Richard Dawkins 'Claims' Trans Women Aren't Real By Definition

[rug]

And These Are The Reasons Why He's Wrong

The Huffington Post UK | By Eve Hartley
Posted: 27/10/2015 13:20 GMT
Updated: 30/10/2015 11:59 GMT

Prominent biologist and writer Richard Dawkins has waded into the row over efforts to ban Germaine Greer from speaking at a leading university by asking "Is a trans woman a woman"?

Greer, who has controversially claimed trans women are not "real women", has come under scrutiny after students at the University of Cardiff launched a petition to 'no-platform' her from campus.

But in an apparent response to his own question, Dawkins wrote on his social media account: "If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her "she" out of courtesy."

His comments, which base gender identity entirely on chromosomes, have sparked backlash from scientists and from within the transgender community.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/27/richard-dawkins-taught-a-lesson-by-trans-women-_n_8397344.html

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/658622852405534721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[JackInGreen]

1. Dawkins doesn't seem to know how to hold an opinion

He eats it and then shits in everyone's cereal.

[rug]

5. The first comment after the tweet is "@RichardDawkins delete your account"

His response: "@partimetroll Why? What could anyone possibly object to in my tweet? Please tell. I'm sincerely curious."

Eamon McFall then defends him thusly: "@RichardDawkins the topic is dangerous as you're white, straight and identify as a man. People like us shouldn't comment. Apparently."

[arcane1]

2. "If by self-identification, yes" seems accurate to me.

Forgive my ignorance, but what's the issue?

[rug]

9. This is just one of the issues:

Jane Fae, campaigner for sexual rights and writer on issues of political and sexual liberty, who studied under Dawkins, claimed the controversial atheist's theory was problematic.

"Dawkins adopts the same old binary thinking that has bedevilled debate on these issues lately: an attempt to create two frameworks - the social and the biological - and within those to identify two wholly separate categorisation systems: sex and gender," Fae told the Huffington Post UK.

Fae claims separating social and biological frameworks in this instance is redundant: "The problem goes much deeper, with recent research increasingly suggesting that some behavioural characteristics are significantly influenced by underpinning biology.

"No: not the old chesnut about 'male brain' vs. 'female brain': but rather the possibility that one's identity, one's 'gender allegiance', which may be viewed in terms of social expression, has clear biological roots."

[arcane1]

13. Thanks, I see the point now.

[snagglepuss]

16. What biogical roots? Don't all biological roots come back

to chromosomes? I really fail to see why people are in a tizzy with Greer's and Dawkin's POV.

Chromosomally a transgender female is not a real women. Fae's pov seems preposterous. How can she argue that sex and gender aren't separate categories, one needs only to look at different cultures to see that gender expression varies greatly.

[rug]

18. There's a lot of information in that article.

Here's one link in it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/dna-double-take.html?_r=1

[guillaumeb]

3. Good to see that Dawkins is as respectfull of sexual difference

as he is tolerant of faith. And any opinions that differ from his own.

Is it too soon to nominate him for the Ben Carson "foot in mouth" award?

[rug]

10. There aren't enough shoes.

[MisterP]

4. neo-Victorian neo-Victorian is neo-Victorian

in a few hours he'll "apologize over the backlash," say he didn't give the issue any real thought before letting his fingers outrun his brain, and grumble that people shouldn't hold him to such high standards like researching something you're talking about

and the fans will squeal that "you didn't read what he REALLY said, you're just going by the headline!" and "I agree with Greer: Honduras and Jamaica are going too gentle on these unwomen"

[rug]

6. The tweets defending him are revealing.

[MisterP]

7. it's a real TERFstorm

[rug]

8. Along with plain transphobia.

[MisterP]

11. next Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond will say that gays are twice as misogynistic as any straight

guy; after all, if icky het sex is already sleeping with The Enemy, now there's two *shudder* MEN being anti-woman in bed!

or something

I think the lights are going out on this sort of thinking as the Clinton campaign throws whatever it can at the wicked white male thwarting the coronation

[guillaumeb]

12. I must save this post for the next time someone calls out a religious figure

for being intolerant and claiming that intolerance is an essential part of belief and organized religion.

[rug]

14. Be ready for, "He's not an atheist Pope!" and "We have no holy book!"

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[longship]

15. Gees! I like Dawkins' biology.

When not talking about biology, maybe he should just keep his mouth shut. He seems to have the incredible ability to thrust his foot down his throat.

Yet he is an incredible biologist.

Just saying, "Oh dear! Not Dawkins again! Does he ever consider what he says before he flaps his gums?"

I don't think so. What a waste of intelligence.

[rug]

17. In the article, Jane Fae, one of his former students, is questioning his biology on this subject.

[longship]

20. Well, that is part of science.

Questioning! That is how it all works. As Dawkins has and will say.

I find his scientific writings very good. Try The Ancestor's Tale, one of the most brilliant books on biology ever written for non-biologists. It is a compendious compelation of evolution in action throughout our planet's history. Deep science here.

And then there's The Greatest Show on Earth which is Dawkins' argument about the evidences for evolution. It is an astoundingly good read. And very well written.

And, of course, there is The God Delusion which I would argue is his sole polemic, however a very good one, and no where near what Christopher Hitchens laid down in god is not Great, probably the best true polemic against religion ever written, as only Hitch could do.

Yes, Dawkins often flaps his gums on topics unrelated to biology. I tend to dismiss those pronouncements. Apparently the guy does not know when to keep his mouth shut. Richard, just stick to biology!

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Here's how to respond appropriately to this sort of shit.

What Dawkins said was reprehensible and indefensible.

See how that works?

[Yorktown]

25. Disagree

While personally in full support of gay or trans rights, I do not see how Dawkins is wrong.

Can a man who transitioned to woman bear children? No.
So Dawkins formulation, while lacking in sweetness, isn't factually wrong.

The technical word might be 'transgendered woman',
but the courteous thing to do, as Dawkins suggested, is to treat the person as a lady.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Nope it is the deliberate conflation of biological sex with gender.

The two are different and Dawkins is not an idiot.

[Yorktown]

31. Still disagree

I do not see how Dawkins "deliberate(ly) conflat(es) biological sex with gender".

To me, he does something quite simple:

a/ acknowledges that a man transitioning to a woman retains male chromosomes and will not -as medical science stands for now- be able to give birth.

b/ acknowledges that for genetic and/or nurture reasons identifies as a woman. And, as a cooperative social animal, Dawkins specifiaclly mentions he will treat that person accorcding to her choice, i.e. to be a woman. It strikes me that people only stop at the bluntness of Dawkins's sentences -however grounded in reality-, while overlooking his real life exquisite urbanity.

Let's put it another way: among people who support gay and trans rights, there are two options:
- the Dawkins way: be blunt about reality, but supportive and nice in real life
- the Newspeak way: hope nice words will make biology play along.

I prefer realism = the Dawkins way.

But he can come across as stern and uncompromising, does he not?

[deathrind]

51. You are absolutely right...

But since it is Dawkins people are going to disagree just on principle alone. Scientific facts acts do not matter.

[icymist]

21. Dawkins should be more careful about wading into this argument.

Greer and the TERFs will use Dawkins to further their agenda to legislate transgender people out of existence. It won't be long until the TERFs start pointing out that Richard Dawkins agree with them that transwomen are not real women.

You’re about to be love-bombed by a bunch of bigots who think that trans kids aren’t real, that trans related surgery is mutilation, that trans women should be turned away from shelters, that allowing trans women in bathrooms will result in rape, that trans women attracted to women are autogynophiles, that radical self-acceptance will magically make dysphoria disappear, that trans women being respected as women is a form of appropriation or mockery of “real women”, that trans women that were “socialized as boys” retain male privilege and entitlement and are therefor inherently violent, that transition is reinforcing oppressive gender norms and doesn’t actually save lives, and blah de blah blah blah. - See more at: http://www.transadvocate.com/so-someone-called-you-a-terf-now-what_n_15325.htm#sthash.oe5DXyhp.dpuf

http://www.transadvocate.com/so-someone-called-you-a-terf-now-what_n_15325.htm

[Yorktown]

26. TERF. Had to google it. A new brand of bigots. Yay!

Tis the season to be merry, a new brand of bigots has growee. Yipee.

[icymist]

22. I guess I'll never understand a feminism that excludes potential allies.

All that energy and time wasted on the issue of excluding trans-women in society. They should be protesting mush more important issues important to women such as this one:

Texas Officials Raid Planned Parenthood


Just three days after Texas officials announced their plan to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, investigators from the state’s Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) raided a handful of the women’s healthcare provider’s clinics, demanding patients’ records and billing details as well as employee information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027300720

[TygrBright]

23. I really have to question the journalism and editing on this one.

We were always taught that, when describing/characterizing an individual who is well-known or famous for multiple things (achievements, characteristics, participation in events, etc.) you should always select, first, the characterization or qualification most relevant to the story itself; or second, the most current or recent characterization for which the individual is well-known.

In Dawkins' case, therefore, the characterization "Prominent biologist and writer" is considerably less relevant than "Prominent bigot and egotistical loudmouth," and a good editor/journalist should make the latter choice.

nitpickily,
Bright

[rug]

24. Ouch!

[DreamGypsy]

27. Is the HuffPost a legitimate source of criticism?

...if they don't spellcheck the titles of their articles????

Defintion (from Urban Dictionary):

There aren't any definitions for defintion yet.

Can you define it?

Perhaps the press should not drop their eyes when criticizing Dawkins.

[rug]

30. I'll fix it.

[Humanist_Activist]

28. Fuck the transphobe. What an argument from ignorance he made. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

32. That was a shitty thing for him to say. Completely inappropriate

See how easy that is, rug. If only you said that about your pope, who is in a position to actually influence policy about LGTBQIA.

At least Dawkins understands the concept of self-identification and calls them by the preferred pronoun. From the reaction here, one would think that Dawkins said they couldn't be godparents.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. That is the contrast between many of us and him, what Dawkins said was inexcusable, he needs...

to educate himself, apologize and retract the comment, and none of that bullshit "I'm sorry I offended." non-apology shit.

I would even go so far as to say he is being transphobic.

Of course, maybe its just harder on rug, the Pope is supposed to be Christ's representative on Earth, and hence, not above criticism but a "First among Equals" of a sort, where as Dawkins is just a celebrity who publishes books about atheism.

[rug]

34. A clueless remark.

Althogh I understand why you and goblinmonger attempt to make this thread about a DUer instead of the man who tweeted those sentiments.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Where's the deflection? We uncategorically condemn Dawkins, full stop. Have you ever spoken out...

against transphobia before today on this board at all?

Why shouldn't we hold you to the same standard we hold ourselves?

[rug]

37. For one thing, you don't hold yorself to ther same standard. Not by a long shot.

For another, I don't do meta. Go to your little safe place for that. They'll be all ears.

[Humanist_Activist]

40. Of course I do, unless you have evidence otherwise, and you wouldn't want to go meta...

for many reasons, I'm sure.

But its not like I tried to justify the transphobic beliefs of some atheists by claiming they hugged a transgender person sometime in the past, so what they say doesn't matter.

[rug]

36. You'd have had more credibility if you didn't just post, "Dawkins said something naughty".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=216607

And you wonder why your remarks are treated with the scorn their insincerity warrent.

[Goblinmonger]

38. My response on this thread is what it is

I didn't hedge one bit on my thoughts on what he said.

That I categorized it differently elsewhere is a reflection on what you are clearly trying to do by using Dawkins as a deflection away from the pope.

But, again, my response to this thread is pretty clear and unwavering as to what my thoughts on are Dawkins' stand here.

[rug]

39. Sure it is.

He was being "naughty", right?

[Goblinmonger]

41. It was a shitty and completely inappropriate thing for him to say.

If you need more, he needs to become more aware of what the LGBTQIA community stands for and what they are fighting for. In this particular instance, he needs and education on the "T" portion of the community. Like many, I would guess he needs an education into the "QIA" portion as well, but we can't know that from this tweet.

I understand he knows biology far more than most people, but he has to realize--if doesn't already--that what he is saying is so much like the bullshit coming from TERF and when it comes from a prominent biologist it just keeps pushing the sex/gender equivalence. Which isn't the point.

He needs to get educated on this. Quickly. Then he needs to full apologize. Then he needs to help push awareness of the trans community with the visibility he offers. I think he's smart enough and liberal enough to do so once he is educated on it.

[rug]

42. I don't need you to recite a Pledge of Allegiance.

I'll just continue to read your posts.

[Goblinmonger]

43. Please remember post 41 next time you want to post bullshit like post 14

Atheists are more than ready to call out Richard Dawkins when he deserves it. Like he does here.

How about your pope? There's another OP where you can point out some horrible shit he has done. It would go a long way to not making you look like a rabid apologist trying to deflect attention way from your holy leader.

[rug]

44. I'll remember this one as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=216607

The bllshit is there and it was written by you.

[Goblinmonger]

45. You clearly do everything you can to deflect from the shit the pope does.

That is what I was saying there and I stand by that.

I also stand by what I said about Dawkins here.

The good thing is that Dawkins isn't my pope. I can see him say extremely hurtful and horrible things about trans women and all I have to do at the end of the day is realize that Dawkins said something horrible and hope he comes around. And I can outwardly say the he was being a giant turd.

You, on the other hand, have to live with the realization that the leader of your religion is a sexist and bigot and, for some fucking reason, you feel that you can't point that out and say it's horrible. At the end of the day, you have to live with the fact that your religion is run by a sexist bigot and you have spend your energy either ignoring that or apologizing it away. I hope the scalding hot shower you likely take helps you to sleep at night, but I doubt it. If posting things about Dawkins--who is NOBODY'S pope--makes you sleep better, you should probably get your moral compass re-calibrated.

[rug]

46. Do you see even a syllable in this thread about the Pope?

Nope, not even a random vowel about the Pope. The deflection is all yours, as expected.

The good thing is that Dawkins isn't my pope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218216453#post14

The rest of your post is no more than imagined ad hominems from an increasingly angry mind.

Get a grip.

[Goblinmonger]

47. Then head over to the OP about the pope and talk about him

There is no deflection on my part. I have been very clear and forthright with my thoughts on what Dawkins has said here.

It's just odd that since you want such clear condemnation of those that say bad things (which I do here), you are seemingly quiet about the bad things the pope says. Unless you are being an apologist. You know, the whole plank/sliver thing.

[rug]

48. I'll head over wherever I feel like heading over.

Which OP about the Pope? You and your compadres post so many. Is it the one about the Legion of Christ? The one where "Blank Frank" is the argument du jour? The one about Uganda? The one where he was ridiculed for embracing a transgendered man in the Vatican?

Tell you what. You start a thread about the Pope's latest outrage and I'll respond. Of course, you can't susstain such a thread without smirking indirectly to someone else about "Cathosplaining", can you?

Why don't you head over here and respond to this OP?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12216443

I've told you before: your patent insincerity warrents no more than scorn.

What exactly is it about Dawkins that compels you to such blatant distractions?

[Goblinmonger]

49. Why would I respond in the Catholic group? That would be rude.

And, yeah, the Legion of Christ one. You've responded in there. You could give your thoughts about the continued mishandling of the child rapists by various leaders of the RCC over time.

I have no desire to distract about Dawkins. I've clearly said in this thread that what he did is horrible.

[Lordquinton]

50. Not like he compared gender theory to a nuclear weapon

That would have been a truly boneheaded remark.

[Android3.14]

52. For some, there is a difference between gender and sexual identity

Dawkins can be an ass, and he is certainly acerbic, but he is essentially correct at some levels.

There are good people who support LGBT rights and who recognize that the XX and XY chromosomes determine gender at the biological level. I am in that crowd.

It's a common plot trope for crime dramas.

Sexual identity is a set of morphological criteria and social conventions, and if someone feels like a particular gender, then that person should do what he or she needs to do in order to be comfortable in their own body.

It's similar to adoption. A person can treat an adopted person as his or her offspring, but biologically, the adopted person is unrelated to the adopting parents. It's simply a fact of circumstance. The rude thing would be to treat the adopted person as if they were not a part of the family.

I have sympathy and empathy for the pain that LGBT folks feel that someone would be rude to them or behave with prejudice because an XY or XX chromosome seemingly contradicts the way a person feels, but we'll have to wait for technology to manage a sex change at a genetic level.

The sad thing is that even at that point there would be some folks who would be discourteous to trans folks even if they were genetically male or female.

What matters is that people treat LGBT folks as they would want others to treat themselves.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. He's just imagining them?

Someday, he can go full on solipsist, and just be imagining everyone else around him.

[rug]

55. Don't worry, his apologist below will keep him grounded.

[Lordquinton]

54. A Dawkins thread? The Pope must have really stepped in it.

Oh...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218216435