Richard Dawkins

[zanahoria]

He is similarly despairing about the tenor of the debate around trans rights. “The idea seems to be that it doesn’t matter what’s objectively true, what matters is the way you feel. That’s ridiculous. Just because you feel you’re a woman – I guess you can have your delusion if you like, but if you’re 6ft 4in and you go to swimming competitions and walk away with all the medals, that’s just dishonest. That’s cheating.”
What he particularly hates is the way the trans debate is sometimes framed as something unworthy of debate at all. “I really despise the tactics of the trans people, the way they won’t actually argue the case but just cancel people. That’s contemptible,” he says. “It’s horrible that they can’t actually just have a civilised conversation… You can’t discuss it. You just get people cancelled, get publishers bullied into cancelling books, and women forced to change in front of fully intact males. They’re put in female prisons… It’s a scandal.”
What does he make of the claim that vulnerable trans people might be nudged towards taking their own lives if their rights are not extended or defended? “Nonsense. That’s a great myth. These so-called suicidal people – they’re mentally screwed-up anyway.”

https://archive.ph/BXlJr

But that is exactly what he said. The meaning is clear.

What is your point? What are you really trying to say? You don’t like Richard Dawkins? You don’t agree with his point that males shouldn’t be in women’s sport? You want everyone to just tell you that we all agree with you and Dawkins should have expressed himself differently? You want Dawkins to rewrite it in a way that is acceptable to you? Just what do you want??

You seem utterly fixated on this mention of height when it isn’t the core of Dawkins’ argument.

Do read the quote in the OP, it isn't exactly the same.

It isn't the core of his argument? It's nothing to do with his argument. Sex is the issue not height. If you were a teenage girl who is well over 6' how do you think she feels hearing that winning when you are 6'4" is cheating.

God knows where you'd get the idea I'm saying it's ok for males to be in female sports, I've repeatedly said it's sex that matters not height. If a man is 5'2" he's still a man.

What's your issue? Are you a Richard Dawkins fan girl so it doesn't matter what he says you think he's right. Is that what you are saying.

Tell us now is it the sex or the height that matters. No whataboutery just say sex or height.

This

Just because you feel you’re a woman – I guess you can have your delusion if you like, but if you’re 6ft 4in and you go to swimming competitions and walk away with all the medals, that’s just dishonest. That’s cheating.”

Is copy and pasted directly from the OP. First paragraph. Third sentence of the quote.

But that isn't 5he same as the quote I replied to. You need to compare them.

Which bit do you think has been misquoted?

He is referencing the 6'4 bloke who walked away with medals in swimming as an example that everyone (who hasn't been in a coma for the past five years) is aware of, because people are more prepared to accept an argument with an actual real life example rather than with a hypothetical scenario. He isn't saying that the cut off between the sexes is at 6'4''

Yes, sex is the issue, not height.

Is that all you wanted someone to say? I really didn’t think that was your argument. We are all in agreement here that it is sex that is the problem.

HOWEVER.

I am not a Dawkins fangirl 🙄but he did not say that height was the issue rather than sex.

Read the bloody thing; either you struggle with reading comprehension or for some reason you want to paint him as saying that height is the primary issue.

He is clearly referring to the same person when he says “call yourself a woman” as he is when he says “but if you are 6’4” .

Even if you hate the man and everything he stands for, there is no need to misrepresent his argument when we can all see it written down quite clearly.

We are talking about the words he said, not deciding on his character and then viewing whether he was right based on how much we like him.

I don’t know if this is a Gen X thing. Suspect it might be. But I find the idea that “he must be strong because I don’t like him” is so peculiar and takes being narrow minded to a whole new level.

I have voted Labour all my life. However, if I read a column written by a Tory, I will read it and follow the argument. If I agree I won’t have an identity crisis. If I don’t I may understand why they think it without agreeing. You should try it.

Ad hominem? There's a lot of it about.

I'm saying height is irrelevant.

I'm surprised you didn't think that was my argument considering how many times I said sex matters not height.

The reason for the confusion is that Dawkins also thinks that sex is what matters and that height is irrelevant. The way you posted made it look like you disagreed with him.

If you actually agreed with him but just wanted to nitpick his choice of rhetorical flourishes, it might have been wiser to signal that very explicitly.

Good on him

Jesus Christ.

Yes, on a population level there are differences in behaviour at between males and females.. And yes, I firmly believe some of this is innate, and culture can act to increase or decrease incidents of innate behaviours. The evidence supports this.

I can acknowledge all this and still think gender ideology is utter bollocks.

The fact that there are differences at a population level does not mean each individual who does not fit what you seem to call the ' average behaviour' is really the opposite sex or gender or whatever you want to call it. There is still room for individual difference. Because for there to be an average, there has to be a range of behaviour within that sex class. That is how averages work. Do you even understand what an average is?

That is why there is not an average type of genital for males or an average type of genital for females. Because there is only one type of genital for each sex. (there may be range of appearance of these genitals, but there is still only one type of genital).

Your example of male violence makes my point well. Yes, men are vastly more likely to be violent than women. But no-one sane argues that men who are not violent are not really men. We all know that its quite normal for men to not be violent.

Yep.

Behavioural traits are not reliable category boundary definitions for categorising sex classes in humans.

It really just has to be repeated over and over and over.

Oh good grief. What RD said is perfectly clear. Those arguing about who is or isn’t 6’4” are doing so because splitting hairs over the minutiae distracts from the fact TRA arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. They have no clear, solid case against the very simple fact that ‘men are not women’ because - well, because facts are facts. The only ways they can respond are with abuse or distraction.

Men are not women regardless of their height women are women regardless of their height. In other words height is irrelevant.

Dawkins was clearly referring to Lia Thomas in that comment not tall people in general

Yes. And Lia Thomas is still a deluded man who is 6'4".

Bump

It's not irrelevant. Height is an advantage in swimming, not to the degree it is in basketball and certainly not to a degree to outweigh other male advantages over women, but elite swimmers both male and female are significantly taller than average. If Thomas is indeed 6'4, he will have significant height advantage over the vast majority of female swimmers on top of all the other advantages of being male.

And he will also have an advantage over any female swimmer who is also 6'4". Because he is male.

TheignT has decided to make this discussion all about the strawman argument that complaints about men in women's sports is based on height, when the real complaint about men in women's sports is about their sex.

He/she has managed to completely derail this discussion now over several days. If anyone wants a real life example of strawmanning and what it does to a discussion, just look at what TheignT has been doing in this thread.