Richard Dawkins loses award for wrongthink

[Ifreann]

Race and gender aren't the same.

Correct.

So any and all appeals to "BUT RACHEL DOLEZAL" have zero relevance to trans people and is really just a thinly veiled attack helicopter bit.

[Dakini]

I should probably note hat Rachel Dolezal is her deadname, her name has been legally changed to Nkechi Amare Diallo.

Please present me with scientific studies confirming that transracialism is a real thing.

I am not aware of any studies on the matter, but I can present the scientific evidence that notions of 'male' and 'female' brains are predominantly bunk.

That study doesn't say what you think it says. The study does not invalidate trans identities in the least and there are lots studies about the biological basis of trans identities so just stop.

I'm still waiting for any studies that support the idea of transracialism.

Because social constructs can affect people. By pretending to be black, Rachael Dolezal also pretended to share the same culture and history as black women when she didn't. She didn't grow up with people following her around the store thinking she might steal something because she's a white lady. She didn't grow up with people policing her natural hair because her natural hair was straight and blond. She didn't grow up being punished more harshly at school or deal with discriminatory hiring practices. She just came along pretending that she did.

Did Jenner grow up dealing with any of the issues that women face in the education system or society during decades of appearing as and identifying as a man?

Denying Diallo her identity because of her appearance and identification in her youth would do the same for Jenner's youth.

No, Jenner grew up being misgendered her whole life. I don't know who Diallo is.

[Xelsis]

Correct.

So any and all appeals to "BUT RACHEL DOLEZAL" have zero relevance to trans people and is really just a thinly veiled attack helicopter bit.

Not at all, we apply general principles across different things all the time: if we could not, then we would not have general principles at all.

The simple question is that if you are advancing a general principle that someone's self-identification should be respected and not questioned, what is the justification for actively rejecting Diallo's self-identification in a way that would be considered intensely bigoted by 'progressives' if said self-identification was sexual rather than racial?

[Le Tertie Roma]

Trash poll is trash.

Unrelated to this but just gotta say I watched the offensively-titled video in your sig just because why not, and wow. Good on you for getting the word out.

[Ifreann]

So any and all appeals to "BUT RACHEL DOLEZAL" have zero relevance to trans people and is really just a thinly veiled attack helicopter bit.

Not at all, we apply general principles across different things all the time: if we could not, then we would not have general principles at all.

You're transparently attempting to apply principles that are inapplicable in an effort to delegitimise trans identities. Which is to say, you're doing the attack helicopter bit, but you're trying to be clever about it. Just like Richard Dawkins, except I'm guessing you don't have a humanist of the year award to lose for this display of your entire ass.

[Xelsis]

I should probably note hat Rachel Dolezal is her deadname, her name has been legally changed to Nkechi Amare Diallo.



I am not aware of any studies on the matter, but I can present the scientific evidence that notions of 'male' and 'female' brains are predominantly bunk.

That study doesn't say what you think it says. The study does not invalidate trans identities in the least and there are lots studies about the biological basis of trans identities so just stop.

The first study has a sample size of thirty people and notes that there are people who identify as transgender without a biological component, people who you, I suppose, would consider to be 'liars.'

Your second study showed significant overlap between trans-identifying and non-trans-identifying, which would again indicate that that there is not a unique biological state of transgender identification, just influences.

The third likewise showed overlap.

The fourth is from 1995 with a sample size of six

The fifth openly rejects brain dimorphism and appears to define sex primarily by hormone levels that it openly admits are socially influenced.

___

Here's your issue, you can make one of two claims

1. Certain biological traits make one statistically more likely to identify as transgender.

2. People who identify as transgender are uniquely biologically different from people who do not.


The first is defensible. The second, which you advocate, is not. "Being transgender is part of their biology. It is how they are wired" falls apart when someone with nigh-identical wiring does not identify as transgender. One of them would be 'lying' from your take.

It is rather clearly about identification, and when it is about identification, you need justification for excluding others from their own self-identifications.

I'm still waiting for any studies that support the idea of transracialism.

I suppose I should remind you that you, not I, were the one who argued that race was a social construct.

Did Jenner grow up dealing with any of the issues that women face in the education system or society during decades of appearing as and identifying as a man?

Denying Diallo her identity because of her appearance and identification in her youth would do the same for Jenner's youth.

No, Jenner grew up being misgendered her whole life. I don't know who Diallo is.

Nketchi Amare Diallo is the legal name of the woman formerly known as Rachel Dolezal-I said as much in the last post.

If you want to play it that way, then Diallo grew up being misidentified racially her entire life.

[Yamato-Kankoku]

I should probably note hat Rachel Dolezal is her deadname, her name has been legally changed to Nkechi Amare Diallo.



I am not aware of any studies on the matter, but I can present the scientific evidence that notions of 'male' and 'female' brains are predominantly bunk.

That study doesn't say what you think it says. The study does not invalidate trans identities in the least and there are lots studies about the biological basis of trans identities so just stop.

I'm still waiting for any studies that support the idea of transracialism.

Did Jenner grow up dealing with any of the issues that women face in the education system or society during decades of appearing as and identifying as a man?

Denying Diallo her identity because of her appearance and identification in her youth would do the same for Jenner's youth.

No, Jenner grew up being misgendered her whole life. I don't know who Diallo is.

There are many parallels between identifying as a different gender and identifying as a different race.

Can one experience 'racial dysphoria', where you look in the mirror and feel insecure or out of place because of your birth race? There are mixed race individuals whom claim they do not feel black or white and thus feel a sort of 'dysphoria' and alienation. Can this apply to the situation at hand?

Theoretically, if you can identify and dress up as any race you choose, and if you are successful in passing as such, you will successfully be racially disguised and no one will know the difference. Dolezal wants to appear as a different race. Transgender people want to appear as a different gender. Irregardless of the motives behind these decisions, they are both adopting new identities and undergoing 'transitions' in order to achieve these identities and expecting society to respect it.
Have you ever heard of light-skinned 'black' people who choose to identify as white? I have seen these people receive similar backlash. Although this was more commonly performed before the civil rights movement when segregation was widespread in the USA. Many black professionals would attempt to 'pass' as a different race in order to receive better treatment and career opportunities.

[Xelsis]

Not at all, we apply general principles across different things all the time: if we could not, then we would not have general principles at all.

You're transparently attempting to apply principles that are inapplicable in an effort to delegitimise trans identities. Which is to say, you're doing the attack helicopter bit, but you're trying to be clever about it. Just like Richard Dawkins, except I'm guessing you don't have a humanist of the year award to lose for this display of your entire ass.

If they are so inapplicable, by all means, explain why they are. That you're left dodging that and instead grabbing at insults does not speak well of the strength of your argument.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

I strongly disagree with the practice of hounding foreign immigrants who speak little English simply because their staff are not trained to wax a trans woman's balls and such services are not advertised at all.

Any reliable sources for this happening at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv

Merely claiming to eschew bigotry and proclaiming one's support for trans people or women or black people is not enough for these woke extremists. Now, they expect you to enthusiastically applaud and pray five times a day at the altar of wokeness just like they do in China and North Korea, and increasingly, in Hong Kong.

Or you know, you can show your support instead of just claiming that you support these people and then showing that you don't actually get it.

Also, I might be wrong, but isn't China kinda homophobic and racist against black people?

Abso-fucking-lutely. China's a literal fascist, Han supremacist state. Being black in China is like being black in Nazi Germany.

You'd imagine that atheists of all people would be the first to defend LGBTQ+ rights and such, but here we are.

Anyway, Dawkins is going to be fine in the end. I highly doubt most people know who the humanist group is when you compared to who Dawkins is

No one can cancel him. They can try and they will fail. They will keep trying. Ultimately, the biggest casualties of cancel culture will be ordinary nobodies like you and me, not famous people like him. But these famous people speak for us when they decry cancel culture.

If race is a social construct with no basis in biology, as opposed to gender, that means that there should be no problem whatsoever with identifying with a different racial group, just like you're free to identify with any other socially constructed group. You're making an argument for Dolezal, not against.

*sigh* Appropriating the identity of an oppressed group when you are not a part of said oppressed group is not okay. Race is just a social construct, but social constructs can still be used to oppress people.

Trans people are who they say they are (trans women are women, trans men are men, non-binary people are non-binary). Rachel Dolezal is just a liar wearing a costume.

And who defines these "oppressed" groups? If racism really equals power + prejudice, then that stabbing of Muslims in Albania by a Christian extremist is not a hate crime because Muslims are 80% of the population in Albania and therefore, can't be discriminated against. The perpetrator is the real victim according to woke logic.

That's not how it works. You don't get to just declare yourself a racial group and pretend to be one.

Unlike gender, race is only a social construct that has no basis in biology.

You don't have to identify as Chinese if you don't want to. That doesn't mean that you can claim to be e.g. Korean if you're not though.

Why comrade, do you distinguish race as a social construct yet view gender as a biological one? In terms of dressing as a 'boy' or dressing as a 'girl', it seems entirely socially constructed. There is a difference between anatomically derived biological sex and the 'portrayal/identification' of masculine and/or feminine characteristics.

As for GHK, if he decided to portray himself as racially Korean, he could very well do so and perhaps even pass as such. You may never know the difference if you did not know him personally. It seems that the concepts of nationality, race, and gender can be ambiguous and somewhat fragile. Who is going to stop these people from identifying as things that they are not? No one has the power to alter their self-image and autonomous decision to self-customize. Racial classifications are arbitrary whereas phenotypes are more tangible.

I consider both race and gender to be social constructs. I don't see the problem with either transracialism or transgenderism.

A man appropriating the identity of an oppressed group, women, when they are not part of said oppressed group is not okay.

Transracial people, however, are who they say they are (trans blacks are blacks, trans whites are whites).

See the problem? You have no actual argument for excluding one over the other.

Except that trans people don't just wake up one day and decide that they will pretend to be trans. They are who they say they are. Being transgender is part of their biology. It is how they are wired (here is just one study going into this). Trans women are women because their brains tell them that they are women.

Nobody is biologically "transracial". That's not a real thing. That's just liars being liars.

Taiwanese people are biologically Han Chinese by ancestry. Are Taiwanese people liars? Is the Taiwanese nation a lie? Are Hong Kong people a lie?

And a transracial persons's brain does not tell them that they are of a different race? What other organ tells them that: their appendix?

Please present me with scientific studies confirming that transracialism is a real thing.

Beyond that: if race is solely socially constructed, how, exactly, is someone "lying" if they claim to be a member of another race?

Because social constructs can affect people. By pretending to be black, Rachael Dolezal also pretended to share the same culture and history as black women when she didn't. She didn't grow up with people following her around the store thinking she might steal something because she's a white lady. She didn't grow up with people policing her natural hair because her natural hair was straight and blond. She didn't grow up being punished more harshly at school or deal with discriminatory hiring practices. She just came along pretending that she did.

"She's never experienced life as a black person."

So? That still doesn't invalidate her right to transition and be one with those who do. As far as I'm concerned, her transracialism is a gesture of solidarity. Or are you saying white girls can't wear traditional Chinese dresses, because I sure don't mind if they do. It isn't racist to celebrate different cultures and identities or identify as one of them if only out of solidarity. Eminem speaks with a "black" accent. He grew up in majority-black Detroit. Is he pretending to be black too?

As for me, I'd rather be Japanese than Chinese because China's racist and totalitarian as fuck and also to spite my oppressors, the CCP and its legion of uniformed thugs. Japan is more Chinese than China. Nippon banzai.

[Czechostan]

I kind of agree with Dawkins that there's a comparison to be made between Rachel Dolezal and transgender folks, but for different reasons. Both gender and race are entirely fluid social constructs that have as much meaning as we funnel into them. So when we impose these categories on people, "you're a woman, and you're white," not only are they ultimately meaningless, but people are bound to show some pushback, saying, "you know, I really don't think these categories fit me well. Therefore, I'm going to self-identify as something else." For some people, that's fine. Race and gender are constructs, so identify as you choose. But for me, the question becomes... why do we even need to have these constructs anymore?

And then there's people like Dawkins who assert that there must be some truth underneath it all. "You can identify as black if your transracial, and you can identify as a woman if you're transgender, but that's not what you really are."

At this point, I would ask Dawkins what the defining characteristic of a "true black person" or a "true woman" is. If he thinks that chromosomes determines the latter, as the article suggests, I'm profoundly disappointed a biologist of his stature would give such a reductionist answer.

My favorite part of the Spiked article is by far the quote is "Dawkins’ great crime here is being a reasoned thinker in an increasingly religious age." The irony is that Dawkins is being entirely religious here. He's religiously accepting supposedly scientific dogmas without question: that human identities such as race and gender can wholly be determined scientifically, and that you only need to look at a person's chromosomes to determine their gender. If Dawkins wants to stand against dogmatic religious conventions, then maybe he needs to stop clinging so closely to essentialist notions of race and gender.

[Dakini]

*snip*

So what you're saying is that you don't have any studies that support the idea that transracialism is a real thing so instead you're going to misrepresent the studies I linked?

Cool, cool.

[Yamato-Kankoku]

I kind of agree with Dawkins that there's a comparison to be made between Rachel Dolezal and transgender folks, but for different reasons. Both gender and race are entirely fluid social constructs that have as much meaning as we funnel into them. So when we impose these categories on people, "you're a woman, and you're white," not only are they ultimately meaningless, but people are bound to show some pushback, saying, "you know, I really don't think these categories fit me well. Therefore, I'm going to self-identify as something else." For some people, that's fine. Race and gender are constructs, so identify as you choose. But for me, the question becomes... why do we even need to have these constructs anymore?

And then there's people like Dawkins who assert that there must be some truth underneath it all. "You can identify as black if your transracial, and you can identify as a woman if you're transgender, but that's not what you really are."

At this point, I would ask Dawkins what the defining characteristic of a "true black person" or a "true woman" is. If he thinks that chromosomes determines the latter, as the article suggests, I'm profoundly disappointed a biologist of his stature would give such a reductionist answer.

My favorite part of the Spiked article is by far the quote is "Dawkins’ great crime here is being a reasoned thinker in an increasingly religious age." The irony is that Dawkins is being entirely religious here. He's religiously accepting supposedly scientific dogmas without question: that human identities such as race and gender can wholly be determined scientifically, and that you only need to look at a person's chromosomes to determine their gender. If Dawkins wants to stand against dogmatic religious conventions, then maybe he needs to stop clinging so closely to essentialist notions of race and gender.

This writer captures the situation very well.
I think everyone should read what he wrote.

[Czechostan]

And a transracial persons's brain does not tell them that they are of a different race? What other organ tells them that: their appendix?

Please present me with scientific studies confirming that transracialism is a real thing.

Beyond that: if race is solely socially constructed, how, exactly, is someone "lying" if they claim to be a member of another race?

Because social constructs can affect people. By pretending to be black, Rachael Dolezal also pretended to share the same culture and history as black women when she didn't. She didn't grow up with people following her around the store thinking she might steal something because she's a white lady. She didn't grow up with people policing her natural hair because her natural hair was straight and blond. She didn't grow up being punished more harshly at school or deal with discriminatory hiring practices. She just came along pretending that she did.

I never really liked this argument against Dolezal's identification, because it tacitly suggests that to be black means to be oppressed. That is to say, a black man is black insofar as he is discriminated against. And maybe I kind of agree, but it's because I think the only way to end discrimination against black people is to stop thinking of people as "black" or "brown" or "white" and instead abolish the concept of race altogether.

Here's a question I want to pose to you, though: do you think that it's wrong for a MTF trans person to identify as a woman then? After all, growing up male, she didn't experience the same discrimination women experience.

[Czechostan]

I kind of agree with Dawkins that there's a comparison to be made between Rachel Dolezal and transgender folks, but for different reasons. Both gender and race are entirely fluid social constructs that have as much meaning as we funnel into them. So when we impose these categories on people, "you're a woman, and you're white," not only are they ultimately meaningless, but people are bound to show some pushback, saying, "you know, I really don't think these categories fit me well. Therefore, I'm going to self-identify as something else." For some people, that's fine. Race and gender are constructs, so identify as you choose. But for me, the question becomes... why do we even need to have these constructs anymore?

And then there's people like Dawkins who assert that there must be some truth underneath it all. "You can identify as black if your transracial, and you can identify as a woman if you're transgender, but that's not what you really are."

At this point, I would ask Dawkins what the defining characteristic of a "true black person" or a "true woman" is. If he thinks that chromosomes determines the latter, as the article suggests, I'm profoundly disappointed a biologist of his stature would give such a reductionist answer.

My favorite part of the Spiked article is by far the quote is "Dawkins’ great crime here is being a reasoned thinker in an increasingly religious age." The irony is that Dawkins is being entirely religious here. He's religiously accepting supposedly scientific dogmas without question: that human identities such as race and gender can wholly be determined scientifically, and that you only need to look at a person's chromosomes to determine their gender. If Dawkins wants to stand against dogmatic religious conventions, then maybe he needs to stop clinging so closely to essentialist notions of race and gender.

This writer captures the situation very well.
I think everyone should read what he wrote.

I appreciate it. The Dolezal case really fascinates me.

[Page]

Ughhhh. I am so over people spewing transphobia and then justifying it like "I'm just stating facts."

I have yet to ever hear of a single transwoman claiming that she has a functioning uterus nor a single transman say he is capable of getting a woman pregnant. Trans people are not making any claims contrary to biological fact.

A trans woman does not want you to think she has ovaries, she wants you to recognize her as a woman. She wants to not be harassed when using a public toilet, she wants to not be bullied for wearing feminine clothing, she wants you to call her by her name. Transphobes keep moving the goalposts and claiming this issue is something different, it has jack shit to do with sperm and egg gametes or Y chromosomes.

[Xelsis]

*snip*

So what you're saying is that you don't have any studies that support the idea that transracialism is a real thing so instead you're going to misrepresent the studies I linked?

Cool, cool.

Given that I said that I was not aware of any studies on transracialism several posts ago, I am not sure why that is a surprise to you. I'll again note that you, not I, made the claim that race was a social construct.

[Disgraces]

Holy shit I completely agree with him. It's really fucking sad that you can't criticize anything without getting called a transphobe. Where has the scientific method gone?

[Difinbelk]

That's not how it works. You don't get to just declare yourself a racial group and pretend to be one.
Unlike gender, race is only a social construct that has no basis in biology.

<snip> He should know that race isn't a real biological thing and he should have at least a basic understanding of trans identities. He doesn't have to be an expert in either of these as they aren't his actual field of biology, but this is like a cosmologist insisting that Pluto is really a planet but e.g. Makemake and Ceres aren't except about a topic that actually affects people instead of something esoteric like the definition of a planet.

I'm really confused by this, because yeah, gender -meaning presentation based on social norms, i.e. "men should fish, and only women should wear skirts"- is inherently constructive, but -and correct me if I'm wrong- don't people tend to have noticeable cell-level differences based on their race (e.g. black people having higher melanin production)? Wouldn't that make race more akin to sex in biological terms? Or are you defining race as just "reckless division of groups of people into semi-arbitrary groups" (e.g. Arabs having to identify as "white" on the US Census despite obvious differences)?

[Nova Bromelia]

This was silly and counterproductive. And that for a reward he received more than two decades ago. Not that this will ever be a meaningful statement, but, should I ever be nominated for any kind of price from any kind of ideological organization, I will refuse by definition, because this shows that after accepting such a prize one must , for the rest of their lives, be beholden to whatever moral or ideological standard that such an organization might ever have.

Of course I do not agree with Dawkins' statement, it even upsets me a little, ethnicity is not the same as biology, Richard Dawkins, of all people, should be able to appreciate the difference between those two things. I don't read read his post as transphobic, by the way, more as casual racism. Which does not make Dawkins evil, I am sure I have been guilty of that too, somewhere in the past. And then I recognized it for what it was and then I got better. Because that is how life works.

[Enjuku]

Good, Dawkins deserve to lose the awards.

If a scientist started pushing eugenics or slavery, and refused to back down on their comments, they would get their award revoked and nobody would bat an eye.

Nobody would say "blacks should be slaves. Discuss." and claim they're being persecuted when everyone gets in an uproar. It's obvious they're throwing red meat out over something sensitive and want to provoke a response. That isn't professional.

Why is it wrong to revoke awards from academics who don't believe in basic science? Or understand the difference between public and private discussion? It's nothing to do with being not being 'woke' as it is with saying inappropriate things and getting consequences for your actions.

[Nakena]

If a scientist started pushing eugenics

Hey I got bad news for you

[Enjuku]

If a scientist started pushing eugenics

Hey I got bad news for you

True, Dawkins has a bunch of disgusting views. He's a white supremacist imperialist and a bigot after all.

But people like to ignore that and focus on his transphobia as some kind of heroism award, similar to JK Rowling. Gotta remind people that transphobia isn't just an "opposing view" it's literally on the level of eugenics and other regressive psuedoscience.

[Disgraces]

If a scientist started pushing eugenics

Hey I got bad news for you

For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy.

[Nakena]

True, Dawkins has a bunch of disgusting views. He's a white supremacist imperialist and a bigot after all.

That sounds like an award almost.

[Czechostan]

*snip*

So what you're saying is that you don't have any studies that support the idea that transracialism is a real thing so instead you're going to misrepresent the studies I linked?

Cool, cool.

It depends what you mean by "real." Do we see transracial behavior displayed by individuals in society? Yes, as was clearly with the case of Dolezal. Martina Big has had her skin color tinted a much darker shade and has received breast implants to get a more "authentically African" appearance.

Yamato-Kankoku also brought up the idea of "passing," and isn't that transracialism? I'm sure we all know people whose lineage would suggest one race, but whose appearance would suggest another. For instance, I know several people with a black parent and a white parent, but they look entirely white. And there are cases where the opposite is true. Barack Obama is of mixed-race descent, but we think of him as black. Are these people transracial?

For transracialism to be real, it would seem race has to be real. After all, the term purports a moving from one racial category to another. If we're saying that race is a construct, then it's much more murky. Then, the idea of race loses all truth and all immutability, and the boundaries are constantly in flux. Transracialism is unavoidable at that point, as once the definition of race (and who counts as belonging to what race) changes, someone can easily find themselves thrust into a different race. For instance, when my great-great grandfather immigrated to this country, his race was marked as "German." But when died, I can almost assure you he wouldn't have been thought of as racially German but white.

But is there any reality to race if it is a construct? I'm inclined to say no. It's in flux, it's changing. Many people, when they say race is a construct, are saying race is not real, it's just in our heads.

The thing is, why not apply this to gender as well? Many people agree that gender is a construct, that "one is not born but rather becomes a woman," yet simultaneously believe being transgender is a real experience. I would ask, why do we keep these constructs at all?