Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, the more I look at this the more I see his error. This is the tweet.
“In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black,” wrote Dawkins on Twitter. “Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”
Rachel Dolezal is a scam artist who claimed to be black for her benefit. Comparing her to trans people is unacceptable. He might as well just call all Trans people scammers.
Theres a subtle difference between what your are saying and what he was actually saying.
Rachel Dolezal did identify as mixed race - it was more than just for personal gain. I remember it. I was in the UK at the time. Dolezal was absolutely pulled apart on social media. She still identifies that way now. Would she do that for years and years on end just as a scam. Who is to say what's going on in her head? Certainly not something I relate to.
However, Dawkins was making a comparison between Dolezal being torn apart for how she identified and trans people being supported for how they identify.
Dawkins was just asking people to examine the double standard. It's a valid question to ask and a valid point to make. You can then go on to provide reasons to support your argument, whichever side of the argument you are on.
People should be allowed to ask questions and open up debate. You can side with which ever side you like but we should not be cancelled for asking questions. Free speech should not be erased.
Theres a subtle difference between what your are saying and what he was actually saying.
Rachel Dolezal did identify as mixed race - it was more than just for personal gain. I remember it. I was in the UK at the time. Dolezal was absolutely pulled apart on social media. She still identifies that way now. Would she do that for years and years on end just as a scam. Who is to say what's going on in her head? Certainly not something I relate to.
There was a whole documentary about her that I saw that got as much inside her head as you can. Yes she held onto this identification to the end, and I wouldn't be surprised if she still clings to it. I think it's dysfunctional and delusional given the level she took it to, but she was only a "scam artist" in the sense that she was scamming herself. She took up this "identification" very young. It became a narrative and an identity that she was invested in. She was so convinced of it that she did not see how dishonest and therefore appropriative and inappropriate it was.
People who are convinced they are misgendered seem to really suffer with it; otherwise why would they get involved with painful and expensive treatments and surgeries to try to correct it? If some mental health people think it's a mental health issue, they certainly don't seem to have anything remotely resembling a cure for it.
But I would not draw a false equivalence between transgender persons and someone like Dolezal (not that you were ... but some people probably would). Transgender folks are completely honest -- they don't deny being born biologically whatever they were, they simply so much prefer to be other than that, that they request for people to honor that choice. I think that's entirely different. If Donezal had said from the beginning she was white but wanted to identify as black, things would have turned out very differently. My wife grew up in Berkeley and knows a number of white people who strongly identify with black culture for various reasons. One of her old acquaintances actually became an ordained minister at a fairly well-known black church somewhere out that way, and was devastated when she was ousted from that role by people who felt, rightly or not, that she had no right to "act black". But the difference was that she wasn't pretending to be black, she wasn't dying her skin darker, or lying about it. They hired her knowing exactly who she was. But another faction simply didn't like it. Tribalism won the day.
Theres a subtle difference between what your are saying and what he was actually saying.
Rachel Dolezal did identify as mixed race - it was more than just for personal gain. I remember it. I was in the UK at the time. Dolezal was absolutely pulled apart on social media. She still identifies that way now. Would she do that for years and years on end just as a scam. Who is to say what's going on in her head? Certainly not something I relate to.
However, Dawkins was making a comparison between Dolezal being torn apart for how she identified and trans people being supported for how they identify.
Dawkins was just asking people to examine the double standard. It's a valid question to ask and a valid point to make. You can then go on to provide reasons to support your argument, whichever side of the argument you are on.
People should be allowed to ask questions and open up debate. You can side with which ever side you like but we should not be cancelled for asking questions. Free speech should not be erased.
I don't know a whole lot about the Trans community but here goes. I might see if Geekie is on so she can explain it better.
Dolezal should have been called out IMO. Good call. I think the problem stems from people not understanding that sex is biological, and gender is social. Personally, I would say race is both as well. However, I haven't seen any convincing arguments for what it feels like to know your skin color doesn't match your mind. I think it's an absurd comparison, but I guess I am open if someone wants to step up, the way the Trans community has and explain it.
I see no double standard. I actually argued the Rachel Dolezal thing with white wing extremist here on CD back when this first must have come out. I didn't know it was Dawkins induced but LOL on him.
I question the wisdom of borrowing the critique of "woke" from the far right. It is a meaningless term that roughly equates to "something that makes me uncomfortable or threatens my worldview". It exempts them from having any sort of substantive critique and therefore any substantive discussion. It suggests that the trouble in the world is some ill-defined over-tolerance of difference. Just label it "woke", and you're done. Easy-peasy. I think that people who are actually rationalists can do better than that.
Look, I'm torn on that. I see your points, but I also see it as simply as a convenient short-hand word for mindless (and IMO often irrational) far-left Political Correctness gone off the deep end in the last few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
Sounds like Primaltech is politically conservative and comes down on the same side of many issues with the religionists. Primaltech is not unusual among atheists that have that "rugged individualist" type of mentality.
More like a moderate/classic liberal.
I'm not saying anything that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins haven't said. Surely they're not conservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
One of the big problems with today: Instead of 'discussing' issues as requested here, everybody is automatically cancelled as a knee jerk reaction.
I'm as leftist and liberal as probably anybody on this forum and supportive of all minorities and people's rights to live however they choose.
If the AHA cannot discuss the issues of our day in an educated way and instead jump on the cancel culture bandwagon then that's their choice. Dawkins was awarded a medal by the Humanists UK association in 2019 so there's probably not much love lost.
This. It's a lazy, knee jerk reaction, and a shut down of honest and real conversation, in the name of political correctness, and never "offending" anyone. It's saying that disagreements aren't allowed.
And the reason I find it hypocritical is because... the reason that atheism and humanism have made huge gains in mainstream acceptance, is because of people like Dawkins who tore down what was the previous, 1990's and earlier version of political correctness, when it was socially wrong to ever attack religion/faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
so the view expressed above acknowledges that "atheism is a big tent" which encompasses many views.
yet in the same breath characterizes and dismisses "religionists" as the monolithic (small tent) of "politically conservative" "same side of many issues with the religionists."
Do you ever post anything that's not total straw man? We didn't say that. You're just making stuff up.
Quote:
an earlier post flat out said that "religious people are such heinous immoral murderers"
Which, I was referring to literal, jihadist murderers. Charlie Hebdo attack, Bataclan attack, 9/11, and etc.
Organized religion and acceptance/tolerance of it, constantly making excuses for it while the moderates harbor and enable the extremists, is what enables these atrocities.
Quote:
it is reasonable to recognize that there is diversity among atheists.
it is not reasonable, and is a double standard, to fail to extend the same recognition of diversity among believers, but instead pigeonhole them. Typically using a pejorative.
You're making that up out of nowhere.
It's ironic that you're trying to defend the faith community, while actually making them look worse. If I was in that crowd I wouldn't want you as a representative, defending against atheists. I'd want someone honest.
Rachel Dolezal is a scam artist who claimed to be black for her benefit. Comparing her to trans people is unacceptable. He might as well just call all Trans people scammers.
Actually, I think race is the one thing that we should all be able to just identify as whichever one we feel like.
Because it's ultimately a made up, social construct. There is no actual, scientific thing as 'race'. Its whole existence is based on personal identification and social norms, whatever.
Whereas biological sex is not. It's an objective fact whether someone is male or female or not.
I mean, if I could just identify as a few inches taller, that would be nice. But I can't, because my various physiological attributes are facts of life that I was born with and don't have any choice in the matter.
Richard Dawkins wasn't coming at the trans issue from the angle of some typical American bigoted right wing religious person. He was coming at the question from the fact that he is an Oxford-educated, evolutionary biologist, who could school us all with his knowledge of his fields of scientific expertise. The debate is related to biological sex... and he is actually a biologist. Surely he should be allowed to have a view and state it.
And he didn't even do that much. He just basically accurately pointed out a double standard, and he invited a discussion about the topic. Wow... yeah, let's strip all the man's achievements and cancel his lectures. Great... yeah, that's some real liberalism!
Actually, I think race is the one thing that we should all be able to just identify as whichever one we feel like.
Because it's ultimately a made up, social construct. There is no actual, scientific thing as 'race'. Its whole existence is based on personal identification and social norms, whatever.
Whereas biological sex is not. It's an objective fact whether someone is male or female or not.
I mean, if I could just identify as a few inches taller, that would be nice. But I can't, because my various physiological attributes are facts of life that I was born with and don't have any choice in the matter.
Richard Dawkins wasn't coming at the trans issue from the angle of some typical American bigoted right wing religious person. He was coming at the question from the fact that he is an Oxford-educated, evolutionary biologist, who could school us all with his knowledge of his fields of scientific expertise. The debate is related to biological sex... and he is actually a biologist. Surely he should be allowed to have a view and state it.
And he didn't even do that much. He just basically accurately pointed out a double standard, and he invited a discussion about the topic. Wow... yeah, let's strip all the man's achievements and cancel his lectures. Great... yeah, that's some real liberalism!
regarding bold above:
if someone points out there are "typical American bigoted right wing religious people"
then it bears pointing out that there are also "typical American bigoted right wing atheists"
we see examples of that right here on CD
if a person does not want to be called out as having bigoted views (particularly a public figure) then the way to prevent that is to not make public statements that are bigoted.
Actually, I think race is the one thing that we should all be able to just identify as whichever one we feel like.
Because it's ultimately a made up, social construct. There is no actual, scientific thing as 'race'. Its whole existence is based on personal identification and social norms, whatever.
Whereas biological sex is not. It's an objective fact whether someone is male or female or not.
I mean, if I could just identify as a few inches taller, that would be nice. But I can't, because my various physiological attributes are facts of life that I was born with and don't have any choice in the matter.
Richard Dawkins wasn't coming at the trans issue from the angle of some typical American bigoted right wing religious person. He was coming at the question from the fact that he is an Oxford-educated, evolutionary biologist, who could school us all with his knowledge of his fields of scientific expertise. The debate is related to biological sex... and he is actually a biologist. Surely he should be allowed to have a view and state it.
And he didn't even do that much. He just basically accurately pointed out a double standard, and he invited a discussion about the topic. Wow... yeah, let's strip all the man's achievements and cancel his lectures. Great... yeah, that's some real liberalism!
I see this discussion as more does he make a habit of violating humanitarian principle with the way he goes about this. I will start a thread.
The right wingers took his statement and ran. I am sure that was very humiliating for him.
if a person does not want to be called out as having bigoted views (particularly a public figure) then the way to prevent that is to not make public statements that are bigoted.
Richard Dawkins has not made bigoted public statements.
I actually find the guy's personality kind of annoying, especially with how he approaches the whole topic of atheism. He's my least favorite of the 'four horsemen' new atheists, when it comes to the topic of religion.
But the cancel culture PC lynch mob going after him, is unfair and unwarranted. And dishonest/ hypocritical.
Sam Harris is not a bigot either (he's an extremely thoughtful person)- and he is also a liberal, but he gets attacked by the same types, as being some kind of bigot/whatever-'phobe'/right-winger, whatever nonsense. From the Glenn Greenwald/ Reza Aslan people, and that whole faction of the regressive left.
Richard Dawkins has not made bigoted public statements.
I actually find the guy's personality kind of annoying, especially with how he approaches the whole topic of atheism. He's my least favorite of the 'four horsemen' new atheists, when it comes to the topic of religion.
But the cancel culture PC lynch mob going after him, is unfair and unwarranted. And dishonest/ hypocritical.
Sam Harris is not a bigot either (he's an extremely thoughtful person)- and he is also a liberal, but he gets attacked by the same types, as being some kind of bigot/whatever-'phobe'/right-winger, whatever nonsense. From the Glenn Greenwald/ Reza Aslan people, and that whole faction of the regressive left.
This is that Harris episode I was talking about. It was years ago but I have to agree with the Vox editor over Harris on the dangers of giving certain subjects hang time. It does seem to legitimize them. This was 2018 so I was seeing lots of things that were completely fabricated getting talked about like real things. This subject was eugenics so that's why I agreed with the Editor even though I thought he could have handled it better. I completely agree with Harris that we don't treat Islam with kid gloves. This is America, we call out religion here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
