3 ms·
> is there anyone that actually defends these DEI statements with a coherent argument When Richard Dawkins spoke at UC Berkeley in 2008, he argued that "raisi
by heresie-dabord 2y ago
> is there anyone that actually defends these DEI statements with a coherent argument
When Richard Dawkins spoke at UC Berkeley in 2008, he argued that "raising awareness" about feminism by changing how we speak and think has changed society for the better. (In the same discussion, he seeks to do the same for children's freedom from their parents' religion.) There is no doubt that Western society has changed how it treats and speaks about women.
That said, Dawkins has in more recent years found himself opposing identity politics as they seek to change language usage and perceptions of gender.
- naasking 2y ago> That said, Dawkins has in more recent years found himself opposing identity politics as they seek to change language usage and perceptions of gender. Correction: Dawkins doesn't care one whit about gender, and he has literally said so. He only cares when people cross into talking about sex, make incorrect claims about the nature of sex (spectrums and such), conflate sex with gender, and make unscientific claims about being able to change one's sex. Basically, when they enter his wheelhouse and start making a confusing mess of things.
- heresie-dabord 2y agoThanks, I'm happy to be corrected. > making a confusing mess of things. Which seems to be the prevailing state of discourse about the matter of DEI. If I may add a reflection, maybe it was just relatively easier sociologically to recognise the injustices and inequalities that feminism decried.
- Dylan16807 2y agoWhat claims is he making specifically? > the nature of sex (spectrums and such) Sex shows itself to be a spectrum pretty often. > unscientific claims about being able to change one's sex Phenotype or genotype? They don't always match even without any medical intervention, and a change in hormones can drastically change phenotype.
- naasking 2y agohttps://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1752403995174252724 https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/175240399517425272... https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1786788724124127572 https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/178678872412412757... You can debate him there if this is your hobby horse.
- Dylan16807 2y agoA huge fraction of humans don't have gametes. That definition only works for describing a species, not individuals. That doesn't need debating, he's off in his own corner talking about a completely different metric.
- naasking 2y agoHe addresses that in one of the links.
- Dylan16807 2y agoNow you're cursing me to read entire twitter threads? This isn't in fact my hobby horse so without more specifics I'll just treat him as talking past people and move on. Looking at the video in the second link, it looks like he only spent three minutes talking about trans people and I don't see any explanation there about how you're supposed to apply his universal biological definition to individual people.
- naasking 2y agoIt's in the second paragraph of one of the links I posted: "It happens to be embryologically DETERMINED by chromosomes in mammals and (in the opposite direction) birds, by temperature in some reptiles, by social factors in some fish."
- Dylan16807 2y ago