Richard Dawkins says trans activists 'bullied' JK Rowling for standing up for women's rights

[PorcelinaV]

Richard Dawkins says trans activists 'bullied' JK Rowling for standing up for women's rights

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/richard-dawkins-says-trans-activists-29511706

Richard Dawkins claims trans activists 'bullied' Harry Potter author JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock for standing up for women's rights....

He claimed that it was very upsetting that a "tiny minority" of people managed to capture the discourse to "talk errant nonsense".

He also stated there are only two sexes. He was crystal clear about it.

Are the TRAs going to claim that Dawkins is in the pocket of the Religious Right now?

Personally, I'm not Dawkins' biggest fan but I'm glad he's speaking up.

I don't have much time for Dawkins when he tries to talk about philosophy, but he seems to be a good scientist and he is always willing to say things that he thinks are important even if they are very unpopular.

But I don't think it will make much impact. In a way he's similar to a lot of other public intellectuals who have spoken out on this, or other free speech issues, from a pretty classical liberal background. A lot of them now seem to be considered "right wing" when 10 years ago they were fairly mainstream centrists, or even part of the left.

Any pressure is good.

He's fighting the next religion

He's a staunch atheist and a scientist. He was always going to have difficulty just accepting the gendered souls woo and the pseudoscience that's coming out of the trans movement.
I'd love to see him follow up The God Delusion with The Gender Delusion. Not only would it be a fascinating read, but he'd make a mint.

What is “errant” nonsense? Is it worse than arrant nonsense?!
I can’t stand Dawkins and his ill informed rants against Christianity - he’s a biologist, not a theologian, and equivalent to a vicar trying to pontificate on biology after reading Noddy’s guide to wildlife - but I will take any allies we can get, to defend women’s rights!

I saw a response on Twitter saying he's an evolutionary biologist so should stay in his lane as he doesn't understand gender. 😜

There's plenty of so-called outspoken rational materialist atheists who have been totally silent about genderism, or some even fervently championing it. Almost as if for them, their so-called rational atheism was actually itself a religion of CleverAndCoolNotLikeThatLot.

So for me it's almost a feeling of relief to hear that Dawkins has kept a consistent rational worldview.

I can’t stand Dawkins and his ill informed rants against Christianity - he’s a biologist, not a theologian, and equivalent to a vicar trying to pontificate on biology after reading Noddy’s guide to wildlife

Does a person need to be a theologian to express an opinion about religion / Christianity now?

😂 “Doesn’t understand gender”

🤣

Dawkins is a provocateur with some awful views about Islam. But on this matter he is right.

I believe a democracy must have free speech for everyone and an open forum for debate. Let people win their argument fairly. Silencing your enemy doesn't win an argument in the long run.

Also 'Christianity' as we see it in all its forms today represents two thousand years of argument and disagreement on the meaning and definition of words describing the tiniest to the most vast thing.
We don't have Christianity now without the theologians and believers disagreeing for all that time and splitting apart; each position often hitched comfortably to a prevailing political power. Dawkins has as much right to talk about religion as anyone. You don't have to agree with anyone.

An opinion, no, but I read the God Delusion and it was clear he really doesn't understand Christian theology. Given that he was trying to deconstruct it, he ended up making a very poor argument.

Nevertheless, he does understand biology and he is a revered figure (or was, at least) in the New Atheist circles. It will also be difficult to paint him as a Christian fundamentalist.

The God Delusion is Dawkin’s opinion presumably.

Good old science! 😊

If they can't smear him with being a right wing Christian he'll have to be a Nazi or a fascist.

Would have been nice if he'd stood up for JKR at the time.

If you are going to pontificate about it publicly, it's helpful to know enough to avoid making yourself look like a boob. And it's not just theology where he is a boob, he makes playground level arguments about epistemology too.

In any case, I think he's been on the outs with the Rationalists' for a while now. As far as I can see, big-R Rationalism seems to be a sort of pop-logical positivism. So I'm not totally surprised to see it succumb to contradictions.

I doubt RD cares much if some people think he’s spouting nonsense. The God Delusion did pretty well Didn’t it? You’re never going to please all of the people when it come to religion and since religion affects all of us in one way or another we should all feel free to share our opinion on it. It’s the same with trans activism. The amount of times trans activists try and argue that only trans people should speak about trans issues because non trans people don’t understand or because it doesn’t affect us.

I'm in NZ. Dawkins was here recently and made a right twit of himself by complaining about the use of Maori words in official documents. Maori is one of the official languages here and complaining about its use is akin to saying Welsh people shouldn't use Welsh in Wales.

He's a fine scientist but he doesn't know when he's not sufficiently informed to give an opinion that deserves respect. His attitude seems to be a) science proves everything worth knowing b) I'm a fine scientist, therefore c) all my opinions are worth knowing. Actually lots of them aren't, and his expressing them detracts from what he has to say that is worth knowing.

"Almost as if for them, their so-called rational atheism was actually itself a religion of CleverAndCoolNotLikeThatLot."

It's easy to pick on Bible errors or the Roman Catholic Church. But pick on something like Islam or trans-activism and you will lose your good standing with the political left. You are no longer one of the good people. Doesn't matter if it's the truth.

Good for Dawkins.

I like Richard Dawkins, he's the kind of person that enjoys actual debate, so I wouldn't expect to always agree with him. I do come from a family that will argue, in a friendly way, over anything and work in academia, so I am probably more used to his style.

I saw him talk a few times, way back, about biology and he was so passionate about it. He only veered into religion because the anti-evolution people were sniping at him constantly, they essentially "started it," so I don't blame him for answering back. His interpretation of Christianity is not going to align with everyone's as there is hardly a lot of agreement between the Christians of the world. He was answering back, mainly, to the Christian "Intelligent" design, Earth is 4000 year old crew who had been pestering him. If you have a more moderate interpretation, then it would seem he is wrong, but I'd focus on the people making Christianity look stupid, rather than the person calling them out.

He is an important voice in this debate as he can't be dismissed as an American Right wing Christian, nor by the "Friendly Neighbourhood biologists" with their new facts about clownfish.

He can, however, be dismissed as a white, male, cisgender dinosaur who is blind to his privilege and who doesn't understand the wood for the trees. I hope this doesn't happen but I suspect it will.