Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Dawkins tweets support for Kathleen Stock

74 replies

NutellaEllaElla · 28/11/2021 17:14

"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

OP posts:
CheeseMmmm · 30/11/2021 00:28

I didn't understand any of that! Sorry.

When it comes to sex of humans being fundamentally important to both sexes. Due to the biological differences and because of cultural norms/ laws. All over the world all through history.

Then you don't need anything special to know that. 99.99999% of the world is deeply totally familiar with that fact.

Everyone knows that humans come in male/female and the way humans get babies is through male female sexual intercourse.

And the position of women and men in different countries are shown often on main news, and examples through history globally so many as to miss all of them. And of course there's religion many branches strict on this in vv big religions.

The insistence that anyone who knows that sex and sex roles exist has not educated themselves. Is such a bizarre position, and stated with so much certainty. It's unbelievable that it's worked. And sex > gender people are left scrabbling to defend their views on response to drivel about clownfish etc.

CheeseMmmm · 30/11/2021 00:33

Oh and don't get too excited about Dawkins or embrace him in good egg category.

He's come out with some utter shit over the years. And I think someone said he's an evolutionary biologist? So of course sex matters to him. But given a lot of output from that area, and various comments. I would put money on him coming from a certain viewpoint, the one that Feminists have been busy fighting for years before we were forced to spend time on this.

CheeseMmmm · 30/11/2021 00:34

I mean only the posters who consider sex fundametal, sex/gender role natural. I know not all posters think that, loads of different women on this topic.

TheLastWomanOnEarth · 30/11/2021 01:16

@Signalbox

Dawkins has signed the WHRC declaration on women’s sex-based rights.
Is anyone else concerned that the logo used for this is just a couple of tweeks away from the Othala rune symbol used by the Volksdeutsche in Nazi Germany?

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Flag_of_Volksdeutsche_in_Croatia.svg/440px-Flag_of_Volksdeutsche_in_Croatia.svg.png

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odal_(rune)

Bollockstothat · 30/11/2021 01:22

My favorite send-up of Dawkins was the review Terry Eagleton did of The God Delusion
Not sure this is the board to be citing Eagleton favourably, tbh.

Momobeats · 30/11/2021 01:39

Oh and don't get too excited about Dawkins or embrace him in good egg category

For sure, he's a disgusting rape apologist.

i.imgur.com/od6zVNi.jpg

CheeseMmmm · 30/11/2021 02:15

TheLastWoman, what is your concern specially?

I can think of various reasons you may have but they're all very different so want to make sure.

(I've never heard of that group or seen that symbol before. And they are totally different. You must know a lot about the history of the Nazis to know, I'm sorry to say I only know the widely known info).

TheLastWomanOnEarth · 30/11/2021 02:34

@CheeseMmmm

TheLastWoman, what is your concern specially?

I can think of various reasons you may have but they're all very different so want to make sure.

(I've never heard of that group or seen that symbol before. And they are totally different. You must know a lot about the history of the Nazis to know, I'm sorry to say I only know the widely known info).

I'm just concerned about Nazi images being co-opted generally (for personal reasons).

From a graphic design point of view they are similar when side by side.

i.ibb.co/hYrwbY2/1638239113663.png

CheeseMmmm · 30/11/2021 02:45

I thought it might be personal reasons. I'd not heard of their symbols being used/ linked to other groups outside the extreme right you know like that improsened police officer recently.

I'd be interested to know a few other examples if they are not modern day nazi types. For my own interest. I didn't know and that's definitely concerning.

CheeseMmmm · 30/11/2021 02:48

I want to look into it, going to Google soon but guessing will be reams of results for Nazi/ antisemitic groups. And global.. Is this global or includes UK? That would be a real help for context.

CheeseMmmm · 30/11/2021 02:49

I understand how sensitive this is for you..I hope it's not too upsetting to have to find that image and post.

OldCrone · 30/11/2021 03:03

From a graphic design point of view they are similar when side by side.

But they are totally different. I can see more similarity between that runic symbol and the SNP logo than with the women's declaration one, which looks more like a different rune: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngvi

CheeseMmmm · 30/11/2021 03:10

I have read the wiki info, horrific. Thank you for raising it.

On the concern-

I just can't see that they are they are similar enough at all to seem linked tbh. It's a stylised xx with a round bit so it looks like a person

Anyone who does think similar or read similar will have essentially two reactions surely-

Some will say can't really see it, and is it at all likely that a group that exists who believe sex > gender are going to be sending a signal to far right nutters of the terrifying illegal type that they are actually a Nazi group?

  • the other reaction will be. Well it's hardly subtle is it they're bona fide organised Nazi group who have terrible reasons for sending this message which will be received and understood by Nazi groups and individuals.
That group already call anyone who says sex> gender - Nazis, racists, right wing USA Christians, antisemites, people who want a large group killed and so on. They would think that if the symbol was like that or not.

The idea that far right Nazi groups/ individuals (usually male at least from pics around the world) will be likely to stumble across this group and see that are surely close to nil.

leftshark · 30/11/2021 03:14

@Momobeats that was chilling to see but thank you for sharing. fuck me - one of my academic heroes there

wavingwhilstdrowning · 30/11/2021 08:50

RD is a classic male genius. His spectacular wealth of knowledge in one area (evolutionary biology) leads him to believe that we should listen to his views on all subjects.
"The blind watchmaker" changed my life though, it really is an amazing and brilliant book.

borntobequiet · 30/11/2021 08:59

@wavingwhilstdrowning

RD is a classic male genius. His spectacular wealth of knowledge in one area (evolutionary biology) leads him to believe that we should listen to his views on all subjects. "The blind watchmaker" changed my life though, it really is an amazing and brilliant book.
Yes, he may be an unpleasant person with controversial views, he may overreach, but he’s one of the few genuinely groundbreaking and original thinkers of our time whose ideas have reached and informed the general population.
RoyalCorgi · 30/11/2021 09:12

Oh ffs, you don't have to like Richard Dawkins or agree with him on lots of stuff. I happen to think he's a brilliant communicator when it comes to science, but his attitudes on loads of things are extremely disappointing and downright unpleasant.

In this context, that doesn't really matter.

His support is important for two reasons. One is that he's a very high-profile evolutionary biologist, and he understands that sex matters. A lot of the trans activist argument rests on the idea that sex is a spectrum, or sex doesn't really matter, or was invented by Western colonialists, or is less important than gender identity. Obviously this is nonsense but they frequently claim that their view is backed by "science" or "scientists". Quite clearly it isn't.

Second, Dawkins has a high profile in the skeptic community. Hilariously, for people who claim to be sceptical about pseudoscience, they have to a large extent been captured by the gender woo-woo. So the fact that Dawkins has come out and said it's nonsense might give some of them the courage to publicly agree with him.

The point is, we need public figures to speak out. We particularly need well-known scientists to speak out. We need the message to go far and wide, and we need it to reach people who are sitting on the fence or too timid to express a view.

DysonSphere · 30/11/2021 09:25

I wrote a long comment then accidentally swiped the page!

Effectively it's easier to come out in support now. This issue is in the public consciousness now, at least in Britain. But where was he before? He has considerable stature, one of the few who could afford to put himself above the parapet without losing much. But he didn't. Even considering his field.

I have respect for those who came out early. John Cleeese for example, went up in my estimation.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 30/11/2021 09:33

But where was he before?

Golden bridge. We can't afford to care about this as the consequences of not supporting others to bring out the end to this are too grave.

Helen Joyce says that whether we like it or not, all of this will only be solved when the men get involved. And they will say that the women said it the wrong way, or that they couldn't listen to us because of our high, squeaky voices. And we will have to accept it because this erosion of our status as a sex class and our sex-based rights is harming women and children.

Golden bridge and support for every step towards it.

NotDavidTennant · 30/11/2021 09:43

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.

Yes, but how is this any different from insisting that in order for GC feminism to comment on the existence (or not) of innate gender indenitity they first have to read everything on gender woo? If there is no God then theology and the related branches of philosophy are all bunk. There is no point in taking them seriously until the existence of God is actually established, just as there is no point in taking gender woo seriously until someone actually demonstrates that there is such a thing as an innate gender identity.

But I fear this is a bit of a derail. Dawkins coming out in support of Kathleen Stock is a good thing IMO.

DysonSphere · 30/11/2021 10:10

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

But where was he before?

Golden bridge. We can't afford to care about this as the consequences of not supporting others to bring out the end to this are too grave.

Helen Joyce says that whether we like it or not, all of this will only be solved when the men get involved. And they will say that the women said it the wrong way, or that they couldn't listen to us because of our high, squeaky voices. And we will have to accept it because this erosion of our status as a sex class and our sex-based rights is harming women and children.

Golden bridge and support for every step towards it.

I see. Depressing but I see the high stakes pragmatism of it.

Wrong. Wrong but right.

InspiralCoalescenceRingdown · 30/11/2021 10:15

@DysonSphere

I wrote a long comment then accidentally swiped the page!

Effectively it's easier to come out in support now. This issue is in the public consciousness now, at least in Britain. But where was he before? He has considerable stature, one of the few who could afford to put himself above the parapet without losing much. But he didn't. Even considering his field.

I have respect for those who came out early. John Cleeese for example, went up in my estimation.

He's not exactly a grizzled GC activist, but:

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/27/richard-dawkins-taught-a-lesson-by-trans-women-_n_8397344.html

Apologies for the penis news link:

www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/10/26/richard-dawkins-tells-students-upset-by-germaine-greer-to-go-home-and-hug-a-teddy/

InspiralCoalescenceRingdown · 30/11/2021 10:20

Dawkins has said some dumb stuff in his time, but if we demand perfection in everyone who speaks out, we'll get precisely zero advocates.

WHRC Women's Declaration seems to be doing great. Pages and pages of signatures from the past couple of days.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/11/2021 10:23

Yes, but how is this any different from insisting that in order for GC feminism to comment on the existence (or not) of innate gender indenitity they first have to read everything on gender woo? If there is no God then theology and the related branches of philosophy are all bunk. There is no point in taking them seriously until the existence of God is actually established, just as there is no point in taking gender woo seriously until someone actually demonstrates that there is such a thing as an innate gender identity.

But I fear this is a bit of a derail. Dawkins coming out in support of Kathleen Stock is a good thing IMO.

I agree with you about theology. And conversely I don't have to understand everything Dawkins does to be agnostic rather than atheist and believe the existence of something beyond the physical we know is ultimately not knowable. I recognise that people can and do say the same about gender identity and I have some respect for that as a personal subjective belief, until it starts to be imposed on others who do not share this world view, to their detriment. As if policy was made on the basis of what angels said or something.

And I don't particularly like Dawkins but his support is a good thing and I welcome it.

blusteredbirds · 30/11/2021 10:48

@CheeseMmmm

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.

I listen to what people say based on what they are saying at that time. I can't at all get my head around the idea that I should not listen to someone on one topic, because I disagree with them on another topic, or don't like them as a person.
Swipe left for the next trending thread