The Richard Dawkins Foundation is not gender critical... **Title Edited by MNHQ**

[SPOFS]

I saw this yesterday, but I don't think anyone's posted about it yet.

Basically, the Richard Dawkins Foundation has tweeted several "trans women are women" type statements on their Twitter account. They claim to have lots of science, but they do not provide any...

From the Tweets, I'm guessing it's not Dawkins himself tweeting this... Dawkins is famously science-based in his arguments and doesn't accept anything that's "in your head" from what I've seen.

Amy way, this should be interesting....

He's quite patronising and sexist though. Wonder if he'll just jump on the bandwagon anyway.

I thought Dawkins was anti belief-ideology thinking.

It's a heresy!

Dawkins has always been an idiot, I’ve never understood why people love him so much, he argues like a 4 year old.

As Pratchet says, he’s famously sexist, so I doubt he’ll bother himself too much about this

And yeah, as mentioned above, he’s a fool anyway so I don’t much care what his view is, on this matter or any other. The only bigger fools are his slavishly devoted fanboys...

I hate this. I hate that we have to sit here and nervously wait to see if we are acceptable to high status males and their powerful institutions.

His atheism is silly. Most philosophy undergrads (a level students too?) can prove that God doesn't exist. It's the point of faith. No person of faith is interested in gotcha, it's just not news to them. Dawkins was just so arrogant.

I mean, I'm not an atheist but total respect to atheists. Feminists are the only people who have made me come anywhere near to questioning faith. They have a clearer view of human motivation than any male philosopher I've read.

He wouldn’t be the first prominent atheist who can’t see the parallels between believing in souls and believing in gender identities. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least that he would happily accept an idelaogical position that favours males- why wouldn’t he? He loves those!

I was really disappointed when I saw the anti woman nonsense his foundation were peddling.

I'll be interested to hear his argument for self-id when he's generally against unscientific beliefs. Also, he clearly isn't shy of arguments, so I doubt we will get the "no debate" line from him.

Like I said though, I don't think the person tweeting is Dawkins himself.

I don’t have a religion, personally, but I think the level of certainty people like Dawkins display in their atheism is a kind of faith in itself. Their sneering at religion is incredibly hypocritical.

I always think it's hilarious when so called sceptics make a special allowance for gendered souls.

My mum refers to certain people as "a stupid clever person".

It strikes me that Dawkins might fall into that category.

Prachet

I completely agree with you. Dawkins brand atheism is another form of power play. He gets rid of god but not God’s point of view. He claims that for himself and his ilk. I am just done with I have developed an allergy to serious men with serious ideas.

By the way to clarify there is no shortage of atheists that are not simple minded.

no shortage of atheists that are not simple minded

And are confident enough not to sneer

Sorry for half finished sentences ugh.

He seems to have had no problem in making atheism into a belief, so I expect he has no problem with gender identities, especially if they are malecentric ones. There must be some sensible men around in science - I wonder if it because so many of them stuck to maths, physics, chemistry and further maths and applied maths and pooh-poohed the biology

There are loads of men in biology and genetics, predictably in high ranking positions. I do wonder what they think.

I have been around men in STEM subjects better part of my life. Unfortunately many confuse being clever in a technical subject with having God like omniscience in everything else. They literally call the leaders of subjects Gods as a way of praise. I could not stand it.

One of my professors even confessed to me that being good at his subjects asserts his masculinity as real men are good at what he does.

Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist,

he is not well respected ( or liked) by many in the academic scientific circles. This from a close scientist friend.

Interesting, beee

Atheism is not a belief. It's a lack of belief and Dawkins has said before that you can't prove the non-existence of a god.

Still, I don't agree with all his views and I wouldn't assume he'd be on the right side in this.

Most people are pro-trans.

It's the anti-women thing that's the problem.

You can prove the non existence of a god with, say, the specific qualities of the Christian god.