Richard Dawkins "stripped of humanist of the year" award.

[untermensche]

All you can know about it is what I tell you.

Even if that were true, why would that be outside the domain of potential study? I can, in fact, interview and observe you, just as any other phenomenon in life. You exist as more than just a philosophical concept; you are an observable and measurable entity in the real world, same as anything else.

If you question the reports from one person then you question them from all people.

Well, that's just a good habit to have in the first place.

OK. I question your gender identification.

Whatever you say it is.

You are wrong! Stop it!!

 

[Politesse]

Even if that were true, why would that be outside the domain of potential study? I can, in fact, interview and observe you, just as any other phenomenon in life. You exist as more than just a philosophical concept; you are an observable and measurable entity in the real world, same as anything else.

Well, that's just a good habit to have in the first place.

OK. I question your gender identification.

Whatever you say it is.

You are wrong! Stop it!!

I don't think you understand what "questioning" means...

 

[untermensche]

Even if that were true, why would that be outside the domain of potential study? I can, in fact, interview and observe you, just as any other phenomenon in life. You exist as more than just a philosophical concept; you are an observable and measurable entity in the real world, same as anything else.

Well, that's just a good habit to have in the first place.

OK. I question your gender identification.

Whatever you say it is.

You are wrong! Stop it!!

I don't think you understand what "questioning" means...

I don't think you know all that is possible.

You say you identify as a male we are done.

I can't dispute it in any way.

 

[UValley]

Well, that's fine. No one is calling for him to be jailed. He's just being stripped of a humanitarian award, which, if he opposes social justice activism as you say, makes perfect sense.

But Dawkins just asked a question. Why is asking a question equivalent to "opposing social justice activism"?

Perhaps more importantly, people disagree about the nature of real "social justice".

Let me give an example. Some people think trans-women should be allowed into female sports as this is the inclusive, fair, non-discriminatory thing to do.

Other people, however, are going to think that's not a real "social justice" cause at all. Quite the opposite. That's a violation of women's traditional sex based rights, and takes opportunities away from biological females. One of the major reasons we separated sports by sex in the first place is it's simply not a fair competition.

So if you say to person X, that we are kicking you out of a humanist organisation because "you don't support social justice activism", you may just be begging the question over what real "social justice activism" happens to be in this case.

If you start insisting that you have to have all the right ethical opinions to qualify as a "humanist", then it actually looks like that undermines/contradicts humanism. It's rather turning itself into a sect of supposed "humanism" where you aren't allowed to ask questions which may upset the orthodoxy.

 

[Politesse]

Well, that's fine. No one is calling for him to be jailed. He's just being stripped of a humanitarian award, which, if he opposes social justice activism as you say, makes perfect sense.

But Dawkins just asked a question. Why is asking a question equivalent to "opposing social justice activism"?

Perhaps more importantly, people disagree about the nature of real "social justice".

Let me give an example. Some people think trans-women should be allowed into female sports as this is the inclusive, fair, non-discriminatory thing to do.

Other people, however, are going to think that's not a real "social justice" cause at all. Quite the opposite. That's a violation of women's traditional sex based rights, and takes opportunities away from biological females. One of the major reasons we separated sports by sex in the first place is it's simply not a fair competition.

So if you say to person X, that we are kicking you out of a humanist organisation because "you don't support social justice activism", you may just be begging the question over what real "social justice activism" happens to be in this case.

If you start insisting that you have to have all the right ethical opinions to qualify as a "humanist", then it actually looks like that undermines/contradicts humanism. It's rather turning itself into a sect of supposed "humanism" where you aren't allowed to ask questions which may upset the orthodoxy.

Why are you talking about some imaginary made up case instead of the one at hand?

 

[UValley]

He compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal. For one thing, it's pretty insulting to draw that comparison in the first place. But more significantly, Dawkins is ignoring the fact that psychologists and neuroscientists have been studying trans people for decades. Transsexuality is a established medical condition, not a lifestyle choice.

He may not be transphobic, but he did write something pretty fucking silly. Especially silly for a scientist who expounds the virtue of evidence-based reasoning.

I agree the language about "choice" was badly chosen, but this is a minor quibble imo.

I don't see why it's insulting to bring up Rachel Dolezal. She apparently really does identify as black in some sense.

What about people that identify as disabled? That's imo clearly some sort of medical condition also, and hypothetically it might be justified in some cases to medically amputate limbs of a physically healthy patient.

(If it were the only known way to stop psychological distress, or other ways had failed; if there was evidence that this approach could actually improve the lives of some patients.)

So even if it's a recognized medical condition...

Would we therefore believe that they 'literally are' the thing they identify as?

(I mean, before we start cutting off limbs obviously.)

 

[untermensche]

What about people that identify as disabled?

Disability fraud is common.

But it is to get something.

A transsexual gets nothing but headaches.

 

[UValley]

Why are you talking about some imaginary made up case instead of the one at hand?

Because Dawkins just asked a question.

I'm trying to suggest, that even if Dawkins went further than that, you still can't say he is a bad humanist or against "social justice".

 

[UValley]

What about people that identify as disabled?

Disability fraud is common.

But it is to get something.

A transsexual gets nothing but headaches.

Sure it may be common in one sense. That doesn't mean there aren't people that really identify that way and medical professionals would be convinced that they are genuine. They aren't claiming to be disabled in the same sense as someone committing benefit fraud.

 

[bigfield]

"Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her "she" out of courtesy."
His position on the "trans women are women" vs. "trans women are men" argument appears to be exactly the same as yours.

You're right - his argument does seem to be the same as mine.

 

[untermensche]

What about people that identify as disabled?

Disability fraud is common.

But it is to get something.

A transsexual gets nothing but headaches.

Sure it may be common in one sense. That doesn't mean there aren't people that really identify that way and medical professionals would be convinced that they are genuine. They aren't claiming to be disabled in the same sense as someone committing benefit fraud.

Shell shock was real.

The people who had it had no change to their brain.

But it was real.

 

[Politesse]

Do the people who keep going "but what did he doooo?" really think they are making some sort of convincing argument? His questionable actions and statements have not only been described but discussed ad nauseam for years on this forum. Restating them over and over and over is not going to make any particular difference in how people think about them.

 

[repoman]

Based Tranny Blaire White



Chase is a delusional idiot.

You can be whatever you want socially, surgically and with hormones, but Blaire is a biological male and Chase a biological female.

 

[Bomb#20]

The question is: What are we a body or a mind?

If we say we are a mind then a woman's mind is a woman's mind.

If the body does not match it is because biology is quirky.

Who can say what it takes to make a male or female mind?

A mind has thousands of measurable characteristics...

The mind cannot be observed in any way. Not even by the person with it.

Over in the "Cretaceous" thread, you wrote "The past does not exist anymore. You can't show it to me or point me in any direction to find it." and "Reality is that which could possibly be observed or detected in some way.". Going by that principle, if you're right that the mind cannot be observed in any way, not even by the person with it, then that means the mind does not exist in reality. Therefore a transwoman does not have a female mind.

People do have some nice imaginative stories about brain activity they observe though.

Yes indeedy. For instance,

Shell shock was real.

The people who had it had no change to their brain.

But it was real.

Why do you think they had no change to their brains? How do you know it was real if the patients had no change to their brains and their minds could not be observed in any way? And why do you keep accusing people who know more physics than you of believing in "miracles" when you're the one who appears to be relying on the theory that we have immaterial souls?

How do YOU look at MY gender identity?

All you can know about it is what I tell you.

How on earth would I know even the thing about your gender identity that you tell me? The mind cannot be observed in any way, not even by the person with it, remember? So even if you tell me you're a woman, that can give me no information about whether you are a woman, because not even you know whether you have a female mind.

If observation of a person is not an available method to decide whether he or she is a woman, then neither is self-identification. Your line of argument torpedoes all theories of womanhood equally; it doesn't make a special exception for the Woke theory.

 

[Bomb#20]

Do the people who keep going "but what did he doooo?" really think they are making some sort of convincing argument? His questionable actions and statements have not only been described but discussed ad nauseam for years on this forum. Restating them over and over and over is not going to make any particular difference in how people think about them.

Convincing? Only to rational people, not to religious thinkers.

"Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her "she" out of courtesy."
His position on the "trans women are women" vs. "trans women are men" argument appears to be exactly the same as yours.

You're right - his argument does seem to be the same as mine.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The question is: What are we a body or a mind?

If we say we are a mind then a woman's mind is a woman's mind.

If the body does not match it is because biology is quirky.

Who can say what it takes to make a male or female mind?

A mind has thousands of measurable characteristics; some correlate with sex and others don't. Sometimes researchers select one of the traits that correlates with sex, measure it in cis and trans people, and find that transwomen average closer to the average for ciswomen than the average for cismen; this measurement, they label "a female mind". That is saying what it takes to make a female mind: it takes the one specific trait they measured. Whenever I hear about one of these studies, I always wonder about the thousands of other traits they didn't measure.

Good point of course. And for example:


1. Cis women experience having a vagina. Trans women do not experience having a vagina. Many experience having a penis.

2. Cis women have preferences involving their vaginas. Trans women do not. Many have preferences involving their penises.

3. Cis women have had the experiences of having a vagina for decades. Trans women have not, and instead have experienced having a penis for decades (usually).

In fiction, people sometimes swap bodies, so 1. and 3. do not go together, and one might wonder what happens about the semantics of the term when they do not. Are they women, or men? Or neither? But in reality that has never happen on our planet, and - in what seems to be a very rare case of disagreement unless I misunderstood some of your posts - as I see it, trans women are probably men, and trans men are probably women (with some potential exceptions for abnormal sexual organs, etc.).

Of course, I may well be mistaken: you're excellent at observing language, and have more examples of current English usage than I do, so that is good evidence that the meaning changed at least for a large portion of the population...but I also find evidence going in the opposite direction, which looks pretty strong to me.

 

[Metaphor]

Do the people who keep going "but what did he doooo?" really think they are making some sort of convincing argument? His questionable actions and statements have not only been described but discussed ad nauseam for years on this forum. Restating them over and over and over is not going to make any particular difference in how people think about them.

State them. What did Dawkins say that was "bigoted"?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A male who thinks they have a mind of a woman might very well have a genetic anomaly that gives them a mind of a woman.

We have no idea what goes on in some other person's mind.

Since we have no idea what goes on in some other person's mind, then a male who thinks they have a mind of a woman also has no idea what goes on in some other person's mind. But then, he has no way of distinguishing between female minds and male minds. For that reason, any assessment that his mind is female-like on his part is epistemically irrational.


Moreover, since we have no idea what goes on in some other person's mind, any difference between men and women has to be based on traits other than mental ones - as we have no means of distinguishing between female and male minds.

ETA: It looks like B20 beat me to it already.

 

[Metaphor]

Based Tranny Blaire White

View attachment 33116

Chase is a delusional idiot.

You can be whatever you want socially, surgically and with hormones, but Blaire is a biological male and Chase a biological female.

Blaire White is right, which makes her public enemy #1 with transactivists.

 

[The AntiChris]

His questionable actions and statements have not only been described but discussed ad nauseam for years on this forum.

Another "everyone knows" justification (a variation on the "it's obvious" argument) from an anti-Dawkinist.

What anti-Dawkinists rarely do is provide actual quotes in full context.