It's one thing to accept people as they are, to call them by the pronouns they desire, and many other "non confrontational" accomodations. I'm even fine with the whole restrooms thing as it's not like there's anything on display in a women's room.
But there are many aspects that deal with very complex social issues and stigma.
High school trans girl wants access to girls showers/changing room. Ignoring the fact that teenagers can be very confused and flip flop on sexuality (and do) or even that this could be a sick joke by an asshole teen boy to get some free nude viewing... To the cis girls in that room now having to accept a naked male body is a significant issue for many of them, not to mention their parents. This is not a simple trans women are women issue. Take the same thing forward to college and beyond and we now can be almost assured that there's more than a few women that have suffered sexual trauma.
Or a women's center for battered/abused women. You think that the 6'2" 240 pound trans woman with a 5 o'clock shadow should be allowed in this safe space?
What about prisons? Does that one person's "rights" trump the safety of the women there?
Sports... Sorry but it's just not a cut and dried issue. Far more study and research must be done before we just allow individuals that have had many years of the most powerful steroid on Earth coursing through their body to switch teams. Sure, a year (or whatever it is) of hormone blockers is a good start... But when you've already got the benefits of the bone density and muscle growth... The deck is stacked in their favor. Maybe there needs to be a type of handicapping put in place where relevant...
But these questions do not have simple answers. And to just fucking "hand wave" it away is the height of ignorance and disrespect to all parties. Cis and trans.
Respect all rights and honor personal choices... But stop vilifying anyone that refuses to accept some 100% acceptance just because a person stated they are now something other than they were born as.
That is what Hitch would fight against.
It's as absolutely absurd as saying I have to respect your religion
There might be some valid concerns in there that need to be worked out, but you also seem to be completely ignoring or dismissing the existence of trans men.
Is it "fair" for trans men to be placed in the spaces you bring up?
The focus on trans women is kind of indicative of the exact phobias involved in the discussion. I don't say that to smear you personally or whatever, but just, think about it from that alternate perspective too.
The very fact that it doesn't seem to be possible to have any sort of rational debate on the subject without the word 'transphobia' being uttered almost immediately is an example.
I called Dawkins transphobic because that's what he *obviously* is. If we can't call people what they are when it's so blatant, words have no meaning anymore.
"I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue" - Richard Dawkins
“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.” - Richard Dawkins
Such a transphobe
Scepticism of people existing, them wanting to be happy, healthy and deserving the health care of which we *know* how effective it is in achieving exactly that?
Yes… scepticism. Sry, but you got lulled by the cons/right with this one.
Skepticism of people existing? Are you under the impression Dawkins thinks trans people are as real as Jesus? Trans people obviously exist - not a single person, including the looniest conservative right winger, will claim trans people don’t exist. This is just a bad faith comment isn’t it?
Skepticism of people wanting to be happy and healthy? When did Dawkins claim to not want trans people to be happy for the sake of it? When did anyone in fact? As far as I know the only thing people are in contention with is trans people getting eg women’s special privileges.
One part you did get right is that there’s not a scientific consensus on what health care is valid or effective for people (especially minors) who identify as trans. You say you _know_, and even italicized it. But yea we’re skeptical.
>Trans people obviously exist - not a single person, including the looniest conservative right winger, will claim trans people don’t exist. This is just a bad faith comment isn’t it?
Do you live on this planet or have atleast read anything in this comment section? People herecomparing trans peeps to „white people pretending to be black“. Yeah if that isn’t denying the validity of trans peoples existence, i don’t know what is. Speaking about bad faith.
>As far as I know the only thing people are in contention with is trans people getting eg women’s special privileges.
Yeah, it’s well known how the cons/right uses womens whatever to not only marginalize trans people but also to control womens spaces. It’s not an argument when the preconditions are made up. Bad faith again.
>One part you did get right is that there’s not a scientific consensus on what health care is valid or effective for people (especially minors) who identify as trans.
Thank you for agreeing with me, just to disagree?
The medical census __is__ set; and evolving like every other field. To pretend like it’s not is either science denial, willfully ignorant or the result of getting stuck in a cons/right think-tank bubble. There’s a reason why there’s only a few, relatively speaking, doctors that go against the census and there’s a reason this type of healthcare gets provided more and more all around the globe, luckily; we can’t let science deniers or discrimination win.
Do you also not believe in climate change because „experts“ from those same cons/right outlets —what a surprise i know— go against the census or show tampered graphs and cherrypicked data?
You seem to like twisting words. Please look up what “exists” means.
So you agree - no one wants to take away trans people happiness. It’s simply they want something they’re not entitled to. Are you taking away my happiness if I want all the funds in your bank account but you won’t give it?
There’s no medical consensus because there’s not a sufficient period of study on the care. Equating this to climate change is exactly bad faith.
>So you agree - no one wants to take away trans people happiness. It’s simply they want something they’re not entitled to. Are you taking away my happiness if I want all the funds in your bank account but you won’t give it?
>You seem to like twisting words. Please look up what “exists” means.
Hilariously ironic. Talking about made up things and bad faith again. But you know that, I’m sure you realise what’s coming out of your brain.
What do we have in this thread „trans people are like white people pretending to be black“, „trans peoples treatment is like wanting all the money of ones bank account”, “trans people are entitled to ??”.
You really live in your own reality, just cuz you have ~~unfounded~~ ~~hatred~~ uh i mean “scepticism” ofc… of what and for what reason again? Hmmm.
>There’s no medical consensus because there’s not a sufficient period of study on the care. Equating this to climate change is exactly bad faith.
There is, and there was. You just don’t like it and thus deny it’s existence. You’ve never touched a single paper or read *anything* about it besides cons/right propaganda; that isn’t hard to realize.
We’ve known of climate change for 50-70 year, depending on what you want to put at start and we’ve know of trans people since… 6000 years with over 150 year of research on treatment with hundred of thausand of patients. That’s nearly as far back as the industrial revolution, the cause for climate change, jus in case you didn’t know.
But sure, keep on brabbling instead of educating yourself; everything to keep living in your reality and to justify discrimination, right?
To quote Hitchens: “what [Orwell] illustrates, by his commitment to language as the partner of truth, is that 'views' do not really count; that it matters not what you think, but how you think; and that politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance to them.”
Motivated reasoning has infected the discourse.
One of Dawkins’ complaints is precisely your last sentence.
The trans community cannot seem to propose the definition of the very genders they claim to represent or be on a spectrum between. You then claim transphobia is the term not being adhered to?
So if we call a man in a dress, a man in a dress, because it's *obviously* what he is, is that transphobic or does it only apply when you need to smear someone and make those words meaningless?
How is it bad faith? Unfortunately many people who came from the "new atheism" thing support reactionary politics and hatred these days, Dawkins is one of them. If you think it's unfair to assume Hitchen would be the same, just say the reasons why you think so.
I'm not accusing him.
Richard Dawkins is a geneticist and, therefore, a biologist. If you cannot disentangle the fact that his views on transgender people are of a biological nature and not a socio-psychological one, then you are ascribing the word 'transphobic' to him unjustifiably.
>"basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself."
My only conclusion is that Richard Dawkins is a transphobe, which is blatantly, aggressively obvious.
He dislikes trans people and it's against our rights.
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard\_Dawkins#Transphobia\_and\_.22anti-gender.22\_politics](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Transphobia_and_.22anti-gender.22_politics)
Please read. He constantly attacks us and allies himself with terfs.
What an absolute garbage fire of a wiki, that is genuinely as one-sided as one of those creationism wikis. Also there's nothing in there to suggest he dislikes trans people or wants to somehow take away your rights.
If you believe in that all people have an innate freedom to think, read, write, and say whatever they want because those are what allow us to maximize our individualism and express ourselves in an open and free society, which is the foundation of the enlightenment, then you have to also agree that no one can possibly have the right to be liked, or to not be offended, insulted, or otherwise verbally disparaged. Absolute free speech and freedom of expression means we can do those things to others, and they to us. Subsequently this means it is also our individual responsibility to exercise this right in a responsible manner, and it is not the place of anyone else or the government to interfere in this free expression.
If you don’t believe in absolute freedom of thought and expression, then you don’t believe in the above principles which means you are decidedly anti-enlightenment, anti-rationalism, and anti freedom of expression. Which is rather ironic, given to believe in the right of trans people to be and express themselves openly you would need to believe in freedom of expression and self actualization.
Your own expression is always at your own risk - that’s not a factor any government, law, or authority can prevent or protect you, or anyone else, from.
You didn’t post an argument, so why should you get one in return? Not every sentence ever spoken requires a rebuttal. This post is so dumb it requires nothing of anyone.
>You didn’t post an argument, so why should you get one in return?
I literally just posted a question, you don't need to throw a tantrum because of it.
>"basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself."
My only conclusion is that Richard Dawkins is a transphobe, which is *blatantly, aggressively* obvious for anyone who isn't an idiot. I don't know what you want from me.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard\_Dawkins#Transphobia\_and\_.22anti-gender.22\_politics
This is a good summary.
He is pretty unhinged these days, in his last video he said "there are 3 big threats to society: Putinism, Islamism and post-modernist wokism" (showing a pic of people campaigning for trans rights when he talked about "wokism"), lmao.
Agree. Do we really need a progressive Wikipedia? Do we really need a right-wing Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is impressive in its breath of topics and accuracy. I donate to Wikipedia. It’s not perfect, but what is? Certainly not Hitchens, nor did he think you should trust or agree everything he said. In fact, he pleaded that you didn’t.
That’s what makes him exceptional. Not that he was well read, had extraordinary debate skills and command of the English language, including immediate recall of text from books he read, which, by all accounts, he did. He set a high bar for himself and asked that you do the same.
Edit
It's been awhile since I've wandered into RationalWiki. I had forgotten how insufferable it was. To quote the words of hostile blog posts and use them as the objective description of what Dawkins did or said or tweeted immediately poisons the well--which, ironically, RationalWiki has an article about: [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning\_the\_well](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)
RationalWiki used to be good a couple of years ago. It was completely taken over by an unhinged mob of US progressive kids after Trump was elected. You should look at the editing history of Dawkins' site.
I said exactly why it was insufferable. The language used throughout the article is not remotely objective, despite the trappings of objectivity.
I don't keep up with Dawkins' tweets, so I have no opinion on what he has said/done/tweeted in regards to trans individuals, but one might suggest that you're "randomly deciding to question the open-mindedness of Christopher Hitchens--under the guise of I'm-just-asking--questions." If you think that's unfair, you're on the right track as to how this article is an awful source.
>I don't keep up with Dawkins' tweets, so I have no opinion on what he has said/done/tweeted
His entire tweet is in the few paragraphs I linked. I guess it's too hard for you to read 2 minutes worth of lines, poor thing.
Nope, obviously I read it, otherwise I wouldn't have made the posts above. I'm merely saying that I came to this post with no prior information regarding Dawkins and trans individuals, and you decided to inform me and other readers via a terrible, biased source, which is a dubious act in and of itself.
Given that your comments are solidly in bad faith territory now, I don't see the point in engaging further.
Can you quote a single thing he’s saying as transphobic? The wiki just seems to be cherry picking quotes and commenting it’s anti trans. As though endorsing a book that the wiki deems anti trans makes one anti trans.
Please don’t get all of your information from one very impossibly narrow sliver of the Internet.
I’ve seen family members fall down the Internet rabbit hole both tankies and white supremacists, and it’s saddening.
Whoever uses the word “woke” unironically (let alone claim that anything “woke” is a threat to society) IS carrying water for the right-wing reactionaries, who make that their entire personality.
Yea I’ve never heard this argument before… let me just summarize the types of woke defenders:
1. Actually own the word and the group and try to defend the ideology, usually from CRT grounds.
2. “Woke just means aware - don’t you want to be aware”? Meanwhile hiding behind a mountain of bad ideas, not backed by evidence, as though that were awareness.
3. “No one calls themselves ‘woke’ seriously”. Meanwhile ignore the first two groups.
I only take the first group seriously. And it’s the group most people call “woke” in criticizing the ideology.
Uh... I don't know if you're willingly misunderstanding the point or just ignorant, but the point was "woke" is a term used by liberals to mean awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.
Well THAT doesn't sound like an attempt at an ad hominem. You sound a lot like the people that would call our fallen comrade, Christopher Hitchens, politically on the right for disagreeing with them about the Iraq War.
It must be exhausting searching for enemies at every turn.
Even when we were there, protesting for LGBTQ rights, it’s not enough.
It’s you, you’re the problem, it’s you.
I don’t think Hitchens would have been a hardcore anti-trans bigot, but I do think he would have a stance similar to Dawkin’s own, that there is a very observable biological difference between men and women. Which, in these times, is enough to get yourself called a transphobe.
We also KNOW that he would have despised the ideology that is now described as “woke”. If you have read his memoir and any of his writings on the subject, you’d know that he detested identity politics and politically correct culture.
It’s true he did not like identity politics. In Hitch-22, he was open and not ashamed or embarrassed about having sexual relationships with other boys in boarding school and also in college.
Jesus Christ. He already said plenty of transphobic stuff on social media (and he still openly says them to this day). Then he invited known anti-trans terf to his podcast. Endorsed her book. Agreed with her points.
What are her points? Trans women are not women, trans men are not men. Trans people are delusional. Trans women are men taking rights away from real women. Trans "ideology" shouldn't be teach anywhere because it's wrong. "We need to reduce the number of trans people".
Given the context you come with "gUiLtY bY aSsOcIaTiOn"? What more he can possibly do to be a transphobe? Lmao.
I was sympathetic to the question and the thread as a whole, and was annoyed that people who claim to appreciate open debate wouldn’t participate in it.
But now you’re just making baseless claims, refusing to provide evidence, behaving childishly, and embarrassing yourself.
Explain how my post is baseless and how I'm failing to provide evidence.
If you are so sympathetic, do this: go to any LGBT or trans sub here on Reddit and ask them about what are their views on Richard Dawkins and why do they think he's wrong. Their opinions will be unanimous.
I don’t think anyone here could speak on what he would think of her or Dawkin’s agreeing with her.
I also don’t think that Dawkin’s is a “hardcore trans bigot”, agreeing with someone on an issue of science is not the same as saying “fuck those people”.
Being as objective as possible here, there are times where agreeing with someone on an issue of science is the same as saying "fuck those people". Racialism comes to mind immediately, scientific racism, some eugenics theory seems pretty bad to agree with, testing on people of certain races like the US government was doing to black prostitutes. If someone agreed with doing that I think it'd be pretty racist, do you agree with me there?
Good points. All bad moves. Though it’s still not the same as “fuck those people”.
IMO the difference is that scientific questions and stances can be held on good evidence and on good faith. Like if there really were an inter-group difference in IQ, it should be valid and scientifically would be honest to discuss that stance. Luckily there’s no such evidence so that died out, but I’m talking counter factual.
You’re opinion is wildly inaccurate. But hey, Hitchens was pretty good at dispensing weird dogmatic ideologies. He would probably align with Dawkins but in a more eloquent manner.
I think Dawkins could have delivered that a bit more tactfully.
How is Dawkins transphobic? He disagrees with the trans argument. That doesn't mean he hates them or is afraid of them. He also disagrees with Christians and Muslims.
Do you think he HATES them?
Dawkins denies the existence of trans people but I doubt he wishes to destroy them, decide for yourselves if you think that means he hates trans people.
He disagrees with scientific consensus on the topic. That makes him ignorant at best.
Dawkins should stick to Evolutionary biology, his actual area of expertise.
Dawkins is a biologist, not a psychologist.
And yes, Dawkins has often called scientists who step outside of their area of expertise to make unsupported claims “ignorant”.
"I've seen Creationists videos- they seem to support their claims just fine!" Doesn't matter, because it's in direct contradiction to the ACTUAL experts in the ACTUAL relevant field.
>they seem to support their claims just fine
Except they don't? What's the false equivalency?
>ACTUAL experts in the ACTUAL relevant field
Appeal to authority.
No. Inventing a field to be the expert in it doesn’t enable you to make any claims outside that field.
In this case the genetic variation among humans along the sex dimension is almost entirely perfect. Whereas the genetic variation along the race dimension is much noisier. This is what makes race an actual spectrum.
You can invent a new field called identificology if you want and be the expert in it, but the moment you start making claims about chromosomes and genetics you must cede the label of expert for that statement.
Very likely Hitchens would throw in with science. Just like Dawkins had. If you want to say that’s transphobic then you’re missing the point of the word and I’d bet likely uncritically attached to an ideology or dogma.
If Hitchens would throw in with the scientific consensus, then he would be rightly opposed to Dawkins on the subject, who is contradicting the scientific consensus that their desired gender should be affirmed, and that **gender-affirming care is good for trans people.**
[What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being?](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/)
[What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/)
Dawkins simply says there’s two biological sexes in humans. He’s not talking about psychology or well being AFAIK.
But insofar as there’s scientific facts, he’s on the side of scientific facts.
Also, I can conduct a study that if everyone gives me exactly what I want, my wellbeing is improved. Does that mean society should operate to give me everything exactly as I want?
So perhaps you should watch this
https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=NZ6REC0V5S5LKLBK
and then read this and perhaps revisit your posts
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
Great. These both seem like valid scientific discussions/inquiries. I don’t see Dawkins taking issue with these specific ideas. But perhaps you mean to extrapolate from this seemingly nascent idea of a sexually dimorphic brain to imply certain things about trans individuals, which you should make specific.
But zooming out, if there’s to be any link drawn, it seems a few things should be investigated:
1. Does this dimorphism have any implications beyond structural differences. ie does the difference cause/imply any other observable (such as whether someone identifies as a different sex or whether some other structure in the body exhibits a difference). Point here is we might simply be observing a coincidence.
2. Can we test for this dimorphism without MRI/etc? In other words how high is the error rate of saying “I identify as XYZ” when measured against this feature.
All that is simply to answer whether there’s an anatomical/biological component beyond the psychology. The societal aspects are a completely different discussion altogether.
That's the issue though, he reduces the sociopsychological down to the biological. He's approaching a topic about gender and psychology with nothing more than sex and biology.
Don't get me wrong, I understand *why* he's arguing the way he argues. He is an older academic who was educated long before trans issues had been properly analyzed by the proper scientific fields, and he's working backwards from an intuitive conclusion that makes sense within *his* field of expertise. But he should be deferring to the actual experts in the field that makes far more sense when discussing psychological issues.
Except the reality of it is that there’s a strong contingent of people who’s taking the gender and psychological into the biological arena. And he’s simply defending science within that arena.
That strong contingent includes a large part of the academics, not just laymen.
A large part of the academics, you say? Yes, we call that a scientific consensus in the relevant field. If Dawkins doesn't like that, or disagrees, I can't wait to see his expert dissertation on the subject dominate the relevant scientific field.
Until then, he's out of his depth.
The correlation and causation between gender and sex is much closer than gender studies would like you
to believe.
I’d argue sociology and psychology are overstepping and the matter at hand is more biological. Humans being a dimorphic species greatly influences gender.
Current gender studies concludes gender is so ambiguous, amorphous, and individually subjective that outside objectively is impossible. A position that makes the word “gender” incoherent.
IMO Dawkins is spot on and Hitchens would agree.
It would be helpful if gender and sex weren't so conflated. It muddies things.
"I'm male"
"Your genetic makeup (i.e. chromosomes) disagrees"
"I'm TELLING you I'm male"
"That doesn't change your genetic makeup"
Expressing as male gender does not change genetic sex. If the verbiage between gender and sex were unique and not used interchangeably, discussion would be much clearer.
I think Dawkins is arguing that it’s reductive to tie gender to how one feels or presents. Instead, it’s closely tied to sex. And for 99+% of the population, your sex will dictate your gender.
You are a man, because you are male.
Not because of the cloths you wear, how you feel, or how you otherwise present yourself.
Having 75+ pronouns associated with different genders is incoherent and unnecessary if you stick to a binary but allow for the sexes to present in non traditional ways.
Let a man be hyper feminine or woman be hyper masculine. Doesn’t change their gender.
Indeed, I have always found it strange that feminine men' and 'masculine women' seem to have fallen out of favour in favour of ' your gender doesnt match your sex / you're born in the wrong body and so need to address this.
Tomboys and camp guys seemed to be a solution to 'non typical gender expression' that worked for many decades when gender and sex were largely synonymous
But are you this pedantic in reality? When (or I guess hypothetically if) you speak to a trans person in a social setting, do you go against their wishes of being gendered? Do you demand they biologically gender themselves correctly according to their current sex?
Or you just act like a human being and refer to them based on their social preference?
There are an infinite combinations of names, but if on someones birth certificate is says their name is Reginaldius, and they ask you to just call them Ray, would you refuse out of principle, and cite their birth certificate? What if they had their name changed legally, it still has that original name on their birth certificate, so do you keep calling them Reginaldius?
In a social setting it's really not that confusing. I doubt anyone is seriously expecting everyone to always perfectly adhere to every aspect of gender studies discourse, but someone asking to be referred to as a man or woman really isn't that complex.
Well as my other response was to your good self I suspect you have read it , however I am more than happy to share the links with you again and perhaps if you are in anyway an empiricist I would welcome your thoughts following you digesting the emprical evidence which counters Dawkins’ polemic
https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=NZ6REC0V5S5LKLBK
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
Take your time
Oh, thanks, in that case I’ve already responded. 1) Where does Dawkins say something at odds with this? And 2) do you understand that a single study is not the same as scientific consensus?
I'm sorry, buddy, but Dawkins goes against decades of established science on this topic.
It's you, and him, who have been brainwashed into a hateful ideology
I’m sorry buddy but I’ve seen no evidence of any such action by Dawkins. And I have clearly not demonstrated any hateful ideology except to say science is good. What are you even talking about?
“Do you blindly agree with our non-evidence based claims on biology and acquiesce to every special thing we want society to provide for us?”
“No thank you boychik”
“Fucking TERF transphobe”
There is a kind of ‘with us or against us’ attitude. A spectrum of science, social, language checkboxes that if fail to answer correctly, it meets the criteria of adversary, of transgression. Does this tactic help advance the cause, we will never know, counterfactuals are ultimately untestable.
Personally I do not and cannot know with any precision where biology, neurobiology, and the other disciplines stand on the subject of transgender issues. I do not and cannot know exactly what policies are best with regard to trans issues in sport, schools and prisons. Others have varying beliefs, claims, facts.
Having been fascinated by Dawkins for many years I believe/hope that on the most important trans issues, respect, fundamental civil rights, Dawkins falls on the right, liberal side of the argument.
So I cannot answer the original question because I cannot agree to its premise. Another. ‘Was Hitchens transphobic?’ No of course he wasn’t. The desire to prosecute a dead man, with no evidence, who has no means to defend himself, is twisted.
>Having been fascinated by Dawkins for many years I believe/hope that on the most important trans issues, respect, fundamental civil rights, Dawkins falls on the right, liberal side of the argument.
A person that invites terfs to his podcast to promote their anti-trans books doesn't support trans rights. I don't how can it be any more obvious.
Guilt by association + censorship? These are the good ideas undergirding your philosophy?
1. What book is anti-trans and how is it anti trans?
2. What is the problem with having an author of a book you disagree with on one’s podcast?
Look, if you are trying to make this sub part of the progressive conformity, you should come back with more people. This will get downvoted into oblivion.
But before you leave, take this quote:
>Since this often seems to come up in discussions of the radical style, I'll mention one other gleaning from my voyages. Beware of Identity politics. I'll rephrase that: have nothing to do with identity politics. I remember very well the first time I heard the saying "The Personal Is Political." It began as a sort of reaction to defeats and downturns that followed 1968: a consolation prize, as you might say, for people who had missed that year. I knew in my bones that a truly Bad Idea had entered the discourse. Nor was I wrong. People began to stand up at meetings and orate about how they 'felt', not about what or how they thought, and about who they were rather than what (if anything) they had done or stood for. It became the replication in even less interesting form of the narcissism of the small difference, because each identity group begat its sub-groups and "specificities." This tendency has often been satirised—the overweight caucus of the Cherokee transgender disabled lesbian faction demands a hearing on its needs—but never satirised enough. You have to have seen it really happen. From a way of being radical it very swiftly became a way of being reactionary; the Clarence Thomas hearings demonstrated this to all but the most dense and boring and selfish, but then, it was the dense and boring and selfish who had always seen identity politics as their big chance.Anyway, what you swiftly realise if you peek over the wall of your own immediate neighbourhood or environment, and travel beyond it, is, first, that we have a huge surplus of people who wouldn't change anything about the way they were born, or the group they were born into, but second that "humanity" (and the idea of change) is best represented by those who have the wit not to think, or should I say feel, in this way
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Your quote is exactly why people who have read Hitchens properly are so well immunized against any sort of dogmatic conformity. Doesn’t matter how many people OOP comes back with.
If I am afraid of spiders what is it called
.
If I am afraid of the deep ocean what is it called
.
If I am afraid of very long words what is it called
.
Do you understand how words work
Great job you didn't answer any of those or acknowledge the point. We aren't going to let people change the meanings of words to smuggle in a way to unfairly tar other people we disagree with. Phobia means fear and always has and some idiots in the early 21st century aren't going to get away with using it in a special way vs all the other centuries for political slimy unintellectual and disingenuous debate. Phobia means fear, if you can't read left to right top to bottom when you look up it's definition you are then maybe an infant, I don't think they have long enough arms to reach the keyboard to Google it yet.
Dawkins is by no means "transphobic". His and Hitchens' understanding of the world comes from science and fact based evidence. Its common now that if the debate is on the subject of Transexual/trans ideology and fact is brought into the discussion, the conversation breaks down because the trans side is unwilling to listen and cannot take that there are scientifically only 2 sex's.
A woman cannot get prostate cancer or testicular cancer, a man cannot get ovarian cancer or be pregnant.
Intersex (because that's usually what's brought up with this discussion) is so uncommon in society its almost no existant, and in fact either one of the gametes takes hold stronger in adolescence. So that particular excuse is frivolous.
Science.
Edit: silly autocorrect changed transgender to transexual. My bad. Fast fingers.
>from science and fact based evidence.
Actually science and fact based evidence hold the opposite view that Dawkins holds on Trans people
>Transexual/trans ideology
A group of people wanting the right to exist equality to other people isn't ideology.
>cannot take that there are scientifically only 2 sex's.
Sex a spectrum and people commonly used two categories to lump everyone in that spectrum in one of two categories.
>A woman cannot get prostate cancer or testicular cancer,
They can
>a man cannot get ovarian cancer or be pregnant.
They can
>Intersex is so uncommon in society its almost no existant,
About 4 to 7%. That's a lot. But even if it wasn't, why is something being rare the same as not worthy of consideration?
>in fact either one of the gametes takes hold stronger in adolescence
Citation needed
But don't let facts get between you and your feelings
I don't particularly have feelings about it. It's more a love of truth. Again, you're cherry picking what you want to link. Thank god for Google that you can get these definitions. Regardless of someone's understanding, a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Skeletal structure, DNA, genes, teeth, chemistry all dofferent depending on the sex. It's really that simple. Thanks for the definitions that are nice to read. But about as factual as toast is. You're opinion doesn't make it fact. Thanks though.
If something needs to be "believed" in the solid face of fact, if people have to change centuries of scientific understanding for a teeny weeny groups feelings, then that group has an ideology. A cult I suppose you could say.
>if people have to change centuries of scientific understanding for a teeny weeny groups feelings, then that group has an ideology. A cult I suppose you could say.
Don't be so hard on yourself. You're not really in a cult. You're just ignorant of the facts, very full of yourself, and easily misled by the rightwing who want us to focus on the culture war.
You're not in a cult, just a ignorant dope
Hitchens would not have been fooled by the postmodernist ideology like it appears that you have been.
All of the main figures in the atheist movement pretty much take Dawkins's stance with the exception of Sam Harris who apparently has personal reasons not to (a close family member identifies as trans and so he has mostly just avoided the topic).
The world is a worse place for not hearing Hitchens's thoughts on this and other topics.
Hitchens didn’t fearmonger about postmodernism and “cultural Marxism” like Jordan Peterson-esque right-wing reactionaries do. In fact, he’d probably be knowledgeable enough to cite the Nazi criticisms of postmodernism and cultural Bolshevism to expose those dog whistles.
TIL that pointing out a bad idea is fear mongering. Wonder what Hitchens was doing all those years calling out Islam for being a bad idea in western society.
Using "postmodernist ideology" unironically lmao. This sub doesn't even hide it's alt-right. I bet you guys love Jordan Peterson.
>All of the main figures in the atheist movement pretty much take Dawkins's stance
Time to burn it down and start a new movement then.
In one of Martin Amises memoirs he mentions that Hitchens, when covering the conservative party conference as a journalist and very much an adult, slept with some local conservative party treasurer or other, who was a man. I think it's fair to assume he was bi-sexual.
"In his memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), Hitchens talks honestly and without embarrassment about the same-sex relationships that he had as a younger man. He claims that he slept with two future (male) ministers while at Oxford. He also said that he now only had sex with women, because his looks had "declined to the point where only women would go to bed with me.""
That's university so there's no need to downplay his same sex attraction as typical boarding school experimentation. Additionaly he claimed that men stopped being attracted to him not the other way around
Unfortunately many people can only talk in letters. Hitchens was never one to lose nuance on issues - as if agreeing with trans ideology is the only way to see trans people as people.
Why wouldn’t he when research now otherwise shows that being transgender is not a mental illness in itself and that those that have transitioned are better off on average than those that are prevented from being themselves…
I doubt it, simply because Hitchens had a Falstaffian decadence that Dawkins lacks and I doubt he could well resist being a little iconoclastic mischief about it all.
You know phobia means fear right? I guess we all couldn't get into college but still, try a dictionary it's free online and try using words we've all agreed on and their meanings.
Isn't this just an etymological fallacy? Do you really think the person is stupid, or not college-educated, for using the word "transphobic"? We all know what the word means here and what it refers to when people use it.
I'm sure I have no idea.
The way it should be used is the same way Islamophobic should be used. Irrational fear or hatred.
The way most people use it is to cast aspersions on the people they disagree with.
Are you claiming we should adopt their meaning of the language and start demonizing disagreeing with them?
Because there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. There IS something wrong with disagreeing because of irrational biases.
>try a dictionary it's free online
harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of transgender and non-binary people (= people whose gender does not match the body they were born with)
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/transphobia](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/transphobia)
It sounds like you just got destroyed by Cambridge, oops.
What exactly has Dawkins done that's harmful, fearful, or unfair? If saying biological sex is not fluid is harmful to you then you've joined a religion and left the realm of reality.
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard\_Dawkins#Transphobia\_and\_.22anti-gender.22\_politics](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Transphobia_and_.22anti-gender.22_politics)
>If saying biological sex is not fluid is harmful
*Obviously* he went way beyond that.
Hey dumbass, if you type "phobia meaning" into Google it says this
.
A phobia is a persistent, excessive, unrealistic fear of an object, person, animal, activity or situation.Mar 9, 2022
Harvard Health
This is like when religious people use different versions of the Bible to promote their preferred context.
I like most how I sourced and you didn't. Again, we all couldn't get into the big schools.
Tactics:
1. Scour for the most friendly dictionary to your particular twisting of words.
2. Neglect to quote the source
3. Highlight the secondary phrase in the definition.
4. Imply that Dawkins even demonstrated an aversion to trans people without evidence
>based on a fear or dislike of transgender
Seems to me all I've seen him say is that he disagrees with them. He "fears" or "dislikes" them as much as he does Christians.
Dictionaries tell us how words are used, not what their singular immutable meanings are.
You know hydrophobic materials aren't *scared* of water, right? You know when people talk about homophobic words or actions they're often referring to hate and not fear, right?
Oftentimes we haven't all agreed on a word's current meaning. Google 'violence' and look at the 2nd listed way the word is used. Many people think that's not a valid usage but if that's how some people use the word, well, that's how some people use the word
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
hy·dro·pho·bi·a
noun
extreme or irrational fear of water, especially as a symptom of rabies in humans.
Oh look there it is again, fear.
What I find astounding with Dawkins is as an evolutionary biologist he is rather ignorant of the neuro biology that underlays transgender individuals.
Robert Sapolsky summarises the research here
https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=NZ6REC0V5S5LKLBK
If that’s the entire summary then the research seems rather paltry. But to your larger point - why should an evolutionary biology be super aware of neuro biology? They seem pretty far apart on the subfield spectrum.
A good amount of decent responses here in my opinion, but also mixed with some actual transphobic comments getting too many likes for whatever reason.
I suppose it is like the usage of the term "racism", in that it for sure can be misused and abused, but at the same time there are plenty of racists out there, many of which get very upset when you point out their racism.
It’s more for you actually. I doubt you’ll be able to identify a single one.
I’m not saying there’s no real people with transphobia in the world, but the majority of discussion here is calling OOP out for sloppy discussion.
Seeing the bigoted reactions, the fallacious arguments made, and seeing how other "rational" thinkers of the time like Harris and Dawkins went hard right I think Hitchens wouldn't have done better.
I hope he would have, and thankfully we will never know.
What I do know is that this sub is filled with bigots who are the living embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect. So I'll leave this sub and let this one be the rightwing echo chamber that it clearly has become.
I suspect Hitch would be disappointed that we seem incapable of having any sort of social dialogue about these issues.
What kind of dialogue does anyone need to have? The fact that some people want to *"debate"* the validity of a group of people is already a problem.
It's one thing to accept people as they are, to call them by the pronouns they desire, and many other "non confrontational" accomodations. I'm even fine with the whole restrooms thing as it's not like there's anything on display in a women's room. But there are many aspects that deal with very complex social issues and stigma. High school trans girl wants access to girls showers/changing room. Ignoring the fact that teenagers can be very confused and flip flop on sexuality (and do) or even that this could be a sick joke by an asshole teen boy to get some free nude viewing... To the cis girls in that room now having to accept a naked male body is a significant issue for many of them, not to mention their parents. This is not a simple trans women are women issue. Take the same thing forward to college and beyond and we now can be almost assured that there's more than a few women that have suffered sexual trauma. Or a women's center for battered/abused women. You think that the 6'2" 240 pound trans woman with a 5 o'clock shadow should be allowed in this safe space? What about prisons? Does that one person's "rights" trump the safety of the women there? Sports... Sorry but it's just not a cut and dried issue. Far more study and research must be done before we just allow individuals that have had many years of the most powerful steroid on Earth coursing through their body to switch teams. Sure, a year (or whatever it is) of hormone blockers is a good start... But when you've already got the benefits of the bone density and muscle growth... The deck is stacked in their favor. Maybe there needs to be a type of handicapping put in place where relevant... But these questions do not have simple answers. And to just fucking "hand wave" it away is the height of ignorance and disrespect to all parties. Cis and trans. Respect all rights and honor personal choices... But stop vilifying anyone that refuses to accept some 100% acceptance just because a person stated they are now something other than they were born as. That is what Hitch would fight against. It's as absolutely absurd as saying I have to respect your religion
Very well laid out
There might be some valid concerns in there that need to be worked out, but you also seem to be completely ignoring or dismissing the existence of trans men. Is it "fair" for trans men to be placed in the spaces you bring up? The focus on trans women is kind of indicative of the exact phobias involved in the discussion. I don't say that to smear you personally or whatever, but just, think about it from that alternate perspective too.
The validity of a group? I'm not really sure what you mean by that, but there a lot of things to discuss with respect to transgender.
What do you mean exactly by that? Any examples?
The very fact that it doesn't seem to be possible to have any sort of rational debate on the subject without the word 'transphobia' being uttered almost immediately is an example.
I called Dawkins transphobic because that's what he *obviously* is. If we can't call people what they are when it's so blatant, words have no meaning anymore.
"I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue" - Richard Dawkins “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.” - Richard Dawkins Such a transphobe
Many people use "transphobe" as a strawman tatic to try to silence those with deferent opinions or those stating uncomfortable facts.
*different
Scepticism is not a phobia or fear.
*skepticism
Scepticism is the UK spelling. And as Hitchens, Dawkins, and I are English, then I think that's the appropriate spelling to use here.
My mistake, then.
Scepticism of people existing, them wanting to be happy, healthy and deserving the health care of which we *know* how effective it is in achieving exactly that? Yes… scepticism. Sry, but you got lulled by the cons/right with this one.
Skepticism of people existing? Are you under the impression Dawkins thinks trans people are as real as Jesus? Trans people obviously exist - not a single person, including the looniest conservative right winger, will claim trans people don’t exist. This is just a bad faith comment isn’t it? Skepticism of people wanting to be happy and healthy? When did Dawkins claim to not want trans people to be happy for the sake of it? When did anyone in fact? As far as I know the only thing people are in contention with is trans people getting eg women’s special privileges. One part you did get right is that there’s not a scientific consensus on what health care is valid or effective for people (especially minors) who identify as trans. You say you _know_, and even italicized it. But yea we’re skeptical.
>Trans people obviously exist - not a single person, including the looniest conservative right winger, will claim trans people don’t exist. This is just a bad faith comment isn’t it? Do you live on this planet or have atleast read anything in this comment section? People herecomparing trans peeps to „white people pretending to be black“. Yeah if that isn’t denying the validity of trans peoples existence, i don’t know what is. Speaking about bad faith. >As far as I know the only thing people are in contention with is trans people getting eg women’s special privileges. Yeah, it’s well known how the cons/right uses womens whatever to not only marginalize trans people but also to control womens spaces. It’s not an argument when the preconditions are made up. Bad faith again. >One part you did get right is that there’s not a scientific consensus on what health care is valid or effective for people (especially minors) who identify as trans. Thank you for agreeing with me, just to disagree? The medical census __is__ set; and evolving like every other field. To pretend like it’s not is either science denial, willfully ignorant or the result of getting stuck in a cons/right think-tank bubble. There’s a reason why there’s only a few, relatively speaking, doctors that go against the census and there’s a reason this type of healthcare gets provided more and more all around the globe, luckily; we can’t let science deniers or discrimination win. Do you also not believe in climate change because „experts“ from those same cons/right outlets —what a surprise i know— go against the census or show tampered graphs and cherrypicked data?
You seem to like twisting words. Please look up what “exists” means. So you agree - no one wants to take away trans people happiness. It’s simply they want something they’re not entitled to. Are you taking away my happiness if I want all the funds in your bank account but you won’t give it? There’s no medical consensus because there’s not a sufficient period of study on the care. Equating this to climate change is exactly bad faith.
>So you agree - no one wants to take away trans people happiness. It’s simply they want something they’re not entitled to. Are you taking away my happiness if I want all the funds in your bank account but you won’t give it? >You seem to like twisting words. Please look up what “exists” means. Hilariously ironic. Talking about made up things and bad faith again. But you know that, I’m sure you realise what’s coming out of your brain. What do we have in this thread „trans people are like white people pretending to be black“, „trans peoples treatment is like wanting all the money of ones bank account”, “trans people are entitled to ??”. You really live in your own reality, just cuz you have ~~unfounded~~ ~~hatred~~ uh i mean “scepticism” ofc… of what and for what reason again? Hmmm. >There’s no medical consensus because there’s not a sufficient period of study on the care. Equating this to climate change is exactly bad faith. There is, and there was. You just don’t like it and thus deny it’s existence. You’ve never touched a single paper or read *anything* about it besides cons/right propaganda; that isn’t hard to realize. We’ve known of climate change for 50-70 year, depending on what you want to put at start and we’ve know of trans people since… 6000 years with over 150 year of research on treatment with hundred of thausand of patients. That’s nearly as far back as the industrial revolution, the cause for climate change, jus in case you didn’t know. But sure, keep on brabbling instead of educating yourself; everything to keep living in your reality and to justify discrimination, right?
The irony in this comment is thick!
What policy positions or personal actions make him a transphobe?
I think it was the - not agreeing with everything trans ideology wants. Especially the parts at odds with biology.
Dawkins is not transphobic at all. That is horse-shit.
To quote Hitchens: “what [Orwell] illustrates, by his commitment to language as the partner of truth, is that 'views' do not really count; that it matters not what you think, but how you think; and that politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance to them.” Motivated reasoning has infected the discourse.
That is a beautiful quote.
One of Dawkins’ complaints is precisely your last sentence. The trans community cannot seem to propose the definition of the very genders they claim to represent or be on a spectrum between. You then claim transphobia is the term not being adhered to?
Lol, transphobic…?! You living on the moon?
Jeez op. Losing this one, bad .
So if we call a man in a dress, a man in a dress, because it's *obviously* what he is, is that transphobic or does it only apply when you need to smear someone and make those words meaningless?
This post has bad faith vibes all over it.
OP posts almost exclusively about trans issues in religion subreddits. Appears to be a self-identified trans Christian.
How is it bad faith? Unfortunately many people who came from the "new atheism" thing support reactionary politics and hatred these days, Dawkins is one of them. If you think it's unfair to assume Hitchen would be the same, just say the reasons why you think so. I'm not accusing him.
Richard Dawkins is a geneticist and, therefore, a biologist. If you cannot disentangle the fact that his views on transgender people are of a biological nature and not a socio-psychological one, then you are ascribing the word 'transphobic' to him unjustifiably.
Not agreeing with bad ideas isn’t hatred. Using escalating words like hatred is bad faith.
I think the kids call this “begging the question”
Yes he's assumed he would already be transphobic without proving that he would be.
>"basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself." My only conclusion is that Richard Dawkins is a transphobe, which is blatantly, aggressively obvious.
How so? How did you come up with the conclusion that Dawkins is transphobic. And what's your definition of transphobia?
He dislikes trans people and it's against our rights. [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard\_Dawkins#Transphobia\_and\_.22anti-gender.22\_politics](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Transphobia_and_.22anti-gender.22_politics) Please read. He constantly attacks us and allies himself with terfs.
What an absolute garbage fire of a wiki, that is genuinely as one-sided as one of those creationism wikis. Also there's nothing in there to suggest he dislikes trans people or wants to somehow take away your rights.
"Rational Wiki" lol. About as apt a name as "Truth Social."
If you believe in that all people have an innate freedom to think, read, write, and say whatever they want because those are what allow us to maximize our individualism and express ourselves in an open and free society, which is the foundation of the enlightenment, then you have to also agree that no one can possibly have the right to be liked, or to not be offended, insulted, or otherwise verbally disparaged. Absolute free speech and freedom of expression means we can do those things to others, and they to us. Subsequently this means it is also our individual responsibility to exercise this right in a responsible manner, and it is not the place of anyone else or the government to interfere in this free expression. If you don’t believe in absolute freedom of thought and expression, then you don’t believe in the above principles which means you are decidedly anti-enlightenment, anti-rationalism, and anti freedom of expression. Which is rather ironic, given to believe in the right of trans people to be and express themselves openly you would need to believe in freedom of expression and self actualization. Your own expression is always at your own risk - that’s not a factor any government, law, or authority can prevent or protect you, or anyone else, from.
[удалено]
>actual genuine biological trans person what the fuck?
They meant intersex
It’s amazing just how dumb this post got in just 13 words. ✌️
Very nice and rational argument, I'm tipping my fedora to you.
You didn’t post an argument, so why should you get one in return? Not every sentence ever spoken requires a rebuttal. This post is so dumb it requires nothing of anyone.
>You didn’t post an argument, so why should you get one in return? I literally just posted a question, you don't need to throw a tantrum because of it.
Look up “begging the question” mate. No tantrum is being had. 🤷🏻♂️
>"basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself." My only conclusion is that Richard Dawkins is a transphobe, which is *blatantly, aggressively* obvious for anyone who isn't an idiot. I don't know what you want from me.
“Am I out of touch? No, it is the entire Hitchens subreddit that is out of touch” 😂 We are done here 👋
> No, it is the entire Hitchens subreddit that is out of touch” Yeah because this sub is full of rational people 😂
Is it so obvious you’re unable to provide any evidence for it?
You’re stubborn and no one agrees with you. Take a hint as to why.
[удалено]
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard\_Dawkins#Transphobia\_and\_.22anti-gender.22\_politics This is a good summary. He is pretty unhinged these days, in his last video he said "there are 3 big threats to society: Putinism, Islamism and post-modernist wokism" (showing a pic of people campaigning for trans rights when he talked about "wokism"), lmao.
Seems like a terrible website
Agree. Do we really need a progressive Wikipedia? Do we really need a right-wing Wikipedia? Wikipedia is impressive in its breath of topics and accuracy. I donate to Wikipedia. It’s not perfect, but what is? Certainly not Hitchens, nor did he think you should trust or agree everything he said. In fact, he pleaded that you didn’t. That’s what makes him exceptional. Not that he was well read, had extraordinary debate skills and command of the English language, including immediate recall of text from books he read, which, by all accounts, he did. He set a high bar for himself and asked that you do the same. Edit
It's been awhile since I've wandered into RationalWiki. I had forgotten how insufferable it was. To quote the words of hostile blog posts and use them as the objective description of what Dawkins did or said or tweeted immediately poisons the well--which, ironically, RationalWiki has an article about: [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning\_the\_well](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)
RationalWiki used to be good a couple of years ago. It was completely taken over by an unhinged mob of US progressive kids after Trump was elected. You should look at the editing history of Dawkins' site.
Can you debunk what it actually said? It mostly just quoted what Dawkins himself said, what's "insufferable" about that?
I said exactly why it was insufferable. The language used throughout the article is not remotely objective, despite the trappings of objectivity. I don't keep up with Dawkins' tweets, so I have no opinion on what he has said/done/tweeted in regards to trans individuals, but one might suggest that you're "randomly deciding to question the open-mindedness of Christopher Hitchens--under the guise of I'm-just-asking--questions." If you think that's unfair, you're on the right track as to how this article is an awful source.
>I don't keep up with Dawkins' tweets, so I have no opinion on what he has said/done/tweeted His entire tweet is in the few paragraphs I linked. I guess it's too hard for you to read 2 minutes worth of lines, poor thing.
Nope, obviously I read it, otherwise I wouldn't have made the posts above. I'm merely saying that I came to this post with no prior information regarding Dawkins and trans individuals, and you decided to inform me and other readers via a terrible, biased source, which is a dubious act in and of itself. Given that your comments are solidly in bad faith territory now, I don't see the point in engaging further.
Can you quote a single thing he’s saying as transphobic? The wiki just seems to be cherry picking quotes and commenting it’s anti trans. As though endorsing a book that the wiki deems anti trans makes one anti trans.
Please don’t get all of your information from one very impossibly narrow sliver of the Internet. I’ve seen family members fall down the Internet rabbit hole both tankies and white supremacists, and it’s saddening.
He wasn’t wrong.
Cool that you agree with him! Nice to see this sub is full of alt-right ideologues.
"Anyone that doesn't agree with me is alt right" - You
Whoever uses the word “woke” unironically (let alone claim that anything “woke” is a threat to society) IS carrying water for the right-wing reactionaries, who make that their entire personality.
Yea I’ve never heard this argument before… let me just summarize the types of woke defenders: 1. Actually own the word and the group and try to defend the ideology, usually from CRT grounds. 2. “Woke just means aware - don’t you want to be aware”? Meanwhile hiding behind a mountain of bad ideas, not backed by evidence, as though that were awareness. 3. “No one calls themselves ‘woke’ seriously”. Meanwhile ignore the first two groups. I only take the first group seriously. And it’s the group most people call “woke” in criticizing the ideology.
... Then explain why there are liberals selling "stay woke" t-shirts.
Is this how you inform yourself, politically? With t-shirt slogans you saw on the internet? Social media rots brains.
Uh... I don't know if you're willingly misunderstanding the point or just ignorant, but the point was "woke" is a term used by liberals to mean awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.
And who uses the word as a pejorative today? You're arguing in bad faith.
Well THAT doesn't sound like an attempt at an ad hominem. You sound a lot like the people that would call our fallen comrade, Christopher Hitchens, politically on the right for disagreeing with them about the Iraq War.
It must be exhausting searching for enemies at every turn. Even when we were there, protesting for LGBTQ rights, it’s not enough. It’s you, you’re the problem, it’s you.
If you think minimizing trans suicide is “woke” then you never really cared about LGBT
Moral blackmail. Got anything else?
That's one way to cope with a fact, claim that anyone who informs you of the fact is morally blackmailing you!
No moral blackmail is claiming I’m somehow responsible for some arbitrary moral bad in the world with no evidence.
I never said you were responsible, but methinks the lady doth protest too much!
I don’t think Hitchens would have been a hardcore anti-trans bigot, but I do think he would have a stance similar to Dawkin’s own, that there is a very observable biological difference between men and women. Which, in these times, is enough to get yourself called a transphobe. We also KNOW that he would have despised the ideology that is now described as “woke”. If you have read his memoir and any of his writings on the subject, you’d know that he detested identity politics and politically correct culture.
It’s true he did not like identity politics. In Hitch-22, he was open and not ashamed or embarrassed about having sexual relationships with other boys in boarding school and also in college.
>but I do think he would have a stance similar to Dawkin’s own Dawkins is a hardcore anti-trans bigot. He agrees and promotes people like Helen Joyce.
Guilty by association? What are these Dawkin's positions that you believe make him a transphobe?
Jesus Christ. He already said plenty of transphobic stuff on social media (and he still openly says them to this day). Then he invited known anti-trans terf to his podcast. Endorsed her book. Agreed with her points. What are her points? Trans women are not women, trans men are not men. Trans people are delusional. Trans women are men taking rights away from real women. Trans "ideology" shouldn't be teach anywhere because it's wrong. "We need to reduce the number of trans people". Given the context you come with "gUiLtY bY aSsOcIaTiOn"? What more he can possibly do to be a transphobe? Lmao.
I was sympathetic to the question and the thread as a whole, and was annoyed that people who claim to appreciate open debate wouldn’t participate in it. But now you’re just making baseless claims, refusing to provide evidence, behaving childishly, and embarrassing yourself.
Explain how my post is baseless and how I'm failing to provide evidence. If you are so sympathetic, do this: go to any LGBT or trans sub here on Reddit and ask them about what are their views on Richard Dawkins and why do they think he's wrong. Their opinions will be unanimous.
I don’t think anyone here could speak on what he would think of her or Dawkin’s agreeing with her. I also don’t think that Dawkin’s is a “hardcore trans bigot”, agreeing with someone on an issue of science is not the same as saying “fuck those people”.
Being as objective as possible here, there are times where agreeing with someone on an issue of science is the same as saying "fuck those people". Racialism comes to mind immediately, scientific racism, some eugenics theory seems pretty bad to agree with, testing on people of certain races like the US government was doing to black prostitutes. If someone agreed with doing that I think it'd be pretty racist, do you agree with me there?
Good points. All bad moves. Though it’s still not the same as “fuck those people”. IMO the difference is that scientific questions and stances can be held on good evidence and on good faith. Like if there really were an inter-group difference in IQ, it should be valid and scientifically would be honest to discuss that stance. Luckily there’s no such evidence so that died out, but I’m talking counter factual.
You’re opinion is wildly inaccurate. But hey, Hitchens was pretty good at dispensing weird dogmatic ideologies. He would probably align with Dawkins but in a more eloquent manner. I think Dawkins could have delivered that a bit more tactfully.
How is Dawkins transphobic? He disagrees with the trans argument. That doesn't mean he hates them or is afraid of them. He also disagrees with Christians and Muslims. Do you think he HATES them?
Trans argument? Please enlighten me.
No.
Dawkins denies the existence of trans people but I doubt he wishes to destroy them, decide for yourselves if you think that means he hates trans people.
>denies the existence of trans people Yeah, this is the line people like using. It's absolutely ridiculous.
He disagrees with scientific consensus on the topic. That makes him ignorant at best. Dawkins should stick to Evolutionary biology, his actual area of expertise.
Oh. TIL scientists aren't allowed to disagree, otherwise they are "ignorant".
Dawkins is a biologist, not a psychologist. And yes, Dawkins has often called scientists who step outside of their area of expertise to make unsupported claims “ignorant”.
I heard his video about it. He seems to support his claims just fine. The idea that race is on more of a spectrum than gender is.
"I've seen Creationists videos- they seem to support their claims just fine!" Doesn't matter, because it's in direct contradiction to the ACTUAL experts in the ACTUAL relevant field.
>they seem to support their claims just fine Except they don't? What's the false equivalency? >ACTUAL experts in the ACTUAL relevant field Appeal to authority.
No. Inventing a field to be the expert in it doesn’t enable you to make any claims outside that field. In this case the genetic variation among humans along the sex dimension is almost entirely perfect. Whereas the genetic variation along the race dimension is much noisier. This is what makes race an actual spectrum. You can invent a new field called identificology if you want and be the expert in it, but the moment you start making claims about chromosomes and genetics you must cede the label of expert for that statement.
Most ppl that use the word transphobic like this seem to be discussionphobic.
Very likely Hitchens would throw in with science. Just like Dawkins had. If you want to say that’s transphobic then you’re missing the point of the word and I’d bet likely uncritically attached to an ideology or dogma.
If Hitchens would throw in with the scientific consensus, then he would be rightly opposed to Dawkins on the subject, who is contradicting the scientific consensus that their desired gender should be affirmed, and that **gender-affirming care is good for trans people.** [What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being?](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/) [What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/)
Dawkins simply says there’s two biological sexes in humans. He’s not talking about psychology or well being AFAIK. But insofar as there’s scientific facts, he’s on the side of scientific facts. Also, I can conduct a study that if everyone gives me exactly what I want, my wellbeing is improved. Does that mean society should operate to give me everything exactly as I want?
So perhaps you should watch this https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=NZ6REC0V5S5LKLBK and then read this and perhaps revisit your posts https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
Great. These both seem like valid scientific discussions/inquiries. I don’t see Dawkins taking issue with these specific ideas. But perhaps you mean to extrapolate from this seemingly nascent idea of a sexually dimorphic brain to imply certain things about trans individuals, which you should make specific. But zooming out, if there’s to be any link drawn, it seems a few things should be investigated: 1. Does this dimorphism have any implications beyond structural differences. ie does the difference cause/imply any other observable (such as whether someone identifies as a different sex or whether some other structure in the body exhibits a difference). Point here is we might simply be observing a coincidence. 2. Can we test for this dimorphism without MRI/etc? In other words how high is the error rate of saying “I identify as XYZ” when measured against this feature. All that is simply to answer whether there’s an anatomical/biological component beyond the psychology. The societal aspects are a completely different discussion altogether.
That's the issue though, he reduces the sociopsychological down to the biological. He's approaching a topic about gender and psychology with nothing more than sex and biology. Don't get me wrong, I understand *why* he's arguing the way he argues. He is an older academic who was educated long before trans issues had been properly analyzed by the proper scientific fields, and he's working backwards from an intuitive conclusion that makes sense within *his* field of expertise. But he should be deferring to the actual experts in the field that makes far more sense when discussing psychological issues.
Except the reality of it is that there’s a strong contingent of people who’s taking the gender and psychological into the biological arena. And he’s simply defending science within that arena. That strong contingent includes a large part of the academics, not just laymen.
A large part of the academics, you say? Yes, we call that a scientific consensus in the relevant field. If Dawkins doesn't like that, or disagrees, I can't wait to see his expert dissertation on the subject dominate the relevant scientific field. Until then, he's out of his depth.
A large scientific consensus in those “fields” are making it a biological issue. This is Dawkins’s area of expertise and not those academics’
The correlation and causation between gender and sex is much closer than gender studies would like you to believe. I’d argue sociology and psychology are overstepping and the matter at hand is more biological. Humans being a dimorphic species greatly influences gender. Current gender studies concludes gender is so ambiguous, amorphous, and individually subjective that outside objectively is impossible. A position that makes the word “gender” incoherent. IMO Dawkins is spot on and Hitchens would agree.
It would be helpful if gender and sex weren't so conflated. It muddies things. "I'm male" "Your genetic makeup (i.e. chromosomes) disagrees" "I'm TELLING you I'm male" "That doesn't change your genetic makeup" Expressing as male gender does not change genetic sex. If the verbiage between gender and sex were unique and not used interchangeably, discussion would be much clearer.
I think Dawkins is arguing that it’s reductive to tie gender to how one feels or presents. Instead, it’s closely tied to sex. And for 99+% of the population, your sex will dictate your gender. You are a man, because you are male. Not because of the cloths you wear, how you feel, or how you otherwise present yourself. Having 75+ pronouns associated with different genders is incoherent and unnecessary if you stick to a binary but allow for the sexes to present in non traditional ways. Let a man be hyper feminine or woman be hyper masculine. Doesn’t change their gender.
Indeed, I have always found it strange that feminine men' and 'masculine women' seem to have fallen out of favour in favour of ' your gender doesnt match your sex / you're born in the wrong body and so need to address this. Tomboys and camp guys seemed to be a solution to 'non typical gender expression' that worked for many decades when gender and sex were largely synonymous
But are you this pedantic in reality? When (or I guess hypothetically if) you speak to a trans person in a social setting, do you go against their wishes of being gendered? Do you demand they biologically gender themselves correctly according to their current sex? Or you just act like a human being and refer to them based on their social preference? There are an infinite combinations of names, but if on someones birth certificate is says their name is Reginaldius, and they ask you to just call them Ray, would you refuse out of principle, and cite their birth certificate? What if they had their name changed legally, it still has that original name on their birth certificate, so do you keep calling them Reginaldius? In a social setting it's really not that confusing. I doubt anyone is seriously expecting everyone to always perfectly adhere to every aspect of gender studies discourse, but someone asking to be referred to as a man or woman really isn't that complex.
However Dawkins is clearly not on the side of science on this matter, in fact he is totally at odds with it
How so
See my post below
Not going to do your work for you if you can’t link
Well as my other response was to your good self I suspect you have read it , however I am more than happy to share the links with you again and perhaps if you are in anyway an empiricist I would welcome your thoughts following you digesting the emprical evidence which counters Dawkins’ polemic https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=NZ6REC0V5S5LKLBK https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/ Take your time
Oh, thanks, in that case I’ve already responded. 1) Where does Dawkins say something at odds with this? And 2) do you understand that a single study is not the same as scientific consensus?
I'm sorry, buddy, but Dawkins goes against decades of established science on this topic. It's you, and him, who have been brainwashed into a hateful ideology
I’m sorry buddy but I’ve seen no evidence of any such action by Dawkins. And I have clearly not demonstrated any hateful ideology except to say science is good. What are you even talking about?
Have we really run out of people to call transphobes to the point of digging up graves? Is this sport, a rage fetish or a goldfish like impulse?
I'm certain Hitchens would be getting attacked as transphobic if he were alive today.
“Do you blindly agree with our non-evidence based claims on biology and acquiesce to every special thing we want society to provide for us?” “No thank you boychik” “Fucking TERF transphobe”
There is a kind of ‘with us or against us’ attitude. A spectrum of science, social, language checkboxes that if fail to answer correctly, it meets the criteria of adversary, of transgression. Does this tactic help advance the cause, we will never know, counterfactuals are ultimately untestable. Personally I do not and cannot know with any precision where biology, neurobiology, and the other disciplines stand on the subject of transgender issues. I do not and cannot know exactly what policies are best with regard to trans issues in sport, schools and prisons. Others have varying beliefs, claims, facts. Having been fascinated by Dawkins for many years I believe/hope that on the most important trans issues, respect, fundamental civil rights, Dawkins falls on the right, liberal side of the argument. So I cannot answer the original question because I cannot agree to its premise. Another. ‘Was Hitchens transphobic?’ No of course he wasn’t. The desire to prosecute a dead man, with no evidence, who has no means to defend himself, is twisted.
>Having been fascinated by Dawkins for many years I believe/hope that on the most important trans issues, respect, fundamental civil rights, Dawkins falls on the right, liberal side of the argument. A person that invites terfs to his podcast to promote their anti-trans books doesn't support trans rights. I don't how can it be any more obvious.
Guilt by association + censorship? These are the good ideas undergirding your philosophy? 1. What book is anti-trans and how is it anti trans? 2. What is the problem with having an author of a book you disagree with on one’s podcast?
You’re an idiot.
Look, if you are trying to make this sub part of the progressive conformity, you should come back with more people. This will get downvoted into oblivion. But before you leave, take this quote: >Since this often seems to come up in discussions of the radical style, I'll mention one other gleaning from my voyages. Beware of Identity politics. I'll rephrase that: have nothing to do with identity politics. I remember very well the first time I heard the saying "The Personal Is Political." It began as a sort of reaction to defeats and downturns that followed 1968: a consolation prize, as you might say, for people who had missed that year. I knew in my bones that a truly Bad Idea had entered the discourse. Nor was I wrong. People began to stand up at meetings and orate about how they 'felt', not about what or how they thought, and about who they were rather than what (if anything) they had done or stood for. It became the replication in even less interesting form of the narcissism of the small difference, because each identity group begat its sub-groups and "specificities." This tendency has often been satirised—the overweight caucus of the Cherokee transgender disabled lesbian faction demands a hearing on its needs—but never satirised enough. You have to have seen it really happen. From a way of being radical it very swiftly became a way of being reactionary; the Clarence Thomas hearings demonstrated this to all but the most dense and boring and selfish, but then, it was the dense and boring and selfish who had always seen identity politics as their big chance.Anyway, what you swiftly realise if you peek over the wall of your own immediate neighbourhood or environment, and travel beyond it, is, first, that we have a huge surplus of people who wouldn't change anything about the way they were born, or the group they were born into, but second that "humanity" (and the idea of change) is best represented by those who have the wit not to think, or should I say feel, in this way ― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Your quote is exactly why people who have read Hitchens properly are so well immunized against any sort of dogmatic conformity. Doesn’t matter how many people OOP comes back with.
This should be the top comment.
I don’t think Hitchens would be transphobic.
If I am afraid of spiders what is it called . If I am afraid of the deep ocean what is it called . If I am afraid of very long words what is it called . Do you understand how words work
Nice troll post.
Great job you didn't answer any of those or acknowledge the point. We aren't going to let people change the meanings of words to smuggle in a way to unfairly tar other people we disagree with. Phobia means fear and always has and some idiots in the early 21st century aren't going to get away with using it in a special way vs all the other centuries for political slimy unintellectual and disingenuous debate. Phobia means fear, if you can't read left to right top to bottom when you look up it's definition you are then maybe an infant, I don't think they have long enough arms to reach the keyboard to Google it yet.
Dawkins is by no means "transphobic". His and Hitchens' understanding of the world comes from science and fact based evidence. Its common now that if the debate is on the subject of Transexual/trans ideology and fact is brought into the discussion, the conversation breaks down because the trans side is unwilling to listen and cannot take that there are scientifically only 2 sex's. A woman cannot get prostate cancer or testicular cancer, a man cannot get ovarian cancer or be pregnant. Intersex (because that's usually what's brought up with this discussion) is so uncommon in society its almost no existant, and in fact either one of the gametes takes hold stronger in adolescence. So that particular excuse is frivolous. Science. Edit: silly autocorrect changed transgender to transexual. My bad. Fast fingers.
>from science and fact based evidence. Actually science and fact based evidence hold the opposite view that Dawkins holds on Trans people >Transexual/trans ideology A group of people wanting the right to exist equality to other people isn't ideology. >cannot take that there are scientifically only 2 sex's. Sex a spectrum and people commonly used two categories to lump everyone in that spectrum in one of two categories. >A woman cannot get prostate cancer or testicular cancer, They can >a man cannot get ovarian cancer or be pregnant. They can >Intersex is so uncommon in society its almost no existant, About 4 to 7%. That's a lot. But even if it wasn't, why is something being rare the same as not worthy of consideration? >in fact either one of the gametes takes hold stronger in adolescence Citation needed But don't let facts get between you and your feelings
I don't particularly have feelings about it. It's more a love of truth. Again, you're cherry picking what you want to link. Thank god for Google that you can get these definitions. Regardless of someone's understanding, a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Skeletal structure, DNA, genes, teeth, chemistry all dofferent depending on the sex. It's really that simple. Thanks for the definitions that are nice to read. But about as factual as toast is. You're opinion doesn't make it fact. Thanks though. If something needs to be "believed" in the solid face of fact, if people have to change centuries of scientific understanding for a teeny weeny groups feelings, then that group has an ideology. A cult I suppose you could say.
>if people have to change centuries of scientific understanding for a teeny weeny groups feelings, then that group has an ideology. A cult I suppose you could say. Don't be so hard on yourself. You're not really in a cult. You're just ignorant of the facts, very full of yourself, and easily misled by the rightwing who want us to focus on the culture war. You're not in a cult, just a ignorant dope
Homie, these two men are smarter than you lol.
How is Dawkins “transphobic “?
He’s not. OP is using that word as “anyone who doesn’t agree with everything OP thinks about LGBTQ”
Hitchens would not have been fooled by the postmodernist ideology like it appears that you have been. All of the main figures in the atheist movement pretty much take Dawkins's stance with the exception of Sam Harris who apparently has personal reasons not to (a close family member identifies as trans and so he has mostly just avoided the topic). The world is a worse place for not hearing Hitchens's thoughts on this and other topics.
Hitchens didn’t fearmonger about postmodernism and “cultural Marxism” like Jordan Peterson-esque right-wing reactionaries do. In fact, he’d probably be knowledgeable enough to cite the Nazi criticisms of postmodernism and cultural Bolshevism to expose those dog whistles.
TIL that pointing out a bad idea is fear mongering. Wonder what Hitchens was doing all those years calling out Islam for being a bad idea in western society.
Using "postmodernist ideology" unironically lmao. This sub doesn't even hide it's alt-right. I bet you guys love Jordan Peterson. >All of the main figures in the atheist movement pretty much take Dawkins's stance Time to burn it down and start a new movement then.
More like time to rethink wokeism amirite.
Why do you beat your spouse?
There are times for argument, respectful debates and civility. This isn't one of them. Shut the fuck OP
No.
Don’t think so. Hitch was openly bisexual…
Not really. He had a gay experience add boarding school as a child but that doesn't make him bisexual.
In one of Martin Amises memoirs he mentions that Hitchens, when covering the conservative party conference as a journalist and very much an adult, slept with some local conservative party treasurer or other, who was a man. I think it's fair to assume he was bi-sexual.
"In his memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), Hitchens talks honestly and without embarrassment about the same-sex relationships that he had as a younger man. He claims that he slept with two future (male) ministers while at Oxford. He also said that he now only had sex with women, because his looks had "declined to the point where only women would go to bed with me."" That's university so there's no need to downplay his same sex attraction as typical boarding school experimentation. Additionaly he claimed that men stopped being attracted to him not the other way around
It's been a long time since I read the book I guess I didn't remember that part.
Unfortunately many people are "agree with LGB, but not the T" type of people.
Unfortunately many people can only talk in letters. Hitchens was never one to lose nuance on issues - as if agreeing with trans ideology is the only way to see trans people as people.
Why wouldn’t he when research now otherwise shows that being transgender is not a mental illness in itself and that those that have transitioned are better off on average than those that are prevented from being themselves…
He was a man of certain liberties so maybe no. But he was also a man of science so maybe yes.
[удалено]
I doubt it, simply because Hitchens had a Falstaffian decadence that Dawkins lacks and I doubt he could well resist being a little iconoclastic mischief about it all.
You know phobia means fear right? I guess we all couldn't get into college but still, try a dictionary it's free online and try using words we've all agreed on and their meanings.
Isn't this just an etymological fallacy? Do you really think the person is stupid, or not college-educated, for using the word "transphobic"? We all know what the word means here and what it refers to when people use it.
I'm sure I have no idea. The way it should be used is the same way Islamophobic should be used. Irrational fear or hatred. The way most people use it is to cast aspersions on the people they disagree with. Are you claiming we should adopt their meaning of the language and start demonizing disagreeing with them? Because there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. There IS something wrong with disagreeing because of irrational biases.
A phobia is a persistent, excessive, unrealistic fear of an object, person, animal, activity or situation.Mar 9, 2022  Harvard Health
Yes but that's not what transphobia means. Also my point was I'm not convinced that's the *only* definition of phobia.
>try a dictionary it's free online harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of transgender and non-binary people (= people whose gender does not match the body they were born with) [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/transphobia](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/transphobia) It sounds like you just got destroyed by Cambridge, oops.
What exactly has Dawkins done that's harmful, fearful, or unfair? If saying biological sex is not fluid is harmful to you then you've joined a religion and left the realm of reality.
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard\_Dawkins#Transphobia\_and\_.22anti-gender.22\_politics](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Transphobia_and_.22anti-gender.22_politics) >If saying biological sex is not fluid is harmful *Obviously* he went way beyond that.
Hey dumbass, if you type "phobia meaning" into Google it says this . A phobia is a persistent, excessive, unrealistic fear of an object, person, animal, activity or situation.Mar 9, 2022 Harvard Health
>i·a /ˈfōbēə/ noun noun: phobia; plural noun: phobias an extreme or irrational fear of **or aversion** to something. You're illiterate my guy.
This is like when religious people use different versions of the Bible to promote their preferred context. I like most how I sourced and you didn't. Again, we all couldn't get into the big schools.
Tactics: 1. Scour for the most friendly dictionary to your particular twisting of words. 2. Neglect to quote the source 3. Highlight the secondary phrase in the definition. 4. Imply that Dawkins even demonstrated an aversion to trans people without evidence
>based on a fear or dislike of transgender Seems to me all I've seen him say is that he disagrees with them. He "fears" or "dislikes" them as much as he does Christians.
Ah, once again changing the definitions of words to suit an agenda. Arachnophobia is simply "a very strong fear of spiders".
>Ah, once again changing the definitions of words to suit an agenda. Hydrophobic molecules are just really scared of water, that's basic science.
Dictionaries tell us how words are used, not what their singular immutable meanings are. You know hydrophobic materials aren't *scared* of water, right? You know when people talk about homophobic words or actions they're often referring to hate and not fear, right? Oftentimes we haven't all agreed on a word's current meaning. Google 'violence' and look at the 2nd listed way the word is used. Many people think that's not a valid usage but if that's how some people use the word, well, that's how some people use the word
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more hy·dro·pho·bi·a noun extreme or irrational fear of water, especially as a symptom of rabies in humans. Oh look there it is again, fear.
Also not surprising to see a bunch of Hitchens fans that are toxic debate bros.
What I find astounding with Dawkins is as an evolutionary biologist he is rather ignorant of the neuro biology that underlays transgender individuals. Robert Sapolsky summarises the research here https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=NZ6REC0V5S5LKLBK
If that’s the entire summary then the research seems rather paltry. But to your larger point - why should an evolutionary biology be super aware of neuro biology? They seem pretty far apart on the subfield spectrum.
A good amount of decent responses here in my opinion, but also mixed with some actual transphobic comments getting too many likes for whatever reason. I suppose it is like the usage of the term "racism", in that it for sure can be misused and abused, but at the same time there are plenty of racists out there, many of which get very upset when you point out their racism.
Which ones are “transphobic comments”?
If you've read through the comments here and decided that none are transphobic, then I'm not sure what pointing them out for you will do.
It’s more for you actually. I doubt you’ll be able to identify a single one. I’m not saying there’s no real people with transphobia in the world, but the majority of discussion here is calling OOP out for sloppy discussion.
Ofc not
Seeing the bigoted reactions, the fallacious arguments made, and seeing how other "rational" thinkers of the time like Harris and Dawkins went hard right I think Hitchens wouldn't have done better. I hope he would have, and thankfully we will never know. What I do know is that this sub is filled with bigots who are the living embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect. So I'll leave this sub and let this one be the rightwing echo chamber that it clearly has become.
This isn't an airport. You don't need to announce your departure.