Richard Dawkins - request for discussion on Identity

[MrsMidClegs]

"In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.

Discuss."

twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/1380812852055973888?s=21

No-one on that thread seems keen to "discuss". It's quite amusing the people just telling him to delete. No reasons given.

About time he joined the debate. I'm surprised it took him so long. However he is a divisive character and I wonder if his view will be written off because of this. Plus he is male so will he receive the same amount of abuse.
However, pleased to see him talking about this.

Be nice if he actually stated his opinion.

Some people arguing that Rachael situation not ok because she knew she was pretending. Implying it would have been ok if she felt black inside.

At least it's consistent. Bonkers, but consistent.

Look, a grown-up.

Be nice if he actually stated his opinion

You don’t have to state an opinion. Merely asking a question is enough to have you condemned as a bigot.

I think in Dawkins' case there's more value in him putting the question to his large number of followers and them seeing how others choose to answer it.

Spotted this in the comments:

twitter.com/search?q=transgender%20from%3A%40rdfrs&src=typed_query

There were some questionable tweets put out by the RDSF up until 2018.

Exactly.

Asking the question is enough to damn him, as I'm sure he's aware.

Nearly 3 million followers and he's inviting people to discuss. Stick that up your #NoDebate jumper!

He's a bit late to the party. About time really.

@Melroses

Spotted this in the comments:

twitter.com/search?q=transgender%20from%3A%40rdfrs&src=typed_query

There were some questionable tweets put out by the RDSF up until 2018.

A person can change their mind. Consider how many posters tell us that they came here to challenge us but stayed to support us when they understood the reality.

I wonder whether Dawkins' previous pro-trans stance was a kneejerk reaction to the Christianity of the organisations that do not accept the trans ideologies. I wonder whether, once he understood that trans ideology is, effectively, a neo-religion, his positioned changed as a result.

He was interviewed in the Times recently. Said way more than JKR, and not a peep from anyone. He thinks TWAM.

I came across a piece that gets into this issue. I think it's insane stuff, but interesting what certain people will come up with and apparently believe as reasonable.

bostonreview.net/race-philosophy-religion-gender-sexuality/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-why-we-shouldnt-compare

"While it is important and good to value a person’s autonomy and respect their identifications, we also think this good must be weighed against the population-level effects of revising our classifications. In cases where revising a classification would have a negative sociopolitical impact that outweighs the good of respecting how an individual identifies, we think that the classification should not be revised. And we think that revising the rules of race classification to accommodate transracial identification into Blackness is a case like this."

"Given the severity of this inequality, we need conceptual and linguistic tools that illuminate populations that inherit this inequality, and are thereby entitled to reparations. We believe the importance of preserving these tools vastly outweighs the good of respecting Diallo’s or Krug’s racial self-identification. Moreover, this logic cannot be wielded against transgender-inclusive gender classification for the simple reason that gender inequality is not accrued intergenerationally and that it affects both transgender and cisgender women."

I think Dawkins is on safer ground with the trans issue than speaking about Islam. He may get punched, but probably not beheaded.

I've never seen a straw clutched at with such desperation before.

Talking about Moreover, this logic cannot be wielded against transgender-inclusive gender classification for the simple reason that gender inequality is not accrued intergenerationally and that it affects both transgender and cisgender women" by the way.

@reallyisthisallthereis

About time he joined the debate. I'm surprised it took him so long. However he is a divisive character and I wonder if his view will be written off because of this. Plus he is male so will he receive the same amount of abuse. However, pleased to see him talking about this.

He’s been banging on about this for years

Ah yes dicky dawko, the feminist icon. You lot really need to raise your standards

www.vice.com/en/article/jmbayk/the-atheist-movement-needs-to-disown-richard-dawkins-999

This is just one of the many articles about dicky’s sexism and victim blaming. Him being posted in the feminism board is fucking laughable.

That's a corker, Pothole.

Dawkins is a biologist by trade. He knows what a woman is.

He's been quite ill the last few years, which is why he's been quiet.

As Catsknees says above, he already gave his opinion quite recently in the Times - we had a discussion about it on here. I think it's pretty brave of him - admittedly he is used to getting abuse and death threats from religious people, but now his own tribe are turning on him.

I'm happy to hear more and more people supporting feminists.

I think it is clear what his view is, but he is being diplomatic to facilitate meaningful discourse rather than just getting "cancelled" by the TRA.