Richard Dawkins loses award for wrongthink

[Galloism]

IIRC, Hitler never lost his 1938 "Man of the Year" award.

It ain't an award. Technically, you've been person of the year once.

I think I've been 1/7,000,000,000th of a person of the year.

[Kubra]

It ain't an award. Technically, you've been person of the year once.

I think I've been 1/7,000,000,000th of a person of the year.

nah nah 2006 was str8 up "you".
I tell ya what participations awards am I right

[The Two Jerseys]

So a guy who won an award for championing scientific fact is being criticized for expressing a view that is consistent with scientific fact?

[Xelsis]

In all the gnashing of teeth over how offensive Dawkins's tweet was, I have yet to hear someone explain why Rachel Dolezal's self-identification is inherently invalid and should be rejected but self-identification as a different sex is inherently valid and should be accepted.

[Philjia]

He was given the prize for services to humanism. Humanism is not just atheism. It is a philosophy of respect for humanity, and respect for individual freedom, agency, and dignity. Opposition to religion, in secular humanism, is derived from the tendency of religion to stand in opposition to those ideals. However, Dawkins isn't much of a humanist. His own philosophy tends towards a sort of egoistic hedonistic nihilist rationalism. He is incapable of engaging with hypotheticals, or moral philosophy, and primarily seeks personal gratification through the humiliation of the religious. The common good of humanity features little, rejected in favour of what might be good for Richard Dawkins. Transphobia is merely the last straw.

[Agraelia]

The award, a symbol of international recognition of his work, and in partial credibility and a clean reputation.

So he's still able to speak and has lost exactly zero platforms, but has apparently still been cancelled.

Taking back the award seems to insist against the work he has done. He was given commendation for his award, and because they didnt like other shit they took it back. Its BS.

I hold the same beliefs for 99% of award winners. You award them for the good. Once awarded you cant be like "Well my opinions dont align with yours so I'm gonna take my ball and go home."

Does that help?

I dont believe I have said he was canceled, just that its idiotic to take his commendation away.

[Agraelia]

So a guy who won an award for championing scientific fact is being criticized for expressing a view that is consistent with scientific fact?

Basically, yes, because "woke people" who have as much scientific backing as anti vaxxer essential oil crackheads had their feelings hurt.

[Yamato-Kankoku]

In all the gnashing of teeth over how offensive Dawkins's tweet was, I have yet to hear someone explain why Rachel Dolezal's self-identification is inherently invalid and should be rejected but self-identification as a different sex is inherently valid and should be accepted.

Perhaps the reason is that it detracts from the social movement and brings in other perspectives. Similar to how the saying 'All lives matter', instead of 'black lives matter' infuriates people; claiming that transracialism and transhumanism are on par with transgenderism detracts and defocuses on the gender identity struggle and makes people feel as if their arguments and beliefs are being undervalued.

The other arguments I have heard consist of how race is an inappropriate analogy for gender identity, but it seems that people often become so emotional and sentimental about these issues that they are unable to consider other sides of the coin.

[Dakini]

I also recognize Rachel Dolezal's right to identify as a black person despite her ancestry, whether she "chooses" to do so or not.

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.

I also recognize my right not to identify as "Chinese" despite my ancestry until such time as the Chinese Communist Party is overthrown.

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.

But I also disagree with the idea that Dawkins, Harris, J.K. Rowling, et al. are all "transphobic bigots" simply for daring to ask pertinent questions or for daring to assert that "there are only two genders", or for failing to phrase a certain sentence correctly.

I think you do Dawkins a disservice by grouping him in with Rowling, who has written essays where she basically equates trans women to men. Dawkins might have asked a dumb question and put his foot in his mouth, but Rowling has put her entire leg into her mouth at this point.

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?

I believe such spiteful, hateful conduct by a tiny minority of extremely outspoken trans activists as well as other influential, non-trans SJWs does ordinary trans people a huge disservice by antagonizing those who would otherwise be sympathetic to their cause.

If you're talking about people threatening Rowling then yes, people shouldn't do that. If you're talking about people taking an award away from Dawkins, boycotting or criticising either of them then no, people are entitled to express themselves and to avoid giving money to people they perceive as harmful to their community.

I fail to see where or how Dawkins "demeaned" trans people and he made it perfectly clear in a follow-up tweet that that was not his intention. Is a tiny little wording error so incredibly offensive to a tiny minority of disproportionately influential, professionally-offended snowflakes that he deserves to have his entire character assassinated and his reputation destroyed simply because he failed to word his tweet correctly?

The thing is that Dawkins really should know better. He's a biologist. 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. He should know better than to ask a question that fucking stupid.

[Xelsis]

In all the gnashing of teeth over how offensive Dawkins's tweet was, I have yet to hear someone explain why Rachel Dolezal's self-identification is inherently invalid and should be rejected but self-identification as a different sex is inherently valid and should be accepted.

Perhaps the reason is that it detracts from the social movement and brings in other perspectives. Similar to how the saying 'All lives matter', instead of 'black lives matter' infuriates people; claiming that transracialism and transhumanism are on par with transgenderism detracts and defocuses on the gender identity struggle and makes people feel as if their arguments and beliefs are being undervalued.

The other arguments I have heard consist of how race is an inappropriate analogy for gender identity, but it seems that people often become so emotional and sentimental about these issues that they are unable to consider other sides of the coin.

I'm honestly kind of in awe at the way in which this is completely flipped upside-down, where a case of actively rejecting someone's self-identification is "bringing in other perspectives", and telling that person that their belief has no value is to avoid making people feel that "their arguments and beliefs are being undervalued."

I also recognize Rachel Dolezal's right to identify as a black person despite her ancestry, whether she "chooses" to do so or not.

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.

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.

[Nakena]

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.

This is peak.

[Dakini]

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?

[Talvezout]

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

[Uan aa Boa]

Isn't it usually at about this point that somebody announces that they identify as an attack helicopter?

[Dakini]

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.

[Nakena]

Isn't it usually at about this point that somebody announces that they identify as an attack helicopter?

No this is banned and will result in redtext.

[Galloism]

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.

I don't really understand this argument at all. Wouldn't gender having a "biological basis" make it less acceptable to try and assume the "other" rather than more as in the case of race, which has no biological basis at all?

I mean, if I identified as a 7 foot tall 300 pound bodybuilder with 0.1% body fat, well, that definitely is a categorization that has a strong biological basis. I certainly don't fit it, but it has a strong biological basis. Does this make it more acceptable than to identify as a janitor, which has no biological basis at all?

[Xelsis]

*sigh* Appropriating the identity of an oppressed group when you are not a part of said oppressed group is not okay.

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

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, no basis for saying Dolezal is a liar and Jenner is truthful and not vice-versa.

[Kragholm Free States]

*sigh* Appropriating the identity of an oppressed group when you are not a part of said oppressed group is not okay.

Trans people, however 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.

But aren't women supposed to be an oppressed group? Wouldn't that make identifying as one appropriation? Unless that doesn't count because being transgender also makes one part of an oppressed group - in which case why doesn't being "trans-racial"?

Just trying to get to the bottom of your logic here, because there doesn't seem to actually be any.

[Ifreann]

I mean he won the award fair and square. His views on other stuff are null.

He also lost it fair and square.

---

...wokism...

Inventing an ideology to be mad at.

---

Doing this to Dawkins is a crime.

Cancel culture, just as much as the right maga's shit, needs to be washed away as both are a cancer to our society. Both wings have extremists that need to be snuffed out with extreme prejudice.

Like is this what we as humans have come to? Bickering over the tiniest shit ever? We have a chance to fully reach the stars, end climate troubles, work on poverty, hunger, work on better deterrents against disease, and what are we doing about it? Complaining against potato dicks and "ooo british man hurt my feelings!"

Fuck humanity man.

The dude got told that he's actually not humanist of the year and you're talking about killing people for the good of humanity. Maybe chill?

---

So a guy who won an award for championing scientific fact is being criticized for expressing a view that is consistent with scientific fact?

His views are not consistent with scientific fact.

[Yamato-Kankoku]

I also recognize Rachel Dolezal's right to identify as a black person despite her ancestry, whether she "chooses" to do so or not.

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.

I also recognize my right not to identify as "Chinese" despite my ancestry until such time as the Chinese Communist Party is overthrown.

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.

[Dakini]

*sigh* Appropriating the identity of an oppressed group when you are not a part of said oppressed group is not okay.

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

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.

[Cultural Posadism]

OP's needlessly long rant and the continued abuse of Orwell's work asides... I really don't see what's so outrageous about a private organization withdrawing a symbolic award it gave you because you posted cringe. I personally think that they made the right decision, not so much because of the opinion implied by Dawkins' tweet (A British transphobe? Quelle surprise!), but because of how he expressed it. He JAQed off.

As the AHA said:

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

JAQing off is as cringe as it is intellectually dishonest, and it's specially cringe and intellectually dishonest coming from a revered scientist and communicator who should know better.

[Definitely God]

Typical Dawkins Delusion.

[Galloism]

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.

And this is a better argument than your original one. It's the one I would have made.

I just didn't understand the first one.