4 ms·

> That said, Dawkins has in more recent years found himself opposing identity politics as they seek to change language usage and perceptions of gender. Correct

> 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 3y ago
Thanks, 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 ago
What 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 ago
  https://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 ago
    A 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 ago
      He addresses that in one of the links.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Now 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 ago
        It'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
        Most of the time! Sometimes you don't get gametes. At that point, you either need to exclude those people from your classification system because it's ill-suited for this task, or you need to make your classification system significantly more complicated because there's a lot of edge cases.
- vigori 2y ago
  [flagged]

heresie-dabord 3y ago

Thanks, 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 ago

What 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 ago
https://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 ago
  A 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 ago
    He addresses that in one of the links.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Now 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 ago
        It'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
        Most of the time! Sometimes you don't get gametes. At that point, you either need to exclude those people from your classification system because it's ill-suited for this task, or you need to make your classification system significantly more complicated because there's a lot of edge cases.
vigori 2y ago
[flagged]