Things are getting ever more weirder

[Oscar_Kipling]

I don't think that it is accurate to say that Dawkins had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. What he actually said was "In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss."

Dawkins also said, “But when trans people insist that you say she is a woman, you redefine something. If you define a woman as a human with an XX karyotype, then she’s not a woman. If you define a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, feels they are a woman and has maybe had an operation, then by that definition she is a woman. From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman. From a personal point of view, she is.”

So Dawkins' position is that if a biological male identifies as a woman he will extend the courtesy of calling him a "her," but from a purely scientific point of view, a trans woman cannot truly be defined as a woman. If you don't feel that equates to saying science doesn't support the ideology, why not? And if the AHA did not deem his position to be demeaning to the trans community, why in your opinion did it revoke Dawkins' award?

In the course of my conversation with Rabbiknife he asserted that "Dawkins recently had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science.". I pointed out that the actual tweet that precipitated AHA's revocation of his award was the the one you quoted from me. The AHA released a statement regarding why they took his award away and it can be found on their site:

Established in 1953, the Humanist of the Year Award is conferred annually by the American Humanist Association (AHA), recognizing the awardee as an exemplar of humanist values. Communication of scientific concepts to the public is an important aspect of advancing the cause of humanism. Richard Dawkins was honored in 1996 by the AHA as Humanist of the Year for his significant contributions in this area.

Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.

Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.

https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/#:~:text=His%20subsequent%20attempts%20at%20clarification,Humanist%20of%20the%20Year%20award.


 I have no idea where or when the quote you've presented is from or even if Richard Dawkins said it, it certainly didn't come up in my research of Dawkin's AHA award revocation. If you can provide a source, ill look into it further. However as you can see the AHA itself only specifically reference the tweet that I reproduced and a subsequent tweet reproduced below when explaining their decision.

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 .

So, it's not really my opinion, it's what the AHA said that it did for the reasons that it said it did. I suppose that there is room for the possibility that your quote may have played a role in AHA's decision, but that would be speculation and it would still be a stretch to say that his award was revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science as Rabbi asserted.

You made the effort to come to the defense of Rabbi's assertion, to me that indicates that there is some value for you in the idea that the AHA revoked Dawkin's (a renowned and important scientist) award for stating his informed scientific opinion. What is it that you believe this would indicate if it were truly the case?

[Oscar_Kipling]

I tend to abhor labels applied to groups
And in reality, this entire subject bores me beyond words

I’ll speak the truth as I understand it to be revealed in scripture and if some one else is offended by that truth then they will just have to deal with it

I expect people that are not Christians to vilify and speak Evelius if Jesus and his followers, so not biggie

Edit: because I didn't pay attention to who I was speaking to and incorrectly attributed positions/statements.

I don't actually have anything to say to this, you do you I suppose.

[Sojourner]

 “But when trans people insist that you say she is a woman, you redefine something. If you define a woman as a human with an XX karyotype, then she’s not a woman. If you define a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, feels they are a woman and has maybe had an operation, then by that definition she is a woman. From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman. From a personal point of view, she is.”

I think you're confusing me with Rabbiknife, and vice versa. At any rate, no real purpose is being served by this conversation, so I'm out. For what it's worth, I'm including the link to the above quote. It's from a Nov 2021 article about Dawkins doubling down on his controversial position, and attributes the quote to him:

https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/11/01/richard-dawkins-trans-women-race-gender/

[Oscar_Kipling]

“But when trans people insist that you say she is a woman, you redefine something. If you define a woman as a human with an XX karyotype, then she’s not a woman. If you define a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, feels they are a woman and has maybe had an operation, then by that definition she is a woman. From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman. From a personal point of view, she is.”

I think you're confusing me with Rabbiknife, and vice versa. At any rate, no real purpose is being served by this conversation, so I'm out. For what it's worth, I'm including the link to the above quote. It's from a Nov 2021 article about Dawkins doubling down on his controversial position, and attributes the quote to him:

https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/11/01/richard-dawkins-trans-women-race-gender/

Its not clear to me in what way it appears that I may have confused you with Rabbi. Regardless of that, thanks for providing the link. Even though you have bowed out of this conversation, I said that I would look into the idea that the AHA revoked Dawkins' award due to his statements in the quote you presented, so I did. The AHA statement regarding the revocation is dated April 19th 2021, and the Sunday Times interview from which the quote was taken is dated 31 October 2021 on the Times' site. Given this, it appears that Dawkins made the statement several months after the AHA revoked his award so it seems that it is not possible that this particular statement played any part in the AHA's decision.

[Sojourner]

Its not clear to me in what way it appears that I may have confused you with Rabbi.

Well, for one thing, the assertion you attribute to Rabbi was made by me:

"In the course of my conversation with Rabbiknife he asserted that "Dawkins recently had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science."

Regardless of that, thanks for providing the link. Even though you have bowed out of this conversation, I said that I would look into the idea that the AHA revoked Dawkins' award due to his statements in the quote you presented, so I did. The AHA statement regarding the revocation is dated April 19th 2021, and the Sunday Times interview from which the quote was taken is dated 31 October 2021 on the Times' site. Given this, it appears that Dawkins made the statement several months after the AHA revoked his award so it seems that it is not possible that this particular statement played any part in the AHA's decision.

No, the quote didn't directly factor into the reason for the revocation, but it recapitulates the previously expressed opinion that did. It also  corroborates my point that Dawkins doesn't think science supports trans ideology. "From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman" Anyway, it's a moot point at this juncture.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Its not clear to me in what way it appears that I may have confused you with Rabbi.

Well, for one thing, the assertion you attribute to Rabbi was made by me:

"In the course of my conversation with Rabbiknife he asserted that "Dawkins recently had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science."

well I feel absolutely insane right now, didn't I do this exact same thing with you 2 a few months ago....I have to reread this entire thread because I don't even understand what happened here. anyway obviously you are correct, my mistake.

Regardless of that, thanks for providing the link. Even though you have bowed out of this conversation, I said that I would look into the idea that the AHA revoked Dawkins' award due to his statements in the quote you presented, so I did. The AHA statement regarding the revocation is dated April 19th 2021, and the Sunday Times interview from which the quote was taken is dated 31 October 2021 on the Times' site. Given this, it appears that Dawkins made the statement several months after the AHA revoked his award so it seems that it is not possible that this particular statement played any part in the AHA's decision.

No, the quote didn't directly factor into the reason for the revocation, but it recapitulates the previously expressed opinion that did. It also  corroborates my point that Dawkins doesn't think science supports trans ideology. "From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman" Anyway, it's a moot point at this juncture.

honestly I'm not sure what was said to who and when, I have to review this thread because if I didn't even know who I was talking to then who knows what else i've missed or misconstrued.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Its not clear to me in what way it appears that I may have confused you with Rabbi.

Well, for one thing, the assertion you attribute to Rabbi was made by me:

"In the course of my conversation with Rabbiknife he asserted that "Dawkins recently had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science."

Regardless of that, thanks for providing the link. Even though you have bowed out of this conversation, I said that I would look into the idea that the AHA revoked Dawkins' award due to his statements in the quote you presented, so I did. The AHA statement regarding the revocation is dated April 19th 2021, and the Sunday Times interview from which the quote was taken is dated 31 October 2021 on the Times' site. Given this, it appears that Dawkins made the statement several months after the AHA revoked his award so it seems that it is not possible that this particular statement played any part in the AHA's decision.

No, the quote didn't directly factor into the reason for the revocation, but it recapitulates the previously expressed opinion that did. It also  corroborates my point that Dawkins doesn't think science supports trans ideology. "From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman" Anyway, it's a moot point at this juncture.

This reads as very distinct from your initial point to me. Anyway moot or not, I'm more interested in why you were so committed to honing and maintaining it in some form.

My apologies for getting you and Rabbi confused, I wasn't paying the attention that I should have been to who I was responding to. I honestly thought that I was talking to Rabbi for the bulk of this conversation. I thought that you had just dipped in to bolster the Dawkins award point for some reason and then pretty much immediately dipped out. I see now that this is not the case. I understand that you do not wish to continue this conversation and I don't think there is much more ground to cover either. However while I know that it is not your responsibility to satisfy my curiosity, If you are willing I am still curious about a few aspects of your position because of my failure to realize that I was having 2 separate conversations. Primarily, I want to know if you also consider criticisms & negative reactions to the opinions that you express (as opposed to just holding) to be somehow unfair, unwarranted, persecutorial or oppressive? In this I would include labeling such as bigot or transphobe based on your expressed opinions. Additionally do you believe that your side (however you want to specify that) is persecuted and/or oppressed? Do you believe that the other side faces any forms of persecution and/or oppression? Finally do you feel that your side is among the most oppressed and persecuted people with regards to your opinions and preferred way of life?

[Sojourner]

This reads as very distinct from your initial point to me. Anyway moot or not, I'm more interested in why you were so committed to honing and maintaining it in some form.

I initially expressed the view that Dawkins had his award revoked for saying science did not support trans ideology. You disagreed based on the reasoning stated by the AHA, and I was simply seeking to corroborate the original point. We can agree to disagree, but I believe the award was revoked because association believed he, as a humanist, betrayed the trans cause by denying it scientific support. 

Primarily, I want to know if you also consider criticisms & negative reactions to the opinions that you express (as opposed to just holding) to be somehow unfair, unwarranted, persecutorial or oppressive? In this I would include labeling such as bigot or transphobe based on your expressed opinions.

I'm a big believer in free speech, and as a veteran, that is one of the liberties I served to protect--for everyone. Regardless of the differences I have with people I disagree with, I've always felt that people should see the bond and commonality that fellow Americans have before delving into what divides us. That solidarity was briefly on display following the events of 9/11, but was fleeting. Today we are in an unprecedented downward spiral into discord and partisanship. Political and social division has this country fractured and fragmented, and I'm not optimistic about its future.

Anyway, disputing an expressed opinion is natural when people disagree, and should promote dialogue in which people can debate the two sides of the disagreement. If an accord cannot be reached, the parties should in a cordial manner, agree to disagree. Those rules of engagement however, do not apply when people are dealing with differing opinions regarding the trans issue. I believe advocates and allies do not simply desire acceptance in a live and let live attitude, but seek validation and affirmation, and want opposition silenced.

Here's the thing: advocates of gay and trans rights claim to simply want the right to be accepted for who they are, and to be respected for their own set of values. I'm fine with that. But why then are they unwilling to reciprocate? I remember several years ago when the gay community sought to organize a national boycott against Chick-fil-A because president Dan Cathy had donated money to a candidate that endorsed the Biblical definition of marriage: one man, one woman. (The company enjoyed record-breaking profits that year, due in part to support Cathy, so the plan backfired).

The point is, in seeking to punish a man for following his own conscience, activists were denying him the very right they claim is what they are after. And that same attitude prevails today. A biological male can be true to himself by identifying as a female, but a person doesn't have the right to oppose that concept in accordance with his own conscience. (At least not without being labeled a hateful bigot). The trans person is free to use a social construct to publicly empower a (debatable) state of mind, while the opponent is penalized simply for exercising a Constitutional right. I fail to see that as just. It's an opinion, not hate speech.

Additionally do you believe that your side (however you want to specify that) is persecuted and/or oppressed?

I generally don't express my opposition to alternate lifestyles except in limited platforms such as Bible boards, so contention is limited to people like you.  If I were to speak out publicly like Dawkins, Rowling, and a few others, I would undoubtedly be subject to the condemnation they experience. I would view that as simply backlash to my politically incorrect verbiage, not legitimate persecution or oppression. 

Do you believe that the other side faces any forms of persecution and/or oppression?

I think trans people are denied affirmation due to conflicting values, and there have been cases of violent attacks. But I believe the number of vocal allies and alliances--social and political, far outnumber opponents who actively oppress or persecute them.

Finally do you feel that your side is among the most oppressed and persecuted people with regards to your opinions and preferred way of life?

I don't feel persecuted or oppressed because of potential backlash from those angered by my views. I consider that their right to freedom of speech. However, should I oppose trans ideology publicly I would expect to be the target of vitriol and labeled an intolerant bigot. Is that persecution or oppression? I suppose that would be a matter of semantics. 

[Athanasius]

I don't think that it is accurate to say that Dawkins had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. What he actually said was "In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss."

Dawkins also said, “But when trans people insist that you say she is a woman, you redefine something. If you define a woman as a human with an XX karyotype, then she’s not a woman. If you define a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, feels they are a woman and has maybe had an operation, then by that definition she is a woman. From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman. From a personal point of view, she is.”

So Dawkins' position is that if a biological male identifies as a woman he will extend the courtesy of calling him a "her," but from a purely scientific point of view, a trans woman cannot truly be defined as a woman. If you don't feel that equates to saying science doesn't support the ideology, why not? And if the AHA did not deem his position to be demeaning to the trans community, why in your opinion did it revoke Dawkins' award?

In the course of my conversation with Rabbiknife he asserted that "Dawkins recently had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science.". I pointed out that the actual tweet that precipitated AHA's revocation of his award was the the one you quoted from me. The AHA released a statement regarding why they took his award away and it can be found on their site:

Established in 1953, the Humanist of the Year Award is conferred annually by the American Humanist Association (AHA), recognizing the awardee as an exemplar of humanist values. Communication of scientific concepts to the public is an important aspect of advancing the cause of humanism. Richard Dawkins was honored in 1996 by the AHA as Humanist of the Year for his significant contributions in this area.

Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.

Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.

https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/#:~:text=His%20subsequent%20attempts%20at%20clarification,Humanist%20of%20the%20Year%20award.


 I have no idea where or when the quote you've presented is from or even if Richard Dawkins said it, it certainly didn't come up in my research of Dawkin's AHA award revocation. If you can provide a source, ill look into it further. However as you can see the AHA itself only specifically reference the tweet that I reproduced and a subsequent tweet reproduced below when explaining their decision.

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 .

So, it's not really my opinion, it's what the AHA said that it did for the reasons that it said it did. I suppose that there is room for the possibility that your quote may have played a role in AHA's decision, but that would be speculation and it would still be a stretch to say that his award was revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science as Rabbi asserted.

You made the effort to come to the defense of Rabbi's assertion, to me that indicates that there is some value for you in the idea that the AHA revoked Dawkin's (a renowned and important scientist) award for stating his informed scientific opinion. What is it that you believe this would indicate if it were truly the case?

Why don't you think it's accurate? What Dawkins said constitutes "disparaging" remarks that are counter to the ideology. Heck, for me to say, "trans women aren't women" is the highest order of transphobia. These narratives expect you to deal honestly where those behind them don't.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I don't think that it is accurate to say that Dawkins had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. What he actually said was "In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss."

Dawkins also said, “But when trans people insist that you say she is a woman, you redefine something. If you define a woman as a human with an XX karyotype, then she’s not a woman. If you define a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, feels they are a woman and has maybe had an operation, then by that definition she is a woman. From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman. From a personal point of view, she is.”

So Dawkins' position is that if a biological male identifies as a woman he will extend the courtesy of calling him a "her," but from a purely scientific point of view, a trans woman cannot truly be defined as a woman. If you don't feel that equates to saying science doesn't support the ideology, why not? And if the AHA did not deem his position to be demeaning to the trans community, why in your opinion did it revoke Dawkins' award?

In the course of my conversation with Rabbiknife he asserted that "Dawkins recently had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science.". I pointed out that the actual tweet that precipitated AHA's revocation of his award was the the one you quoted from me. The AHA released a statement regarding why they took his award away and it can be found on their site:

Established in 1953, the Humanist of the Year Award is conferred annually by the American Humanist Association (AHA), recognizing the awardee as an exemplar of humanist values. Communication of scientific concepts to the public is an important aspect of advancing the cause of humanism. Richard Dawkins was honored in 1996 by the AHA as Humanist of the Year for his significant contributions in this area.

Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.

Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.

https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/#:~:text=His%20subsequent%20attempts%20at%20clarification,Humanist%20of%20the%20Year%20award.


 I have no idea where or when the quote you've presented is from or even if Richard Dawkins said it, it certainly didn't come up in my research of Dawkin's AHA award revocation. If you can provide a source, ill look into it further. However as you can see the AHA itself only specifically reference the tweet that I reproduced and a subsequent tweet reproduced below when explaining their decision.

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 .

So, it's not really my opinion, it's what the AHA said that it did for the reasons that it said it did. I suppose that there is room for the possibility that your quote may have played a role in AHA's decision, but that would be speculation and it would still be a stretch to say that his award was revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science as Rabbi asserted.

You made the effort to come to the defense of Rabbi's assertion, to me that indicates that there is some value for you in the idea that the AHA revoked Dawkin's (a renowned and important scientist) award for stating his informed scientific opinion. What is it that you believe this would indicate if it were truly the case?

Why don't you think it's accurate? What Dawkins said constitutes "disparaging" remarks that are counter to the ideology. Heck, for me to say, "trans women aren't women" is the highest order of transphobia. These narratives expect you to deal honestly where those behind them don't.

Well the initial assertion was that Dawkins had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. I do not think that is accurate because Dawkins made the statement that we are talking about after his award was revoked. Also the only Dawkins statements that the AHA directly referenced didn't include any position about scientific support and is not in fact interchangeable in meaning or content with Dawkin's Times quote. Also the AHA statement indicated that they felt the "attack on black identity" was a component of the objectionable nature of Dawkins statement. I do not think that it is accurate considering the initial assertion. If the initial assertion was something general like - Dawkins doesn't believe that trans/liberal/leftist ideology that a trans woman is a woman is scientifically supported and he has unsurprisingly faced backlash for his position from proponents of this ideology - as it seems to have morphed into, then fine, but it wasn't, it was a specific reaction from a specific group that referenced a specific statement. It's not even like in my initial response I ignored the fact that statements that are construed as anti-trans or bigoted will face any number consequences or reactions because it was literally the next thing that I said in that original reply. So I'm left with the feeling that it isn't good enough to acknowledge that statements like Dawkins' are all but guaranteed to receive a backlash, I have to buy that Dawkins had his award revoked for either a statement that was made after it was revoked or some hypothetical statement that can be inferred from what we know of Dawkins' beliefs even though there is a statement that was directly referenced by the folks that revoked the award. It's not even like I don't believe that it could have happened that way, just that it didn't. I think it is very weird that this specific cause and effect chain is getting so much maintenance...well I guess the simplest answer would be that it genuinely seems that way to some of you, not to me tho.

[Sojourner]

I don't think that it is accurate to say that Dawkins had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. What he actually said was "In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss."

Dawkins also said, “But when trans people insist that you say she is a woman, you redefine something. If you define a woman as a human with an XX karyotype, then she’s not a woman. If you define a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, feels they are a woman and has maybe had an operation, then by that definition she is a woman. From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman. From a personal point of view, she is.”

So Dawkins' position is that if a biological male identifies as a woman he will extend the courtesy of calling him a "her," but from a purely scientific point of view, a trans woman cannot truly be defined as a woman. If you don't feel that equates to saying science doesn't support the ideology, why not? And if the AHA did not deem his position to be demeaning to the trans community, why in your opinion did it revoke Dawkins' award?

In the course of my conversation with Rabbiknife he asserted that "Dawkins recently had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science.". I pointed out that the actual tweet that precipitated AHA's revocation of his award was the the one you quoted from me. The AHA released a statement regarding why they took his award away and it can be found on their site:

Established in 1953, the Humanist of the Year Award is conferred annually by the American Humanist Association (AHA), recognizing the awardee as an exemplar of humanist values. Communication of scientific concepts to the public is an important aspect of advancing the cause of humanism. Richard Dawkins was honored in 1996 by the AHA as Humanist of the Year for his significant contributions in this area.

Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.

Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.

https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/#:~:text=His%20subsequent%20attempts%20at%20clarification,Humanist%20of%20the%20Year%20award.


 I have no idea where or when the quote you've presented is from or even if Richard Dawkins said it, it certainly didn't come up in my research of Dawkin's AHA award revocation. If you can provide a source, ill look into it further. However as you can see the AHA itself only specifically reference the tweet that I reproduced and a subsequent tweet reproduced below when explaining their decision.

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 .

So, it's not really my opinion, it's what the AHA said that it did for the reasons that it said it did. I suppose that there is room for the possibility that your quote may have played a role in AHA's decision, but that would be speculation and it would still be a stretch to say that his award was revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science as Rabbi asserted.

You made the effort to come to the defense of Rabbi's assertion, to me that indicates that there is some value for you in the idea that the AHA revoked Dawkin's (a renowned and important scientist) award for stating his informed scientific opinion. What is it that you believe this would indicate if it were truly the case?

Why don't you think it's accurate? What Dawkins said constitutes "disparaging" remarks that are counter to the ideology. Heck, for me to say, "trans women aren't women" is the highest order of transphobia. These narratives expect you to deal honestly where those behind them don't.

Well the initial assertion was that Dawkins had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. I do not think that is accurate because Dawkins made the statement that we are talking about after his award was revoked. Also the only Dawkins statements that the AHA directly referenced didn't include any position about scientific support and is not in fact interchangeable in meaning or content with Dawkin's Times quote. Also the AHA statement indicated that they felt the "attack on black identity" was a component of the objectionable nature of Dawkins statement. I do not think that it is accurate considering the initial assertion. If the initial assertion was something general like - Dawkins doesn't believe that trans/liberal/leftist ideology that a trans woman is a woman is scientifically supported and he has unsurprisingly faced backlash for his position from proponents of this ideology - as it seems to have morphed into, then fine, but it wasn't, it was a specific reaction from a specific group that referenced a specific statement. It's not even like in my initial response I ignored the fact that statements that are construed as anti-trans or bigoted will face any number consequences or reactions because it was literally the next thing that I said in that original reply. So I'm left with the feeling that it isn't good enough to acknowledge that statements like Dawkins' are all but guaranteed to receive a backlash, I have to buy that Dawkins had his award revoked for either a statement that was made after it was revoked or some hypothetical statement that can be inferred from what we know of Dawkins' beliefs even though there is a statement that was directly referenced by the folks that revoked the award. It's not even like I don't believe that it could have happened that way, just that it didn't. I think it is very weird that this specific cause and effect chain is getting so much maintenance...well I guess the simplest answer would be that it genuinely seems that way to some of you, not to me tho.

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I've been trying to sit down and write this for days and i'm still not very happy with it, but hopefully if there are clarifications needed then we can just talk about it.

I initially expressed the view that Dawkins had his award revoked for saying science did not support trans ideology. You disagreed based on the reasoning stated by the AHA, and I was simply seeking to corroborate the original point. We can agree to disagree, but I believe the award was revoked because association believed he, as a humanist, betrayed the trans cause by denying it scientific support. 

I absolutely agree to disagree, may we never speak of it again lol

I'm a big believer in free speech, and as a veteran, that is one of the liberties I served to protect--for everyone. Regardless of the differences I have with people I disagree with, I've always felt that people should see the bond and commonality that fellow Americans have before delving into what divides us. That solidarity was briefly on display following the events of 9/11, but was fleeting. Today we are in an unprecedented downward spiral into discord and partisanship. Political and social division has this country fractured and fragmented, and I'm not optimistic about its future.

Anyway, disputing an expressed opinion is natural when people disagree, and should promote dialogue in which people can debate the two sides of the disagreement. If an accord cannot be reached, the parties should in a cordial manner, agree to disagree. Those rules of engagement however, do not apply when people are dealing with differing opinions regarding the trans issue. I believe advocates and allies do not simply desire acceptance in a live and let live attitude, but seek validation and affirmation, and want opposition silenced.

Here's the thing: advocates of gay and trans rights claim to simply want the right to be accepted for who they are, and to be respected for their own set of values. I'm fine with that. But why then are they unwilling to reciprocate? I remember several years ago when the gay community sought to organize a national boycott against Chick-fil-A because president Dan Cathy had donated money to a candidate that endorsed the Biblical definition of marriage: one man, one woman. (The company enjoyed record-breaking profits that year, due in part to support Cathy, so the plan backfired).

The point is, in seeking to punish a man for following his own conscience, activists were denying him the very right they claim is what they are after. And that same attitude prevails today. A biological male can be true to himself by identifying as a female, but a person doesn't have the right to oppose that concept in accordance with his own conscience. (At least not without being labeled a hateful bigot). The trans person is free to use a social construct to publicly empower a (debatable) state of mind, while the opponent is penalized simply for exercising a Constitutional right. I fail to see that as just. It's an opinion, not hate speech.

I appreciate this in depth response, you really went above and beyond, so thank you. There is quite a bit that I think needs unpacking here. First and foremost though, I’d like us to get on the same page about “sides”. You appropriately called me out for making the assumption that your opposing opinions meant that you necessarily had a desire to take any action informed by those opinions. I think that you may be attributing a kind of ideological uniformity to advocates, allies and the trans/lgbt etc communities themselves (i'll refer to this agglomeration as LGBTs) . I understand you may be short-handing here for the practical purpose of discussion, and if that is the case you can just disregard this. Anyway, this struck me most strongly when you began speaking about LGBTs unwillingness to reciprocate and what they desire. There is at least as much of a spectrum on the side of the LGBTs as there is on the opposing side, so it can become somewhat precarious to talk about what “they” demand but are unwilling to provide or how they demand more than they are willing to give. Just as an assertion from me that your side wishes to be free to love and marry who they want but are unwilling to allow LGBT people to do the same wouldn't apply to those on your side that wouldn’t try to take that right away even if they could. That isn't to say that your side or the LGBT side doesn't have factions or possibly even majorities that do have this position or the other. Anyway I wanted to get that out there because i’m not any sort of authority, and depending on who you ask I might not even be an ally, but I want to address your post without asserting that any of the positions you describe are  monolithic stances or even majority LGBT positions.

I think that the utility of cordial debate/discussion and agreeing to disagree has some pretty obvious limiting factors. That is agreeing to disagree has diminishing utility as the consequentiality of the item at hand increases. Likewise resolving issues via  discussion and debate can be hopelessly impotent when the matters at hand are thought to be literal edicts from the God of the universe or fundamental aspects of a person’s identity and nature. Generally speaking they are good tools, but so is a screwdriver unless you are trying to use it as the other oar for your rowboat, you’ll just end up going in circles and never get anywhere.

Anyway all that said and at the risk of creating another situation like we had with the evolutionary-biologist-that-shall-not-be-named, I think that this chick-fil-a (CFA from here on) situation could use some further fleshing out, contextualizing  and slight factual revision. To my knowledge the controversy was not because "Dan Cathy donated money to a candidate that endorsed the Biblical definition of marriage: one man, one woman.", instead as I understand it the CFA organization made charitable contributions to the Winshape foundation which itself was said to be discriminatory to same sex couples in its own marriage retreat and contributed to other organization that were considered anti-lgbt and anti-same sex marriage. To be clear these organizations were not thought to simply have an opinion but were though to be actively working to enact or maintain same sex marriage bans, or block efforts to enact LGBT anti-discrimination legislation in addition to supporting or facilitating gay conversion therapy. Outside of the charitable donations the backlash from the LGBT community was motivated by comments made by Dan Cathy that were considered to be anti-same sex marriage. I believe that it was a constellation of evidence that led to the sentiment  that CFA was working at widdershins with the LGBT community. This occurred in 2012 at what was arguably the height of the same-sex marriage fight, and was several years before the Obergefell v. Hodges decision.


So again having said some more stuff, I find myself feeling that you've used “following his own conscience” in regards to Dan Cathy as if it were the equivalent of saying that he didn't do anything that would have a material effect on anyone. I think that you were correct to correct me for attributing material efforts to your mere opinions, but I do not think that it is reasonable to cast Cathy’s actions as synonymous with your own inactive position. CFA under Cathy  was making moves in the world so he doesnt fit the conditions of a person like yourself that has a very minimal footprint, you 2 are not in the same category. So unless you are of the opinion that even someone in active opposition should not be actively opposed then I’m going to have to say that Cathy made his bed. Additionally while CFA did experience an anti-boycott bump that year, as of 2020 they have ceased donating to any and all organizations that were criticized as anti-LGBT and publicly stated that they wish to leave the policy debate to the government and politicians. If the goal of  the LGBT community was for CFA to make less money in 2012, then it did backfire.If the purpose was to end CFA’s financial support for anti-LGBT organizations, then there is room to argue that it didn't backfire.

Anyway so in the sense that Cathy was working to impede LGBT items like same-sex marriage, and the LGBT community was working to advance those items, then yes they were trying to do the same thing as the other and obviously neither side wanted the other to be successful. I get the feeling you are proposing something less obviously a consequence of trying to get laws and stuff passed. I guess you feel that Cathy wasn't getting a fair shake to even hap the opinion he had outside of the work he supported. Strictly speaking no one impinged upon Cathy’s right to say what he said or do what he did, he just didn't have the right to have everyone silently accept it or applaud him for it, and I suppose in this you see hypocrisy.
In this way it does seem that many of the LGBTs do not simply desire acceptance in a live and let live attitude, but seek validation and affirmation, and want opposition silenced. I don’t know about you, but I'm not about that bare minimum kind of life. While I'm not going to go as far as to draw a direct 1:1 comparison, it's true that the LGBTs don’t want to hear about how gross and weird people think they are any more than the opposition wants to hear about how gross and weird the other side thinks they are. Honestly, who does? I can agree that there are many folks on the LGBT side that are not  being the best versions of themselves, overreact and  some of us are being total hypocrites or worse. However the fact that some of us are sometimes being bad humans or acting in bad faith isn’t an indictment of the entire enterprise and it does not invalidate the core sentiment that we want freedom, legal protections and to be treated with respect and dignity. More to your point though, and let me preface this with the fact that this is just my take here, but I do think that many would like it to get to the point in american society where you’ll get the same kind of reaction talking about your opposition to LGBTs as you would talking about opposition to  jews, blacks or asians…that is to say plenty of people still do it , but there is significant social mediation there. If I am unwilling to validate and affirm some of my family member’s position that my interracial relationship is objectionable (to say the least), then does it follow that I cannot legitimately assert that they should not simply tolerate our presence or existence, but they should treat it as they would a relationship that meet their racial conditions? Am I being unfair in stating that they are bigots even though if they call me a race traitor I would rightly be critical of that opinion. Its true that I don't want to hear it from them, and if they make noise then depending on my mood I might make noise right back, that doesn't mean that i’m infringing on their rights to be wrong lol. I'm not saying that race and gender/sexuality are directly equivalent, but I do believe that a person can be bigoted regarding any of those things so that is where I was trying to direct the comparison. I don’t think that conflating free speech with the freedom from criticism or consequence for your speech is the exclusive misconception of either side or anything, but your post kind of exemplifies it for me. Yes, I agree that in some circumstances people could behave better sometimes alot better, but I won’t say that calling out bigotry as I see it is somehow contrary to a desire to have greater social acceptance and less bigotry. Fighting the bigotry and bigoted opinions and views was part and parcel with getting things like same-sex marriage legalized, if criticizing the opposing opinions and those that hold them is out of bounds then i'd argue that change would be improbable if not impossible.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I went back to read through what I wrote and realized that these items were missing from my response:

I generally don't express my opposition to alternate lifestyles except in limited platforms such as Bible boards, so contention is limited to people like you.  If I were to speak out publicly like Dawkins, Rowling, and a few others, I would undoubtedly be subject to the condemnation they experience. I would view that as simply backlash to my politically incorrect verbiage, not legitimate persecution or oppression. 

agreed, I guess I'm a little confused about where the inappropriate aspects of the LGBT side begin, in the sense that you were saying that we were asking for something that we were not willing to give.

I think trans people are denied affirmation due to conflicting values, and there have been cases of violent attacks. But I believe the number of vocal allies and alliances--social and political, far outnumber opponents who actively oppress or persecute them.

I don't necessarily agree, but there certainly is ever growing support even if at times its superficial. Regardless if feel like we have bigger fish to fry in our discussion right now and perhaps we can return to this.

 I don't feel persecuted or oppressed because of potential backlash from those angered by my views. I consider that their right to freedom of speech. However, should I oppose trans ideology publicly I would expect to be the target of vitriol and labeled an intolerant bigot. Is that persecution or oppression? I suppose that would be a matter of semantics.

If we were to replace trans ideology with some ideology that you would agree with, like religious freedom for instance, then i'm not sure that you would consider it a matter of semantics any more than a it is a matter of semantics to consider whether a murderer is persecuted by being arrested tried and imprisoned. I guess this is sort of the locus of my objection to your framing earlier in your post. It isn't super clear to me that you make the distinctions between activity and inactivity that I do. I would say that donating to a battered women's shelter is not a direct as volunteering at that shelter, but it is materially supporting the sheltering of battered women. This goes beyond just just having the opinion that battered women should be sheltered, it is effectively acting on that opinion in a manner that has a tangible impact on battered women. What counts as activity and does that move the needle on whether or not it is persecution or just opposition? We both agree that bigotry is legally protected, but is it /should it be protected socially in the same manner that expressing a belief in the death an resurrection of Jesus has or should have? If a person believes that their bigotry is ordained by their God is it everyone else's responsibility to treat it as some special category of bigotry that we can't actually call that? Does the religious aspect make it any less dangerous or impactful that other kinds of bigotry?

[Sojourner]

I read your lengthy posts in their entirety Oscar, but feel any reply or comment would involve regurgitation of previously covered viewpoints. Like you, I hungered for the stimulation of sustained dialogue when I was younger, but in my sunset years, my appetite has diminished. My days fly by so quickly, I can devote but a fraction of the time online that I used to, and must be judicious with my time. Besides, when opposing viewpoints clearly constitute irreconcilable differences that will never be assuaged, little is to be gained by a protracted discussion.
 
I may come off as the perennial old man pining for "the good old days," and detesting what liberals are doing to the country (which may have merit to some extent). Primarily, I'm simply a Christian conservative unable to aquiesce to the many changes that are quickly and dramatically transforming the world in ways I don't like. Times change, and we must adapt, which is what I strive to do, though at the end of the day, I'm entitled to differ with what conflicts with my values. I offer forbearance to those with whom I disagree, asking only the same in return. I think the poignant words of the Serenity prayer sum it up for me:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I read your lengthy posts in their entirety Oscar, but feel any reply or comment would involve regurgitation of previously covered viewpoints. Like you, I hungered for the stimulation of sustained dialogue when I was younger, but in my sunset years, my appetite has diminished. My days fly by so quickly, I can devote but a fraction of the time online that I used to, and must be judicious with my time. Besides, when opposing viewpoints clearly constitute irreconcilable differences that will never be assuaged, little is to be gained by a protracted discussion.
 
I may come off as the perennial old man pining for "the good old days," and detesting what liberals are doing to the country (which may have merit to some extent). Primarily, I'm simply a Christian conservative unable to aquiesce to the many changes that are quickly and dramatically transforming the world in ways I don't like. Times change, and we must adapt, which is what I strive to do, though at the end of the day, I'm entitled to differ with what conflicts with my values. I offer forbearance to those with whom I disagree, asking only the same in return. I think the poignant words of the Serenity prayer sum it up for me:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

and that was me consciously trying to keep it short, 2 things that no one will ever accuse me of is being concise or succinct lol. Anyway I appreciate the time and effort that you were able to commit to this discussion, I would say it was our best interaction yet..I think that is worth something. I'd say if nothing else this discussion made reevaluate where I stand and why, which is a good thing. Additionally it forced me to once again confront my assumptions and reactions to those that disagree so that I can remain conscious of my my behaviors and hopefully improve in some ways going forward. Anyway change is always coming and always here, we all gotta deal with it as we see fit, I hope that we can both continue to learn and grow so that we are a net positive contribution to this discussion and this country. Anyway, thanks.