Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

159 replies

PorcelinaV · 21/03/2023 20:57

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".

Richard Dawkins says trans activists 'bullied' Harry Potter author JK Rowling

The biologist called out the bullying of the Harry Potter author and Kathleen Stock for asking people to discuss certain points of controversial issues

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Fukuraptor · 26/03/2023 20:01

I suspect that many non-binary people are experiencing the same thing as GC women, in that they don't "feel" they have a gender identity/identify strongly with gender stereotypes.

But instead of extrapolating that as a common experience shared by the majority of people who are not trans (or everyone) they are working within the mental framework they have been taught by their friends/stonewalled schools/social media. That everyone has a gender identity so if they don't experience one then they must have an extra special hard to feel one like non-binary.

It's interesting that it a (mis) understanding or reinterpretation of how other people experience the world that could define someone rather than their own lived experience (of say being gender non conforming) that impacts how they perceive themselves.

I am finding the religious and philosophical arguments interesting to read.

The discussion about love has made me think about something I have always found interesting which is that when looking at the behaviour of animals, especially mammals the idea of interpreting them as having emotions and intelligence has often been seen as anthropomorphic/unscientific/naive.

That we ought to start from the assumption that they do not and prove each aspect such as having the same hormones etc as humans. As if animals are a completely separate thing from humans. And nature documentaries describe animals as doing things as survival/reproduction machines that react to sensory input. Like that is why the animal is doing something, rather than because they love their young but what else would the mechanism be? How else did we develop it?

We are animals too, and if you set aside idea of us being apart from the animal kingdom a la God/s then surely it shouldn't be a surprise to us that mammals at least have emotional individual experiences of the world. As indeed science continues to discover things like animals having cultures and complex social relationships.

Sorry, rambling now, but the discussion on how we experience the "outside" world and rationalise things based upon our limited sensory inputs reminded me of how we see animals from the outside rather than assume some degree of commonality with our internal experiences.

PorcelinaV · 27/03/2023 04:54

Britinme · 26/03/2023 18:34

Depends what you mean by a 'world outside of mind'. We can certainly test for anything unknown to us but existing in the real world. We can test for our ability to see the world as it is. https://neurosciencenews.com/philosophy-see-world-16511/

I mean world outside of your field of consciousness, which virtually everyone believes in, but which is an unprovable metaphysical belief.

When it comes to free will, there are experiments that people may bring up, but they haven't come close to settling the issue. So if you believe in it or not, at this time, it's all heavily disputed philosophy and not anything we can answer with an experiment.

OP posts:
borntobequiet · 28/03/2023 05:56

I mean world outside of your field of consciousness, which virtually everyone believes in, but which is an unprovable metaphysical belief.

I don’t think this is the same kind of “belief” as having belief in a deity. It doesn’t involve any mental gymnastics or convoluted reasoning. People just operate as though the world is there, and their experience proves them right.
Also, we have lots of evidence of the world we don’t have immediate experience of, such as over the horizon or under the ground, if that’s what you mean, so that world is not unprovable at all. Unless you don’t believe in the existence of anyone or anything outwith your own consciousness, which is a bit silly.

badtime · 28/03/2023 07:52

https://mobile.twitter.com/claireainsworth/status/888365994577735680?lang=zh

Going back to the nature article, the person who wrote it thinks there are only two sexes.

https://mobile.twitter.com/claireainsworth/status/888365994577735680?lang=zh

PorcelinaV · 28/03/2023 08:45

borntobequiet · 28/03/2023 05:56

I mean world outside of your field of consciousness, which virtually everyone believes in, but which is an unprovable metaphysical belief.

I don’t think this is the same kind of “belief” as having belief in a deity. It doesn’t involve any mental gymnastics or convoluted reasoning. People just operate as though the world is there, and their experience proves them right.
Also, we have lots of evidence of the world we don’t have immediate experience of, such as over the horizon or under the ground, if that’s what you mean, so that world is not unprovable at all. Unless you don’t believe in the existence of anyone or anything outwith your own consciousness, which is a bit silly.

I didn't say that it was exactly the same kind of belief in the sense that it was equally well justified. Obviously the example is something that has universal support vs the controversial question of theism.

I'm pointing out that the fact that a belief is unprovable metaphysics doesn't automatically make it wrong, unlikely to exist, or an unreasonable belief.

Of course you could go on to compare with the arguments for theism, and opinions will differ on their strength.

OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 28/03/2023 10:16

I'm pointing out that the fact that a belief is unprovable metaphysics doesn't automatically make it wrong, unlikely to exist, or an unreasonable belief.

Not sure you chose the best example tbh,
Scientists of course tend to work on disprovability rather than provability - and your example of the world only existing inside my consciousness may not be formally disprovable but it's extremely unlikely and unreasonable.

DameMaud · 28/03/2023 11:12

This is such an interesting discussion.

Stream of consciousness warning! (Just off to work so wanting to quickly add this to come back to later)

I am interested in thinking about love, belief, faith in terms of whether they are active or passive. Felt or chosen.
There is falling in love- as passive- something out of our control. always biological? And attachment bonding with our children and family. And then there is active love- or loving as work.
In a long term relationship, when the passion has dissipated, or with parenting, (or any kind of close relationship really) we have to extend ourselves- to be loving even if we are not passively feeling it. In effect then, there is a conscious choice to love.

I've heard theologians talk about faith in the same way- that it can sometimes be an active choice to have faith- rather than the passive experience of feeling it innately, or having the experience of being called. So, some could choose to believe in God or Jesus, or any religious idea or entity, and to live 'as if' it is true- as a valid form of faith.

Similar to in therapy; where people are sometimes encouraged to practicing behaviours from an 'as if' place.

So, to what extent are beliefs passive or active, chosen or felt?

PorcelinaV · 28/03/2023 12:02

ErrolTheDragon · 28/03/2023 10:16

I'm pointing out that the fact that a belief is unprovable metaphysics doesn't automatically make it wrong, unlikely to exist, or an unreasonable belief.

Not sure you chose the best example tbh,
Scientists of course tend to work on disprovability rather than provability - and your example of the world only existing inside my consciousness may not be formally disprovable but it's extremely unlikely and unreasonable.

That's why it's a good example. Because everyone accepts the belief, (it would be silly not to believe it) the example therefore works to show that metaphysical beliefs can be reasonable.

Beliefs don't need to be "scientific" all of the time.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page