Dawkins tweets support for Kathleen Stock

[NutellaEllaElla]

"I didn’t know of #KathleenStock until her tar-&-feathering prompted me (among many, as sales figures show) to read Material Girls. So far excellent. Refreshingly sensible. Superfluous debunking of ludicrous anti-scientific philosophies, but she has to because surrounded by them."
twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1465004190116188160?s=20

Dawkins is engaging in a reliable drip of reinforcement for GC views.

That's encouraging. He gave a very sympathetic quote for Helen Joyce's book too.

If she has Richard Dawkins onside that’s great.
He’s not afraid of telling people things they don’t wish to hear.

Oh there's a reply that says:

"If you're actually being scientific, you should accept that sex is bimodal, not binary, and also accept that sex and gender are not the same thing."

They probably don't know who Richard Dawkins is, do they? It's like the people who were telling Lord Winston that sex is ever-so-complicated.

It’s times like this I miss being on Twitter! Fantastic 👏👏👏

He's a nob though.

And he likes to post strong things about contraversial topics that he knows fuck all about.

I seem to remember he posted in support of gender ideology a while ago.

Wasn't it him who posted something bizarre and awful about CSA? I seem to remember nonsense about something to do with women as well.

Meh. Yes lots of followers see it so you know good.

But he's generally a dick on loads of things out of his area.

He is indeed. This novel by Dan Rhodes about a fictional Richard Dawkins is very entertaining though: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Professor_Got_Stuck_in_the_Snow

From the Herald review: “Rhodes's portrait of the fictional Dawkins is on the far side of caricature, so rich in ridicule it makes a lampoon look limp. "My life would be so much easier if everybody was as clever as me," the professor sighs, meanwhile planning his series of children's books. The first will be called Your Parents Are Idiots, "aimed at children unfortunate enough to have been born into religious households"...'At times Rhodes bangs his drum too often and too loud, but he is such a vivid and elegant writer that is quickly forgiven, though perhaps not if your name is Richard Dawkins.”

My favorite send-up of Dawkins was the review Terry Eagleton did of The God Delusion:

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea what it is like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

However, he does I imagine have a fair grasp of the biology of sex, and he expresses himself well on this issue. I'm not sure about his audience these days, he's said enough things that have had him in hot water he's seen as a bit of a dinosaur.

I was pleased to see this.

good.

I'm glad to see it (at last) and I sincerely hope those in the 'skeptic/atheist' ranks who've unaccountably fallen for the dogma of genderism will take note.

Although his comment Superfluous debunking of ludicrous anti-scientific philosophies, but she has to because surrounded by them. implies he doesn't realise that he himself is surrounded by people weirdly adhering to these anti scientific philosophies too.

Perhaps his lack of engagement so far was because the reality of sex is so bloody obvious to him he thought it was unnecessary?

That book looks fun, Midsomer!

Dawkins has signed the WHRC declaration on women’s sex-based rights.

mobile.twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1465324057277173772

Well you cant deny he is sailing in the right direction. Always good to get the prominent scientists on board. Robert Winston too. And the more support Kathleen Stock gets from well known (and respected) people the better. I think a previous poster called him a nob which may well be true but he`s called it right on this.

And right there in the comments is a TRA saying that women’s sex based rights are “anti trans”. But I thought there was no clash of rights ?

I'd love to see Ben Goldacre express support for GC views. Doubt he will, though. Head under parapet, unlike his enthusiasm for taking on homeopathy.

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea what it is like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

This is the equivalent of telling GC feminists that they don't understand the nature of sex because the haven't read Judith Butler and all the other doyens of gender studies.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I'd love to see Ben Goldacre express support for GC views. Doubt he will, though. Head under parapet, unlike his enthusiasm for taking on homeopathy.

Ben Goldacre is pretty busy supporting the effort against COVID–19 and running the EBM DataLab that will eventually transform prescribing in the NHS Primary Care plus being a fully engaged father to his young children.

www.phc.ox.ac.uk/research/ebm-datalab

afaict, he gave up on tilting at homeopathy etc. when he stopped writing Bad Science and started taking on very heavyweight targets such as Pharma and clinical triallists - around the time he was involved in setting up the All Trials facility (which is extraordinarily useful).

www.alltrials.net/

It's possible that he's being criticised for choosing to write his own To Do list and determining the urgency of items on it.

Look, there are lots of things Dawkins has said that are annoying or unpleasant and that I take issue with. But frankly, I no longer care. On this issue, he is sound, and currently that's all that matters. Even for someone in Dawkins's position it takes courage to speak up, because it will lead to abuse and death threats. Not as much as if you're JK Rowling, or some poor sod working in a publishing house, but it will be there nonetheless.

The fact that Ben Goldacre (not to mention Dara O'Briain) hasn't said anything speaks volumes. Homoeopathy and acupuncture are easy targets. Speaking out against transgender ideology - which is much more dangerous - takes guts, which Goldacre clearly lacks.

Speaking out against transgender ideology - which is much more dangerous - takes guts, which Goldacre clearly lacks.

Ben Goldacre has guts and moral courage by the JCB load. Back before AllTrials when he was trying to push this through, he gave speeches/talks to aggressively hostile audiences, unsupported, and at his own expense.

He's been a practising clinician in some very rough areas so, like many HCPs, has a courage under provocation/animosity that many people don't.

He wasn't public about it but I gather that he didn't go unthreatened for some of the work he's done in the past.

His intervention in the times of #NoDebate would have been to no avail. If he chooses to give attention to this in a future when debate is more acceptable then that would be his choice. He's not an MP, he has no obligation to one side or another. Given that so many of his colleagues and former/current associates are TWAW and have even sided with Mermaids in some spats, I'm taking it as a current public good that he's not displayed partiality in the fray.

twitter.com/HumanGayMale/status/1465350373951119361?s=20

HAHAHA

@NonnyMouse1337

twitter.com/HumanGayMale/status/1465350373951119361?s=20

HAHAHA

The Hayden screenshot on that thread is a gift.

@Signalbox

Dawkins has signed the WHRC declaration on women’s sex-based rights.

Excellent! Whether you like him or not, this will get the WHRC out there to a lot more people. Maybe it'll even get picked up by the mainstream media.

@NotDavidTennant

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea what it is like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

This is the equivalent of telling GC feminists that they don't understand the nature of sex because the haven't read Judith Butler and all the other doyens of gender studies.

No, it's pretty accurate. TE goes on to describe the problem in more detail - you have a man who makes an epistemic argument, basically assuming positivism as the only possible rational position, about the impossibility of metaphysics, seemingly without having read any of the most basic texts on metaphysics or positivism or even epistemology, or knowing where they stand in terms of the development of philosophy. Or even, to some extent, that they are areas of philosophy.

That's some pretty startling hubris from someone who puts a lot of weight on expertise.