I wasn’t sure where else to post this or if it’s been discussed already in another thread, but it’s similar to something I still struggle with when it comes to freedom of speech issues
Recently, Richard Dawkins had the humanist award taken away from him because of this tweet:
He’s being accused of attacking transgender people “under the guise of scientific discourse”
Of course he, (and Sam Harris) are under constant attack for their views on Islam as well (not so much on Xianity for some reason?). I mean, we’re not talking about a Joe Rogan here, but a preeminent scientist and holder of numerous awards (one less now). Am I just too taken in by his well written books and British charming sounding accent?
He did nothing but propose a question and say discuss. Am I transphobic for not seeing a problem with that? I have other views on free speech that I’m quite sure would not go down well here. I feel when Canada enacted a law requiring the use of gender pronouns, it’s a slippery slope. I vehemently disagree with most of Jordan Peterson’s fame grabbing rhetoric, but did agree with his stance on that law
I’d like to “discuss” what is acceptable free speech and what isn’t. I basically hold that any speech that isn’t “hate” speech is fair game whether we agree with it or not. There probably isn’t much that Anne Coulter and I agree on politically, but I think it’s absurd to ban her and others like her from speaking at a university, which is supposed to be a bastion of debate for new ideas
Anyway, mainly curious what others here think of this Dawkins controversy and couldn’t find anything on it in other threads
So you really think a scientist like Dawkins is transphobic? He of all people should realize (and does) that being gay is not a choice and should understand transgender issues and I feel confident he does
How? Peaceful protesting is a right under the 1st Amendment. Florida just passed a law saying it’s OK to hit protesters with your car. I mean yea, maybe they won’t throw you in jail for protesting, but they won’t arrest the guy that runs you over either.
This needs like a chart of “are you a minority protesting against the state or a white celebrity upset people are mad at you online?” Because we see 100z coverage of the latter despite the former being way worse.
But how do you reconcile these two statements? Shouldn’t a great scientist also be a competent critical thinker? Or do you view him like Watson and Crick (I can’t remember which one got into serious trouble over perceived racist views). I just think ideas of a preeminent respected scientist or thinker like Noam Chomsky should be allowed to be put ideas out there and not get shut down before a serious debate ensues. Some may be debunked easily.
I read at least one comment already accusing Dawkins of being transphobic without giving any evidence to support that accusation. I just can’t respect that. Ideas, even unpopular or uncomfortable ones need to be debated.
Lastly, I think you need to be consistent. If you’re going to call Dawkins transphobic then you should be never ben guilty of referring to an unknown person as a particular gender without knowing for sure. But how many here do that? If asked where something is, unless you’re willing to an unknown looking male as “they” and not that guy or him, you’re just as guilty of downplaying transgender issues imo. I don’t do it, but maybe I should start. I’ll call a guy who looks like a dude a guy until otherwise notified that he identifies as a she. So that seems transphobic in itself
The humanity of other people, especially marginalized people, is not something you just put up for debate like it’s some otherwise meaningless exercise.
Again, please explain. I have a hard time believing someone who has made a career out of studying such things doesn’t have even a modest understanding of of trans issues and the biology of sex and gender. He’s a biologist for crying out loud! I want to agree with you, but please show your work and where you’re coming up with that someone who’s made a living and name for himself studying this field for decades doesn’t have even a modest understanding. Or at least not a much better one than you or I
The beauty of science is that there is no overriding authority (as is religion for instance). Everything is peer reviewed and the entire purpose is to find test and poker holes in a theory to prove it wrong. This is should be allowed is what I’m saying
The tweet is pretty problematic and the main issue is that to a majority of unaware people will see as a dunk while the tweeter is probably aware of why it is problematic from a logical standpoint. Let’s assume that gender identity is biological, that race is biological, but obviously racial identity is not. Dude majorly jumps the shark conflating these issues in a way that is difficult for a normie to discern. Rachel Dolezal literally claimed to be black and at somepoint it was determined that she was born of two white parents, so claiming she was vilified for identifying as black is disingenuous. The whole tweet is a disaster and literally each sentence gets worse.
Being trans isn’t just a “man” waking up one day and deciding to be a “woman.” These are people who feel, at the very core of their being and despite immense societal pressure to just “be normal,” that their body doesn’t line up with who they are. I mean, from just about every gay or lesbian person I’ve talked to, almost all of them have at one point thought at some point in their lives that, if there were a pill available to take that would just make them straight, they’d take it in a heartbeat. And being gay or lesbian is way, way more acceptable in society right now. We also know quite well that there are a fair number of ways that a person can have a sexual genotype that does not line up with their sexual phenotype, so maybe have a bit of humility when it comes to proclaiming to know what a “man” is?
For example, people colloquially know that “men” are XY and “women” are XX, but the presence of a Y chromosome isn’t an absolute determinant of having a male body plan. It’s not terribly common knowledge that the determining factor of having a male body plan is not the Y chromosome but (mostly) a single gene on the Y chromosome. That gene is not inherently tied to the Y chromosome! It can translocate to an X chromosome. If this happens in the process of generating a sperm cell, a father can pass along a Y chromosome to his child that lacks that gene and will result in that XY child lacking the gene to produce a male body plan. That kid will be born with a female body plan and (most likely) will go through life feeling like a woman and be none the wiser about her genotype without a genetic test. So, is she a “man” or a “woman?” Bear in mind, that one gene isn’t the only functional gene on the Y chromosome! There are other ways in which someone’s very cells may be insensitive to testosterone or estrogen signaling, and some people with female body plans may have higher testosterone levels than some people with male body plans? Which of them are men, and which are women?
There are, of course, other factors that go into body plan, there are cases like being XXY, and the full biology of what it means to feel like you’re a man or a woman is very complex and not fully understood. It is ridiculously naive to just permanently declare that anyone who is born with a penis is a man and anyone born with a vagina is a woman when it’s pretty common knowledge that people are born with intersex body plans, and anyone with a reasonable understanding of the biology should know that nothing in biology is a strict binary and that genital morphology isn’t everything that it means to be a man or a woman.
And, before you give me the gamete production answer, do you think that people who don’t produce (functional) gametes count as full people who can live their lives as they please? Because if you don’t, we’re going to have a pretty strong disagreement.
I’m a peer. So are many of the people calling Dawkins an idiot and an asshole. Richard Dawkins may know some things about biology, but when it comes to sex and gender, he’s an idiot and an asshole. People calling him that is not the erosion of free speech. It’s peer review.
