Search results for query: *

OK, but I don't know how that connects to anything here.

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.

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".

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...

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...