly say I was being ridiculous. The claim is too facetiously at variance with reality. It’s marginally more ridiculous than the Church’s Aristotelian casuistry in identifying the “substance” of blood with wine and body with bread, while the “accidentals” safely remain an alcoholic beverage and a wafer. Not at all ridiculous, however, was James Morris’s choice to identify as a woman and his gruelling and costly transition to Jan Morris. Her explanation, in Conundrum, of how she always felt like a woman trapped in a man’s body is eloquent and moving. It rings agonizingly true and earns our deep sympathy. We rightly address her with feminine pronouns, and treat her as a woman in social interactions. We should do the same with others in her situation, honest and decent people who have wrestled all their lives with the distressing condition known as gender dysphoria.

I didn't miss that part. It's Dawkins writing that we should call people who are trans by their names and feminine pronouns. I never suggested otherwise.

After equating transgender individuals with Dolezal, he tried to backpedal in a Tweet:

I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue .

You good with that?

He did not equate transgender people with Dolezal. He did the opposite. He said racial self-identification make sense because it really is a spectrum, in that people are generally to some degree mixed race. He referred to sex differently, as binary. And, he made clear, as you posted above, that the binary nature of sex does not mean we don't have sympathy for trans people and identify the by their preferred pronouns, etc.

I am, of course "good with" Dawkins suggesting that people discuss the issue he raised, as he is. And, I know full well that Dawkins does not ally himself with bigots, Republican or otherwise. Where did I say anything differently?

Yet, Dawkins was kicked out of the American Humanist Association and had his award revoked, precisely for saying what he discussed in the article - precisely for asking people to "Discuss." Are YOU good with THAT?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Uh, hello? He linked to the article explaining why they did it.

Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.

Many of his anti-trans statements, including yet another dust-up last summer, usually omit the "I'm not a transphobe, but I still say transgenderism isn't real" disclaimers quoted above. Or, they're just insulting ("I call her 'she' out of courtesy").

Yeah, I read the AHA's statement and it seems to completely misrepresent what Dawkins actually said. They suggest he "demeaned" a marginalized group, when he did no such thing. He never said that transgender identities were fraudulent, and he did not attack black identity. Saying that race is a spectrum, but sex is binary is an accurate statement. It doesn't demean anyone or attack anyone.

Where in the world did he say transgenderism isn't "real"?

Yours seems to be an example of people just imagining malice where none actually exists.

His Dolezal-transgender nonsense was merely the last straw, and when he claimed he wasn't anti-trans, they didn't buy it.


Nope. Not even close.

These folks provide a good summary of his biological errors.

Why Biological Sex Is Not the Same as Gender

Prejudice based on a failure to appreciate the complexities of biological sex and the consequences of culture and language in shaping gender identities must be overcome.

www.psychologytoday.com

Why Biological Sex is Not the Same as Gender?

Why would you find that article relevant? Dawkins never said biological sex was the same as gender. Where are you getting the impression that he did say that?

That article you linked to, though, is blatantly in error - one, it says

• Biological sex is not binary, but runs on a spectrum.

There is no spectrum of biological sex. There are two sexes, like all other primates -- humans are animals with two sexes. There isn't a spectrum of sexes.

Then the article says --

• Gender is not necessarily determined by biological sex.
• Gender is a social and linguistic construct that varies across cultures.

Dawkins never said that Gender was determined by biological sex. He said the opposite of that, and you even QUOTED him saying the opposite of that in your first red colored quote.

And, he never said anything about gender not being a social and linguistic construct. However, if we assume that gender is just a social and linguistic construct, then Dawkins is 100% correct - sex is biological and there are two sexes, and gender is something else - and if someone identifies as a given gender, then we should be courteous and refer to them by their preferred lingo. What in the world do you take issue with on that point?

The section in your article that attempts to prove that the sexes are not binary literally proves itself wrong, by discussing a series of disorders that do not amount to other sexes. At the end, the article still only identifies two sexes. The spectrum is at most a spectrum of disorders that rarely occur. It's no different tha claiing our physiology of having two legs is a spectrum because sometimes people are born with disorders causing them to be born with only 1 or 0 legs, or even 3. That's not a "spectrum" of human physiology. Humans have binary legs, subject to rare disorders.

 

[Helix]

Another random person on the internet announces that degrees of gender identity don't exist.

News at eleven.

 

[Lisa]

Another random person on the internet announces that degrees of gender identity don't exist.

News at eleven.

He is "asking for a friend".

 

[Goshin]

Why do we even have sex? What is the purpose? How does having male-female help perpetuate the species?

It promotes genetic diversity, and is supposedly quite key in evolutionary science.

 

[Helix]

He is "asking for a friend".

I'm sick of it. faux's bullshit bigoted rage campaign is doing real damage to people's lives. That ****ing network is a public health hazard.

 

[Lisa]

I'm sick of it. faux's bullshit bigoted rage campaign is doing real damage to people's lives. That ****ing network is a public health hazard.

The GOP hasn't had a real platform for a decade, so instead they attack minorities to stir up racism and bigotry and claim its about a violation of conservative christian religious rights and the white replacement theory.

 

[Helix]

The GOP hasn't had a real platform for a decade, so instead they attack minorities to stir up racism and bigotry and claim its about a violation of conservative christian religious rights and the white replacement theory.

It's a ****ing menace. I wonder how many vulnerable young people have been pushed out onto the streets because their troglodytic parents watch too much faux.

 

[Lisa]

It's a ****ing menace. I wonder how many vulnerable young people have been pushed out onto the streets because their troglodytic parents watch too much faux.

The Trevor Project doesn't exist by accident. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/

Mike DeWine and the Ohio GOP have become DeSantis of the north.

MSN

 

[Sweden]

why are you so interested in what other people do when it doesn't hurt you or your family?

Why are you so interested in what interests other people? If you are uninterested in a topic you are perfectly free to ignore it. I am interested in many things that do not hurt me or my family - or anyone else's.

 

[Sweden]

Why do we even have sex? What is the purpose? How does having male-female help perpetuate the species?

Countless animal and plant species reproduce sexually which is sufficient evidence that it is usually advantageous for species survival.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Why are you so interested in what interests other people? If you are uninterested in a topic you are perfectly free to ignore it. I am interested in many things that do not hurt me or my family - or anyone else's.

You mean other than Republicans being busy bodies and injecting themselves into other people's lives and passing legislation that affects other Americans and marginalizes some kids who then commit suicide?

 

[Sweden]

Less than 10% of sex is to procreate. It's mostly recreational because it feels good and is good for us.

The Health Benefits of Sex

Is there more to sex than pleasure? Read on to find out how sex can boost your immune system, increase your life expectancy, help you sleep, and more.

www.healthline.com

From an evolutionary viewpoint it is almost the other way round. If sex did not feel good many species, including our own. would have quickly become extinct.

 

[Lisa]

From an evolutionary viewpoint it is almost the other way round. If sex did not feel good many species, including our own. would have quickly become extinct.

That has now become a problem with overpopulation of humans. This is why artificial birth control exists, as well as to allow females to consciously plan when they do get pregnant, if they choose to do so.

 

[Sweden]

You mean other than Republicans being busy bodies and injecting themselves into other people's lives and passing legislation that affects other Americans and marginalizes some kids who then commit suicide?

What has this strange rant to do with this thread?

 

[CaughtInThe]

What has this strange rant to do with this thread?

you mean other than to show how conservative legislation can hurt people and families?

 

[Divine_Wind]

I missed this article from Richard Dawkins when it first came out. https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary/ - it's about a year and a half old, and it relates to the issue of sex as a binary and Dawkins being banned from the American Humanist Association and having his 1996 Award revoked because Dawkins posted this:...

...So, what has Dawkins said that merits being banished from the AHA, or having rewards revoked? Is he not right on the science?

Dawkins was always a stuffed shirt. He peddled anger and self-righteousness for money.

Isn't the AHA a private organization? They can do whatever they like, including throwing out egotistical money-grubbers.

 

[nucky9]

I missed this article from Richard Dawkins when it first came out. https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary/ - it's about a year and a half old, and it relates to the issue of sex as a binary and Dawkins being banned from the American Humanist Association and having his 1996 Award revoked because Dawkins posted this:



He then raised a couple examples of where he opened discussion on other topics to show his practice:

And,



That seems to be a problem on these message boards when it comes to certain topics, where raising an issue for discussion is met with derail after derail, typically insulting the person creating the OP as not seriously raising the issue, trolling, not really being interested in the responses, spouting hate speech or phobia, or some iterations of "why are you so interested?" attacking the motives or purposes of the person posting the OP (as if that somehow changes the substantive issue).

When invited to take a position on his own invitation to discussion of the identification/gender tweet he posed, he wrote:



As I read it, his ultimate view in the article is that race is very much a spectrum, because most people are mixed race to some degree, even if it goes back several generations, and that people who have different inputs into their genetic racial make-up can logically call themselves one or more races. Like Obama with a white mother and black father, he could be mixed race, black or white. Like the Duchess of Sussex, who identifies as mixed race, but is often referred to in the media as black. But, he notes, that when males and females mate, they produce offspring that are male or female, with very very rare conditions of intersex, so sex is "pretty damn binary." Dawkins refers to Darwin and Jenkins and, of course, basic genetics which has been known since Mendel. He concludes -



So, what has Dawkins said that merits being banished from the AHA, or having rewards revoked? Is he not right on the science?

Genetic sex is binary, so no issue there. Both race and gender are social constructs - the former completely stupid, and the latter not much better. Both you and Dawkins would be better off asking questions that lead to a world where neither of these artificial constructs are used by society to categorize and evaluate people, either positively or negatively, instead of trying to find 'gotchas'.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Genetic sex is binary, so no issue there. Both race and gender are social constructs - the former completely stupid, and the latter not much better. Both you and Dawkins would be better off asking questions that lead to a world where neither of these artificial constructs are used by society to categorize and evaluate people, either positively or negatively, instead of trying to find 'gotchas'.

Who is an example of someone who is asking questions that lead the world to where gender identity is not used to categorize and evaluate people? There are quite a lot of people these days saying gender identity is an innate feature of humans, something we're born with. If that's the case, how am I going to do anything to combat that?

And there are a number of very pro-Trans ideology folks here who would take extreme umbrage to your suggestion that gender identity is a mere social construct, and has nothing to do with human biology. I've been literally scolded on other threads for saying what you just said.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Dawkins was always a stuffed shirt. He peddled anger and self-righteousness for money.

I've read many of Dawkins' books and I've seen his public appearances for going on 2 decades now. The last thing I would ever suggest he peddled was "anger" and "righteousness." He is a mild, academic scientist who has done more to advance the society understanding of evolution by natural selection than anyone else in history.

Isn't the AHA a private organization? They can do whatever they like, including throwing out egotistical money-grubbers.

Sure, they can do whatever they want. That doesn't put their actions beyond criticism.

 

[Lisa]

Who is an example of someone who is asking questions that lead the world to where gender identity is not used to categorize and evaluate people? There are quite a lot of people these days saying gender identity is an innate feature of humans, something we're born with. If that's the case, how am I going to do anything to combat that?

You try to deny that gender identity exists.

And there are a number of very pro-Trans ideology folks here who would take extreme umbrage to your suggestion that gender identity is a mere social construct, and has nothing to do with human biology. I've been literally scolded on other threads for saying what you just said.

There is no transgender ideology. That supposed ideology is a fabrication of the right. Gender roles are a social construct. gender is not.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

This is a fantastic discussion on the topic between Dawkins and Helen Joyce.

 

[nucky9]

Who is an example of someone who is asking questions that lead the world to where gender identity is not used to categorize and evaluate people? There are quite a lot of people these days saying gender identity is an innate feature of humans, something we're born with. If that's the case, how am I going to do anything to combat that?

And there are a number of very pro-Trans ideology folks here who would take extreme umbrage to your suggestion that gender identity is a mere social construct, and has nothing to do with human biology. I've been literally scolded on other threads for saying what you just said.

Well in your case, it would probably be best to stop asking questions, since the search for the gotcha seems to be all you have. I believe the reason why people feel misgendered is because of gender expectations put on people due to their biological sex. If those gender expectations didn't exist, and the classifications based on them didn't either, there would be no 'gender identity' and thus no internal or external conflict. People would be free to be themselves, however that manifests, and not feel judged for it.

As for people asking questions, I don't know or care to identify specific individuals, but there is substantial research that goes into things like how to deal with/repair the damage done (both from past and present actions) by a racist society, and how to support people that do feel misgendered. That would be a good place to start, if you are being intellectually honest in your posts. Some hack on the web isn't it.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

You try to deny that gender identity exists.

I've never denied that some people identify as genders.

There is no transgender ideology. That supposed ideology is a fabrication of the right. Gender roles are a social construct. gender is not.

Of course there is. You yourself attempt to describe an ideology in this regard.

Your ideas on the topic taken together form an ideology - a system of ideas. Your suggestion that there is no trans ideology is patently absurd. If there was no trans ideology, there wouldn't be gender studies programs teaching kids about gender identity and other issues, the supposed nature of the constructs, how it relates to biological sex, and other issues. How can you say there is no transgender ideology, when you have activists literally advocating the concepts and ideas every day?