Page 2 | Richard Dawkins 'support the fight-back'

ArabellaScott · 2021-03-19T20:39:24+00:00

'Just finished ‘The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity’ by *@DrDebraSoh* . Strongly recommended. If even half is true of what she says about the intimidation of scientists in her field of sexology, we need to support the fight-back.' [[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1372880208840261635]]

donquixotedelamancha · 19/03/2021 22:47

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.

AdHominemNonSequitur · 19/03/2021 22:55

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

SunsetBeetch · 19/03/2021 22:57

[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.

Hulo · 19/03/2021 23:01

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

nauticant · 19/03/2021 23:26

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

Manderleyagain · 19/03/2021 23:42

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.

ErrolTheDragon · 19/03/2021 23:48

@Hulo

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

His 2015 tweet was dismissive, I'd say:

^ 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' .

PotholeHellhole · 20/03/2021 00:40

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

SmokedDuck · 20/03/2021 01:32

@ancientgran

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.

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.

EdgeOfACoin · 20/03/2021 05:56

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.

AaronStampler · 20/03/2021 06:43

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.

2Rebecca · 20/03/2021 06:49

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.

rabbitwoman · 20/03/2021 06:50

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.

newyearnewname123 · 20/03/2021 07:18

@AaronStampler

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.

Completely agree with this.

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.

BatleyTownswomensGuild · 20/03/2021 07:34

Added to my reading list.

Catlover77 · 20/03/2021 08:03

@EdgeOfACoin

Oh, how can I say this without getting a deletion?

I read the God Delusion. Dawkins considers raising children in a Christian household to be tantamount to child abuse (esp the traditional teachings on heaven and hell).

I'm interested to note that there are many other practices out there concerning children which he has not spoken out about.

The God Delusion is a fantastic book. I also agree that teaching heaven and hell to young minds is a form of abuse. Religion should not be imposed upon children.

HPFA · 20/03/2021 08:24

@nauticant

I did scroll down quickly and made the Venn diagram in my head of those self-identified as "atheist" and those horrified at there being a challenge to the gender identity ideology. I raised an eyebrow.

That makes a lot of sense. Dawkins has always been a bit of a hypocrite - claiming that he's making an appeal to pure reason yet at the same time deliberately targeting some fairly base instincts. The intro to the God Delusion makes use of the derogatory term "Faithhead" - and generally he makes regular reference to atheists' being more intelligent and grown up.

There is of course a very rational case for atheism but Dawkins has never solely relied on that. It doesn't surprise me at all that his followers have proved susceptible to non-rational arguments once they don't get their emotional hit of being able to look down on "faithheads".

nauticant · 20/03/2021 08:29

Hence the Jordan Peterson comparison. Which having slept on it I think is rather close to the mark.

2Rebecca · 20/03/2021 09:00

I think if you believe in a religion you have to teach it to your children. At Christenings you promise to do so. I was brought up going to Sunday school as my parents believed and had promised to bring me up in the faith. I am now an atheist but am glad I know the stories and understand biblical references. I miss the hymns and communal chanting. When I believed to not raise my child as a Christian would have seemed like child abuse. If you believe in a religion it completely alters your priorities. This life is just part of the picture.

EdgeOfACoin · 20/03/2021 09:01

The God Delusion is a fantastic book. I also agree that teaching heaven and hell to young minds is a form of abuse. Religion should not be imposed upon children.

It’s a poorly written book, which received a lot of criticism at the time, even from other scientists. Good on biology, poor on everything else.

Accusing parents who take their children to a mainstream church, or mosque or temple of being abusive is utter hyperbole. Parents ‘impose’ their values and philosophies on their children all the time. Fortunately, people are free to practise their own religion in this country and are still just about able to raise children in the way that they see fit without interference from the state.

Anyway, I fear I am straying away from the topic at hand!

There is of course a very rational case for atheism but Dawkins has never solely relied on that. It doesn't surprise me at all that his followers have proved susceptible to non-rational arguments once they don't get their emotional hit of being able to look down on "faithheads".

Yes, agree with this.

Abhannmor · 20/03/2021 10:49

@EdgeOfACoin

The God Delusion is a fantastic book. I also agree that teaching heaven and hell to young minds is a form of abuse. Religion should not be imposed upon children.

It’s a poorly written book, which received a lot of criticism at the time, even from other scientists. Good on biology, poor on everything else.

Accusing parents who take their children to a mainstream church, or mosque or temple of being abusive is utter hyperbole. Parents ‘impose’ their values and philosophies on their children all the time. Fortunately, people are free to practise their own religion in this country and are still just about able to raise children in the way that they see fit without interference from the state.

Anyway, I fear I am straying away from the topic at hand!

There is of course a very rational case for atheism but Dawkins has never solely relied on that. It doesn't surprise me at all that his followers have proved susceptible to non-rational arguments once they don't get their emotional hit of being able to look down on "faithheads".

Yes, agree with this.

Agree it is a very sloppy piece of work. He doesn't bother with the ontological arguments. It is a sort of slapstick rant and it is obvious he doesn't understand myth or even metaphor. Dawkins is really in his comfort zone laughing at daft televangelists from the Bible belt. Not so much when he - rarely- argues with philosophers or scientists. But then he can't see any value in Shakespeare - it's all about stuff that didn't actually happen. Still he is the Pope of Atheism so this support is most welcome and will make a few ' libertarian ' heads explode.

ErrolTheDragon · 20/03/2021 11:28

I'm minded of how the comments on the Jesus and Mo cartoons sometimes split into rational agreement and wokeness when they touch on trans/nonbinary issues.

WanderinWomb · 20/03/2021 11:38

I haven't read Soh's book either mostly because have seen and read lots of interviews and have no idea what she means by gender. She's a sexologist who wrote for men's mags for context
Since she uses it to mean quite large range of things, mostly biological sex, and that it was in the title of her book it made me feel was probably a waste of cash.
Will pick it up second hand at some point maybe.

ancientgran · 20/03/2021 11:45

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.

I missed that one. I did hear one interview where he was being very smug about being the only kid in the village who realised that the Father Christmas at some event was some old guy dressed up which he announced to the room. My immediate thought was any child with a smidgen of commonsense knows to keep their mouth shut and get their presents.

bourbonne · 20/03/2021 11:51

@ancientgran

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.

I missed that one. I did hear one interview where he was being very smug about being the only kid in the village who realised that the Father Christmas at some event was some old guy dressed up which he announced to the room. My immediate thought was any child with a smidgen of commonsense knows to keep their mouth shut and get their presents.

Oh God, what a joyless bore! I guess he thought this had never crossed the minds of the other children...