Richard Dawkins 'support the fight-back'

I was very disappointed that he seemed to be accepting that TWAW which doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny.

It's not necessary to be an expert in gender ideology to know a man isn't a woman. I am glad he's noticed that it's actually an issue worth attention.

All of these books, essays and cerebral debates are very much inaccessible to most people - I am very passionate about this debate but there comes a point where the jargon and convoluted rhetoric gives me a right headache! Most people - my mum, my best friend who has a full time job and three kids and wasn't furloghed during last lock down, my dentist, the people who work at M&S..... they don't have TIME to read these books and would not get past the first chapter if they did.....!

However, I do read twitter and the replies below Dawkins tweets tell you all you need to know. Basically two factions, both tweeting a dozen different versions of' you're wrong! '' no, you're wrong. We're silenced and oppressed. ' ' no, we are silenced and oppressed, where is your evidence, ' and repeat. To infinity......

Just goes to show. Its all getting stale.

I recall him tweeting something several years ago saying TWAW because transwomen are biologically different to males or their brains are. I was amazed at the time but also didn't understand how all the skeptical societies were so unsceptical of gender woo. He's maybe read more of the studies that show there is a huge overlap between male and female personality characteristics and there aren't distinct pink and blue boxes for us.

That doesn't surprise me. He mocked the study of theology, saying we wouldn't take the study of 'fairyology' seriously, and theology should be treated the same way.

I think that's a pretty reasonable view. I feel the same way about the intricacies of Judith Butler's work and subsequent queer theorists. I don't need to study their work in detail or be fully familiar with their terminology and arguments to know that an ideology based on a denial of material reality is a terrible foundation for building social,.legal, or ethical systems.

This is topped, maybe, by the interview where he was asked about the epistemological arguments in The God Delusion, and he didn't know what epistemology was.

That doesn't surprise me. He mocked the study of theology, saying we wouldn't take the study of 'fairyology' seriously, and theology should be treated the same way.

Anyway. I hope he is waking up to what's going on. I agree with him on other stuff away from his position on religion (he's written some scathing stuff on the problems of jury duty, which I agree with) and he has quite a following among the woke bros.

The 2015 tweet is one that would get a woman mobbed for transphobia in 2021, tbh.

^ Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her "she" out of courtesy.
^

...but presumably when push comes to shove he'd have to go by chromosomes so I don't think he was really TWAW. He just didn't seem realise it mattered other than 'be kind' .

It'll be interesting to see where he goes from here. I think the fact he's retweeted that tweet by the clitoris lady too means he's seeing the craziness of some of the behaviour, claims and demands.

It's ironic that waking up might be the way to become unwoke.

Yes, I remember him being TWAW but it seemed to be in an unthinking way, the way of a man not really interested. It seems he might have woken up

[quote ArabellaScott]He;'s also retweeted Jessica Pin:

'Trans activism has been threatening my mission.

TRAs have gotten my article on the omission of clitoral anatomy taken down.

They have disinvited me from a podcast, had another podcast taken down.

They have withheld support for my cause due to me saying “female anatomy.”'

twitter.com/MediClit/status/1372628771086299137[/quote]
Bloody hell these people are ridiculous.

I should imagine he is approaching the summit right about now if the comments to his post are anything to go by.

I dislike him because coming from a scientific background certainty mixed with hubris is something I was trained to oppose.

This. He's similar to Jordan Peterson in many ways- eloquent and clever but far too certain he's right about everything.

That's a bit of a turnaround from Dawkins, isn't it?

Yeah, I thought he was broadly TWAW at one point- though doubles never in the literal sense.

That's a bit of a turnaround from Dawkins, isn't it?

I like Dr Soh, but having heard her talk on podcasts, she seems to use 'sex' and 'gender' interchangeably. I haven't read her book though.

I noticed he tweeted a quote from Debra Soh's book yesterday and it was retweeted by several TRAs. I think they misunderstood and thought he was supporting their position.

I like him and welcome him waking up to the craziness

At least you've got your next username.

I'd guess he's feeling a bit left out.

Interesting - I gave that one a miss. I love his science books, I'm not interested in his personal hobby horse so much.

He knows his subject, I'll give him that. However, he knows nothing about religion or theology, but he thinks he knows it all.

I read The Selfish Gene years ago, which I enjoyed (although the word 'meme' today means something quite different from the way he used it then).

Haven't stopped laughing about him since that interview where he accused Christians of not knowing the bible and not being able to name the first book of the New Testament. He was asked the full title of Darwin's Origin of the Species and called on God to help him when he didn't know it.

I dislike him because coming from a scientific background certainty mixed with hubris is something I was trained to oppose.