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

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.

That is such tosh.

Transwomen are discriminated against because they are trans, not because they're women. They are sexed male, and thus being trans, they are held (by those who abuse them & discriminate against them) contravene social notions of masculinity and being male.

And women do inherit oppression. Oh my god, how could anyone with two eyes, two ears & a bit of a brain between them, not notice this?

And women do inherit oppression. Oh my god, how could anyone with two eyes, two ears & a bit of a brain between them, not notice this?

This defies logic. If systemic improvements have not improved the position of women and girls to equal footing, the next generation ‘inherits’ the oppression. The next generation also carries the memory of oppression they witnessed growing up.

It is curious to hear someone state such a thing. Like maybe they haven’t processed what they have witnessed or it simply didn’t apply to them so it was ignored.

@Regularsizedrudy

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.

Dawkins was a figurehead for many people when society was arguing furiously about creationism/atheism. Whatever his views on women, he has a position in society. His wading into this debate has meaning because he has the ability to influence others.

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

^^This - our culture is stifling and devoid of real reflection and debate right now. I would not call it progress

Love the simplicity of this - using Twitter well

So glad he has done this.......No one has ever satisfactorily argued why there is not a discussion to be had... Radical change, really fast, and no discussion?

@Regularsizedrudy

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

"You lot".

Hive mind is it now?

@nauticant

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.

Just had a look - 2.9 million. And I'd bet for more than a few, this will be their introduction to it all.

Sunlight. The more, the better.

I count at least two approving-but-confused quite tweets from men who don't interact with GC twitter currently.

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

So non-feminists can never be mentioned here? Isn't that a bit moronic?

Personally I think Dawkins is bringing up a fair issue: what's really the difference between trans-race and transgender? One is good and one is bad? Why?

If there is some obvious explanation here...

@nauticant

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.

Indeed. Let me explain biology will not work against him nor will you are just an angry woman or many of the other insults as for threats - he's had loads of those and has direct numbers for specialist police.

If he adds a big dose of daylight EXCELLENT

If he comes at it having changed his mind in light of increased information EVEN BETTER

Ah yes dicky dawko, the feminist icon

And comments like this epitomise the fatuous nature of trans activists. They are completely incapable of mature or thoughtful debate: it's all about childish insults. Every time they post something they demonstrate to everyone exactly what they are. Good work, guys. Keep on doing it.

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

I'm not a fan. But you know what they say about stopped clocks.

Ad hom attacks are just the usual fare when people can't address the point of the post.

It's a very fair point Dawkins raises: why is 'transgender' to be celebrated when 'transracial' is to be condemned? Males identifying into the more oppressed sex is just as tasteless as whites identifying into the more oppressed race, as far as I can see.

Oh my at all the darling pearl-clutching concerned people here that would remind us of what RD has said about women and that we should not discuss what he says ever because of it. Bless your hearts!

Just who do you think you are and who do you think you are dealing with? Many of the women here are college educated. That generally means that we have spent varying numbers of years reading politics, history, science, art and other subjects having to mentally filter for sexist assumptions about our roles in the world. If I had to remove all writings by sexist men from my reading, I'd wind up with a meager slice of politically correct interpretation with no recourse to the primary texts that have been the basis of our history and culture for millennia, let alone be able to enjoy art or music ever again.

I am not a huge fan of Dawkins or Peterson, et al, but I do respect, sometimes even agree, with a few of their views on science, religion and society and certainly respect the fact that both have millions of male followers. As we have noticed in this fight, nothing is done about it until men are peaked. Good on these men for getting their followers to give some thought to all of this foolishness.

Science and facts over feelings and beliefs.

A pre-eminent scientist, Richard Dawkins knows full well you cannot change your biological sex, that gender has been formed through years of intricate anthropological processes.

He's only posing the question to his followers to test the waters. If he were to make a formal statement of his POV, things could go pretty sour for him. Perhaps not as badly as it's gone for JK Rowling, but he's not foolish enough to take that kind of risk, especially in the 'Age of Woke'.

And women do inherit oppression. Oh my god, how could anyone with two eyes, two ears & a bit of a brain between them, not notice this?

But why is this even considered a significant argument in this context?

Some group being oppressed doesn't make it's scientific claims true. Nor does not being oppressed mean they are false or even bad.

It's not just fine to say false things about rich white men just because they are rich white men, is it?

I actually think transitioning your ethnic identity is less offensive because ethnicity is about culture too and if you're brought up in a black culture, for example, then it's reasonable you would identity with that more than a 'white' culture even if you were white. But there is no female culture asfaik. There's no 'women's music' for example.

What is ethnic identity?
Bob Marley's dad was a white British Naval officer
Kamala Harris is half Indian, half Jamaican
Obama is half Kenyan, half Arizonan
Tiger Woods is half Thai, half African American
so being black or white or brown is a choice, not a biological fact.

Chromosomes are very clear

He has only had his moment of realisation recently. He was one of the ones who I most despaired about, on a par with Atwood, if Dawkins can't see it, we're fucked.

No matter. He is very much there now. Unless the Richard Dawkins foundation are tweeting independently.

Actually the Richard Dawkins foundation are tweeting very dubious stuff about gender as recently as the end of March so I expect it's not him.

Thanks for that link, Regularsizedrudy. It quotes some sexist and anti-Islamic comments by Dawkins. But I don’t need to admire him in order to be glad he’s encouraging debate about transgenderism. That’s something I like here: Mumsnetters tend to discuss things, not to cancel people.

Actually the Richard Dawkins foundation are tweeting very dubious stuff about gender as recently as the end of March so I expect it's not him.

I agree and it doesn't sound like him from the wording of the tweets anyway. It sounds like some young intern tbh.

@AdHominemNonSequitur

He has only had his moment of realisation recently. He was one of the ones who I most despaired about, on a par with Atwood, if Dawkins can't see it, we're fucked.

No matter. He is very much there now. Unless the Richard Dawkins foundation are tweeting independently.

@AdHominemNonSequitur Has he really? I A few years back, on a different account, I posted a thread on AIBU posing an almost identical question. I was shot down in flames for it. I couldn't possibly have thought of it before him?

And I suspect that it's been on Dawkins radar for quite sometime. He's only sticking his head above the parapet now because of the unprecedented global attention and favour(?) the 'movement' is gaining. I'd imagine as a scientist he feels obligated to question the ethics of what seems to most an ideology.

@TheQueenIsDeaf

Actually the Richard Dawkins foundation are tweeting very dubious stuff about gender as recently as the end of March so I expect it's not him.

I agree and it doesn't sound like him from the wording of the tweets anyway. It sounds like some young intern tbh.

I really don't think he'd be unaware of politicised posts being shared under his name on a huge social media platform.