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

He's clearly making every effort to back both horses in this race. His arse must be very sore.

I honestly have been open-mouthed with astonishment at the gibberish coming out of some people's posts lately. A certain section have apparently been taught and genuinely, fervently believe that there are more than two sexes (I saw someone state - verbatim - 'there are over 40 sexes' last week.)

Also stated categorically that trans people have 'intersex brains' (sincere apologies to anyone with a DSD or any trans person offended by this, I was gobsmacked and obviously don't agree, but I think it's important to note just how far-our some of these claims are getting).

And these people think that these mad views are somehow supported by science. I don't really know how we roll back from this. Seems we will have to start again with all the painstaking progress made teaching sex ed so that teen pregnancies were avoided and children weren't alarmed and confused by their own bodily processes.

Also stated categorically that trans people have 'intersex brains'

This seemed familiar so I went searching and found that I'd posted this in 2018:

I've seen signs of that a new "argument" is developing that trans people have an "intersex of the brain" and thus are, indeed, both trans and intersex.

I had the 'of course we were all female at conception' gift recently.

You may as well say 'of course we were all fish at conception'.

Quite. Particularly as conception doesn't even happen if there are not two different gametes involved.

This seems like a genius move from Helen Joyce. He can't back out now.

@picklemewalnuts

He's clearly making every effort to back both horses in this race. His arse must be very sore.

He should rub some honey on it.

twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/396956105869250561?s=21

@ArabellaScott

I honestly have been open-mouthed with astonishment at the gibberish coming out of some people's posts lately. A certain section have apparently been taught and genuinely, fervently believe that there are more than two sexes (I saw someone state - verbatim - 'there are over 40 sexes' last week.)

Also stated categorically that trans people have 'intersex brains' (sincere apologies to anyone with a DSD or any trans person offended by this, I was gobsmacked and obviously don't agree, but I think it's important to note just how far-our some of these claims are getting).

And these people think that these mad views are somehow supported by science. I don't really know how we roll back from this. Seems we will have to start again with all the painstaking progress made teaching sex ed so that teen pregnancies were avoided and children weren't alarmed and confused by their own bodily processes.

This has been the underpinning for a large group of people since the beginning I think.

It's why you can't make much headway with them arguing the philosophy or ideology. They have been led to believe the science supports that sx is not binary and that transgender people have a kind of intersex brain condition, though it is not yet well understood.

They think it's quite objective and this is why it can be found in children and there are medical pathways around it, and it's found in other cultures too. It's an exact replica of the LGB argument from the late 80s/early 90s that sexuality is innate and unchangeable and therefore should be accepted. (That was always a simplification of the real argument but the important point is that the simplification was extremely effective at convincing a lot of people.)

I think there is going to have to be some significant public acknowledgement from scientific sources to roll back from this element. The fact that popular magazines like Scientific American or National Geographic push these ideas has ben deeply damaging. It gives a lot of credibility.

I'm saying nothing about proto-gills.

[blows bubbles]

It's an exact replica of the LGB argument from the late 80s/early 90s that sexuality is innate and unchangeable and therefore should be accepted. (That was always a simplification of the real argument but the important point is that the simplification was extremely effective at convincing a lot of people.)

Oh, interesting. I recall having an interesting conversation on the subject with a gay friend about 400 years ago. Funnily enough he didn't threaten to punch me or burst into tears or anything, we just discussed it.

Anyway, not to derail. I'll go back to wafting about blowing bubbles. It's quite therapeutic. [pop]

MumsnetHQ. The LGBTQ+ movement, intersectional feminism and the Social Justice Movement in general ARE based on postmodern Theory (and on Queer and Critical race Theory in particular), and both share clear roots with Marxism. It isn't speculation, it isn't a sweeping generalisation, it's clearly documented. I don't know why you are deleting posts for pointing it out. Particularly as you aren't deleting visitors for accusing Mumsnetters of being Alt right aligned.

This seems like a genius move from Helen Joyce. He can't back out now.

Indeed. And also: good for him. The statement about not wanting to back bigoted Republicans was a bit pathetic but it wasn't a reverse ferret. By giving such a clear, unequivocal endorsement to Helen's book he's shown where he stands on this issue. Welcome on board, Richard.

Re Richard Dawkins. He must get it. He has endorsed Helen Joyce's book, been commenting on 1984 and language fuckery and made the Rachel Dolezal comparison, now he is fending off alt right accusations and realising the full extent of this ideology. he is probably sensible to not completely alienate the SJW's since he will have a lot of influence on floaters.

Re: the intersex brain theory.

I think that some of this comes from the Le Vay INAH3 studies and the spin off studies by Swaab, Byrne etc. They found a reliable sex based size and density difference in the nucleus, It could be reasonably considered a primary sex characteristic however they also found a statistically significant contralateral relationship between straight and gay subjects and expected INAH3 size. So the most compelling hypothesis is that it is responsible or contributes to sexuality not gender, but to me it backs up Blanchards transsexualism typology.

When they studied trans people they found INAH3 corresponded a bit with the sex they aligned with not their natal sex. However they failed to factor in the sexual orientation of the trans people (they were all straight (androphilic) trans women or same sex attracted. They were also on cross sex hormones.
There have also been twin studies comparing identical and fraternal twins and transexuality.
I think relative levels of prenatal Testosterone exposure or insensitivity to it are thought to contribute, to relative masculinisation/ feminisation and that it could be maternal hormones not the foetus's.
This doesn't even begin to explain late onset Gynephilic mtf transexuals, ROGD and it sure as shit doesn't explain non binary identities.
It does seem likely that intrauterine hormone exposure has some effect on sex characteristics, preferences and behaviours, but it only proves the existence of masculine women and feminine men, not inate gendered souls or intersex brains.

Even if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the INAH3 or some other structure or combination of structures is responsible for gender identity and that gender incongruence is a tangiable thing, not just a tendency towards the feminine, need to be able to describe ourselves as a sex group based on reproductive role, not how female we feel.

Just a small comment and apologise if it has been made, but it is only recently that people have started to say the difference between Rachel Dolezal and those who talk about identifying as a different sex is that she was consciously pretending.

I think this has been dreamed up as a way to make out she is a fraud because they dont want to address the fact that she claimed she identified as black (for various reasons relating to her childhood).

And they think this will defeat comparisons to those who say they identify as the other sex.

Although of course it could backfire because if RD was a deliberate fraud who is to say that those who claims a different gender identity aren't also frauds?

I think we're watching an elderly scientist getting it - gradually, but yes getting there. I'm enjoying it. He's going through the same stage many of us did - as Rowling did - of feeling he has to make clear he is not criticising it from a position of hate or gender conservatism. He hasn't figured out yet that he will get accused of hate however he terms his questions. Rowling read more and I think she knew and said it anyway. From the latest tweet I'm not sure Dawkins has read as much as she had, it doesn't look like he was expecting the reaction.
But - there is no danger of him being duped by long words and "it's complicated"s and he has plenty of experience of standing up to bullying. I have a good feeling about this.

Hopefully that's the case but there are two obstacles in his way, and both relate to his ego. He'll have to acknowledge that perhaps he was wrong. He'll realise that his legacy will take a big hit. JKR has been big enough to navigate both of these obstacles, I'm not sure Dawkins will have the strength of character to do the same.

JKR seems to be in an onwards and upwards stage - building more new legacies and moving forwards and past the obstacles - new book out at Christmas. In the end, I don't think the HP legacy will suffer. That's what Dawkins needs to do. He can't get bogged down in preserving his past legacy.

@Melroses

JKR seems to be in an onwards and upwards stage - building more new legacies and moving forwards and past the obstacles - new book out at Christmas. In the end, I don't think the HP legacy will suffer. That's what Dawkins needs to do. He can't get bogged down in preserving his past legacy.

I get the sense she has such a strong sense that her judgement is right (which it is) that she knows in the longer term her reputation will only benefit from her current stand even if there is a period of people hating her first. She will be remembered for her courage and decency over and above HP, I think, because she has been really brave.

Ultimately, we are going to come through this because all episodes of mass hysteria come to an end eventually. Dawkins would be wise to remember that. I was reading a bit of Dick Hebdige on punk recently (his book is 'Subculture: The Meaning of Style') and it's a very useful book. He very cleverly writes about how young people constructed their identity through their punk clothing (as opposed to it being a case of their clothing representing something about their innate identity) and how things shifted over time as dressing in that way lost a certain something for the kids who had been expressing something through it. Punk was threatening and hostile to some, too, and that was part of the point of it. But the trend passed and suddenly this whole thing of having a gender identity or being pansexual or a demiboi will seem so dated and ridiculous too and people will move onto the next thing. It's just a case of when that will happen and how much damage is done first.

As I was reading your last paragraph and before I read the last sentence, when that will happen and how much damage is done first was floating around in my mind.

Richard Dawkins award from American humanist association withdrawn for wrong think

twitter.com/americnhumanist/status/1384238178643582979?s=21

Idiots

"AHA have not stripped the award because Mr Dawkins has abandoned science and reason, but because they have."

So true.

@Biscuitsanddoombar

Richard Dawkins award from American humanist association withdrawn for wrong think

twitter.com/americnhumanist/status/1384238178643582979?s=21

Idiots

At least the vast majority of the replies agree with you!

Ah well.
Bit petty to remove an award given 25 years ago!
These US organisations are quick to throw their teddies out aren't they?
Maybe they should start handing them out with a caveat to the effect that they'll be withdrawn for wrong think? Might make recipients slightly more wary of accepting such a charged chalice..

Idiots. I never really understood why some atheists wanted to switch one religious identity label to another label with prescribed values etc. Nice values though they are, I don't need to be a 'humanist' to subscribe to moral decency. Now they're showing their arse. I guess it was inevitable.