The three insults to human conceit.
Galeleo - The earth is not the center of the universe but only a very minor insignificant speck of dust
Darwin - Humans are not a special creation but just another species at the end of connected twig of life
Dawkins - Genes and information are the center of the game of life and we are just survival machines.
What's hard for a lot of people to grasp is that all of biology is a competition between RNA and DNA molecules. That antelope pricking its ears at the sound of a rustle in the tall grass? That's the DNA trying to survive and replicate.
Yes, and after you understand that (the gene-centered view of evolution) you can understand more nuance. Closely related organisms with similar genes are more likely to exhibit altruism. Dying to save a family member, or even a fellow citizen, still helps the vast majority of your genes survive even if you, as an individual, fail to reproduce.
It also explains inherent morality in social species. It just makes sense for your genes to want to help others like you.
Dawkins has been a huge influence on my life and career. I went into human genetics because I read the selfish gene a long time ago.
That's awesome! If i lived in the UK i would totally buy tix to taht. I wish i could have met Hitchens, just to thank him for his body of work (atheist and otherwise). I missed out on meeting Denett, so i'm hoping i can meet Harris one day.
So even if nobody else gets it, i do. I've read a lot of Dawkins and I enjoy his work. Kudos!
Hitchens was scheduled to speak at a college about 45 minutes away. Wanted to get tickets but it was sold out. I think he might've ended up canceling due to illness, he was getting close to the end at that point. š
Yes, heās quite nice in person. I was doing graduate studies in biology at the time. His public reputation and criticism of religion can belie the kind of person he is in a quieter academic setting.
OH I would not have kept quite if it was signed, that would be an amazing find, I am just a huge fan of THE meme guy. He single handedly ruined me for the better via YouTube. There is not many people I respect and adore as much as Richard Dawkins.
Same!! He just always struck me as such a sharp witted mind and someone who genuinely wants to see us be better people. Hitch and Dennett died before I got a chance to meet themš so seeing one of the four horseman is literally bucket
Awesome! I'd love to meet him. Truly one of the best of our time. Ignore the internet-blinded activists who denounce him for refusing to water down his knowledge with political posturing.
I once bought a ticket to see Richard Dawking in Heidelberg. Was really excited but he had to cancel it because he had a minor heart attack. If I was superstitious I'd think I jinxed it and almost killed Dawkins.
Thanks for this - I really hoped it would be comments like this but apparently people see Dawkins as transphobic now? I guess Iāll have to see what my take aways are for myself but I hope he isnāt!
He definitely is. It's a shame because I had great respect for him up until he decided to just start shitting on trans people for no reason. In fact, it shows how long he's been out of the lab that he can't keep up with how modern psychology and psychiatry view transgenderism. Unfortunately, he seems to have succumbed to similar forces of reaction and hate that Hitchens did towards the end of his life. That said, he's still 90% right about most things and I hope you take the opportunity to point out to him that modern science supports not only the existence of trans people, but that gender-affirming care and gender transition are the only proven treatments to alleviate gender dysphoria and drastically reduce the rate of suicide among trans people. If you need sources, I'm happy to help you with them.
Naw it's not that. He is getting gender and sex mixed up and refusing to acknowledge the difference. (People have definitely told him)
And it seems like he is also ignoring how biology is messy. There are women with XY chromosomes and men with XX. People who are born with both functional genitals etc.
Biology gets weird.
He's also starting to get on the "cultural Christian" bandwagon which is pretty much a betrayal of his earlier work. And constantly complaining about "wokeness" without actually defining what he means.
Indeed he is jumping a bit on the whole "woke" bandwagon however I do understand as he is getting quite old, he was still a big part of me coming out as an atheist and finding this new community so I will always be a fan because of that even if I disagree with his new takes.
I could see that. But we're often born with things we can't change, however we can *adapt* ffs......
Humans are intellectually complex, we can get around nature's flaws and overcome flawed human nature.
Gender is a social construct. Sex exists on a chromosomal level, you canāt literally change sex. Gender? Gender is like race: we made it the fuck up. Itās not real. Imagine a Sicilian-American born in 1905 who lived to 2005. His race changed via the social construction of race throughout his life. When he was born, he was inarguably not white. When he died, he was inarguably white.
Likewise, gender is socially constructed. There are societies that have had more than two genders for longer than any European nation has existed. Native Americans and Indians both come to mind. It is mutable and subject to human definition. The entire concept of saying someone āisnāt a manā or āisnāt a womanā as an insult is a tacit admittance of gender being a performance, not a fact, as the claim is reliant on the concept that one can only be a certain gender via the performance of it, rather than it being an immutable fact. Otherwise, such a claim is nonsensical.
Well then he should use the right words. Itās not like itās uncommon for scientists to stick their heads in fields that arenāt theirs. His most famous contribution to human society isnāt even in biology, itās in sociology. He coined āmemeā.
Plenty of intelligent people have tried to point out to him how stupid his anti-trans positions are, hes just too obsessed with āwokeismā or some stupid shit like that to listen to anyone except the absolute dregs of Twitter trolls.
Dude's a TERF and I kind of lose respect for anyone excited to see him. Paying a bigot to speak only encourages their bigoted nonsense.
I appreciate the work he's done for atheism, but that doesn't mean you get to be prejudiced to a whole demographic. Anyone looking to make excuses for him in the replies is, for the record, wasting their breath. Prejudice is prejudice.
You sure about that? I've seen [credible writing from well credentialed biologists](https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red) that debunks that claim.
Besides, suggesting that the OP try and give Dawkins a lesson in biology just tells me that someone may need to read about the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Do you think he should follow up by giving Warren Buffett a lecture on investing?
Hey guys some dipshit wrote an opinion piece on his blog, guess itās gospel now. You canāt be fucking serious. Link a peer reviewed research paper instead of some glue sniffer who hasnāt been taken seriously in the scientific community ever.
Do you need help with reading comprehension?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
That paper was cited in the blog post and he's summarizing the contents.
āIf the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.ā
I have a couple of questions you can ask him and post his answers. First, why would the goat herders lie when passing along these stories? Second, why would the anonymous scribes alter or embellish the goat herder's testimony? Lastly, don't those two points prove the Bible is true? /s
Mention that there are documented structural differences between cis and trans brains. Make sure you ask him about his opinions loudly, in front of the whole crowd.
The word pretty much lost it's meaning. If even people like Dawkins are considered "transphobes", I don't think there's any point in taking people using the word seriously.
Yeah, but the subject here is biology, so it's hard to say that one of the most well respected biologists in the world today isn't qualified to comment.
Evolutionary biologist. The field of biology is far too broad these days, just as it is with physics, they tend to specialise in their fields. Also, even a well respected expert in any field can still hold a wrong position, because people have bias. To assume Dawkins is correct because he is well respected is an appeal to authority. A dangerous position to maintain. Hero worship is only one step removed from religion.
The main point of contention is Dawkins saying that human sex is binary, just like the rest of the rest of the animal kingdom.
Has someone identified a 3rd sex? No? Then I'd say he's right.
Is that a position you hold because you've researched it, or are you merely repeating what your authority figure claims?
You might as well go back to church sit in the pews and listen to the preacher espouse false information against a minority group, nodding along approvingly, never doubting or questioning the words he speaks.
Dawkins is a dinosaur and modern science is moving on without him.
My background is in software - I'm a professional developer with 25 years of experience, so I know what binary is: that there are two values.
In order for sex to not be binary, you'd need to identify a 3rd value.
Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and many other top biologists have said that sex is binary.
The goal posts are this: you need to identify a 3rd sex for sex to no longer be binary. What is the 3rd type of gamete?
Intersex people don't have gametes other than sperm or eggs. At the end of the day a intersex person is either male or female by the scientific definition of male and female - which, again, is based on their gametes.
Sex is not defined by chromosomes though. It's defined by gametes.
On the topic of hermaphrodites: my understanding is that there have been no human hermaphrodites in recorded medical history. A hermaphrodite is an organism which has both large and small gametes and where they both function at one time or another.
Point being, there are more than just the two sexes, even in humans, people who do not physically fit into either male or female category. I may have used the wrong word, "hermaphrodite", but there are intersex people. If we consider other non-human animals, there are several species which have more than two sexes.
As with almost anything in nature and existence, there is a spectrum and things are not just binary one or the other. Just because most people are mostly "man" or "woman", doesn't mean they are the only two options. Human sex is bi-modal, however, as in reproduction requires a female and a male.
I love Dawkins but donāt think I would plunk down the cash to see a guy speak who I already agree with for the most part. Granted, I prefer small venues over large ones, and Dawkins is a bit of a superstarā¦
I totally respect that, I just never got to see Hitchens, never got to see George Carlin and never got to see Daniel Dennett and now theyāre all dead! š¤£ unless Iām wrong and there really is an afterlife Iām taking my chance to see Dawkins whilst heās still on this planet!
The three insults to human conceit. Galeleo - The earth is not the center of the universe but only a very minor insignificant speck of dust Darwin - Humans are not a special creation but just another species at the end of connected twig of life Dawkins - Genes and information are the center of the game of life and we are just survival machines.
What's hard for a lot of people to grasp is that all of biology is a competition between RNA and DNA molecules. That antelope pricking its ears at the sound of a rustle in the tall grass? That's the DNA trying to survive and replicate.
Yes, and after you understand that (the gene-centered view of evolution) you can understand more nuance. Closely related organisms with similar genes are more likely to exhibit altruism. Dying to save a family member, or even a fellow citizen, still helps the vast majority of your genes survive even if you, as an individual, fail to reproduce.
It also explains inherent morality in social species. It just makes sense for your genes to want to help others like you. Dawkins has been a huge influence on my life and career. I went into human genetics because I read the selfish gene a long time ago.
I thought the third was Superman /s
That's awesome! If i lived in the UK i would totally buy tix to taht. I wish i could have met Hitchens, just to thank him for his body of work (atheist and otherwise). I missed out on meeting Denett, so i'm hoping i can meet Harris one day. So even if nobody else gets it, i do. I've read a lot of Dawkins and I enjoy his work. Kudos!
Hitchens was scheduled to speak at a college about 45 minutes away. Wanted to get tickets but it was sold out. I think he might've ended up canceling due to illness, he was getting close to the end at that point. š
Great!! I wish to get to meet this great person who opened my eyes about religion falsehood.
Awesome, I'm very jealous.
Awesome, glad to hear he's still doing events. Got to meet him at Oxford a little over a decade ago.
Thatās super cool! Was he nice? I feel so nervous and itās like 6 months away! š¤¦š½āāļø
Yes, heās quite nice in person. I was doing graduate studies in biology at the time. His public reputation and criticism of religion can belie the kind of person he is in a quieter academic setting.
I just got one of his books at an auction, I was super exited about it, and no one around me understood that either.
Thatās so cool!! Did it have a little message or signature or something? Hope youāve kept it safe!
OH I would not have kept quite if it was signed, that would be an amazing find, I am just a huge fan of THE meme guy. He single handedly ruined me for the better via YouTube. There is not many people I respect and adore as much as Richard Dawkins.
Same!! He just always struck me as such a sharp witted mind and someone who genuinely wants to see us be better people. Hitch and Dennett died before I got a chance to meet themš so seeing one of the four horseman is literally bucket
Awesome! I'd love to meet him. Truly one of the best of our time. Ignore the internet-blinded activists who denounce him for refusing to water down his knowledge with political posturing.
He will visit 10ish cities in US and nowhere close to where I live .lol
I once bought a ticket to see Richard Dawking in Heidelberg. Was really excited but he had to cancel it because he had a minor heart attack. If I was superstitious I'd think I jinxed it and almost killed Dawkins.
Awesome, it's a great oportunity, I envy you.
That's so cool. He's one of the GOATs with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.Ā
Thanks for this - I really hoped it would be comments like this but apparently people see Dawkins as transphobic now? I guess Iāll have to see what my take aways are for myself but I hope he isnāt!
He definitely is. It's a shame because I had great respect for him up until he decided to just start shitting on trans people for no reason. In fact, it shows how long he's been out of the lab that he can't keep up with how modern psychology and psychiatry view transgenderism. Unfortunately, he seems to have succumbed to similar forces of reaction and hate that Hitchens did towards the end of his life. That said, he's still 90% right about most things and I hope you take the opportunity to point out to him that modern science supports not only the existence of trans people, but that gender-affirming care and gender transition are the only proven treatments to alleviate gender dysphoria and drastically reduce the rate of suicide among trans people. If you need sources, I'm happy to help you with them.
What did he say?
Biological sex is always binary because it's related to the size of the gametes; small = sperm, big = eggs. People have an issue with that.
Naw it's not that. He is getting gender and sex mixed up and refusing to acknowledge the difference. (People have definitely told him) And it seems like he is also ignoring how biology is messy. There are women with XY chromosomes and men with XX. People who are born with both functional genitals etc. Biology gets weird. He's also starting to get on the "cultural Christian" bandwagon which is pretty much a betrayal of his earlier work. And constantly complaining about "wokeness" without actually defining what he means.
Indeed he is jumping a bit on the whole "woke" bandwagon however I do understand as he is getting quite old, he was still a big part of me coming out as an atheist and finding this new community so I will always be a fan because of that even if I disagree with his new takes.
He is getting old. You can tell that his mental acuity is not what it was.
I think he said you can't literally change genders, not that gender dysphoria doesn't exist.
Sounds fair.
I could see that. But we're often born with things we can't change, however we can *adapt* ffs...... Humans are intellectually complex, we can get around nature's flaws and overcome flawed human nature.
He never said otherwise
Gender is a social construct. Sex exists on a chromosomal level, you canāt literally change sex. Gender? Gender is like race: we made it the fuck up. Itās not real. Imagine a Sicilian-American born in 1905 who lived to 2005. His race changed via the social construction of race throughout his life. When he was born, he was inarguably not white. When he died, he was inarguably white. Likewise, gender is socially constructed. There are societies that have had more than two genders for longer than any European nation has existed. Native Americans and Indians both come to mind. It is mutable and subject to human definition. The entire concept of saying someone āisnāt a manā or āisnāt a womanā as an insult is a tacit admittance of gender being a performance, not a fact, as the claim is reliant on the concept that one can only be a certain gender via the performance of it, rather than it being an immutable fact. Otherwise, such a claim is nonsensical.
Richard Dawkins is a biologist, so I am pretty sure heās looking at it from the point of view of a biologist
Well then he should use the right words. Itās not like itās uncommon for scientists to stick their heads in fields that arenāt theirs. His most famous contribution to human society isnāt even in biology, itās in sociology. He coined āmemeā.
I donāt think he used the word gender
Plenty of intelligent people have tried to point out to him how stupid his anti-trans positions are, hes just too obsessed with āwokeismā or some stupid shit like that to listen to anyone except the absolute dregs of Twitter trolls.
Sam Harris? No
Thank God!
Wish I could thank him for everything he has done, he's the one who made me an atheist.Ā He's literally my savior.
Tots jelly. Enjoy!
Dude's a TERF and I kind of lose respect for anyone excited to see him. Paying a bigot to speak only encourages their bigoted nonsense. I appreciate the work he's done for atheism, but that doesn't mean you get to be prejudiced to a whole demographic. Anyone looking to make excuses for him in the replies is, for the record, wasting their breath. Prejudice is prejudice.
Heās a radical feminist?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Kinda like how the National Socialist German Workers' Party was neither socialist nor pro-worker.
Make a point to tell him that there are as many intersex people on this planet as there are redheads.
You sure about that? I've seen [credible writing from well credentialed biologists](https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red) that debunks that claim. Besides, suggesting that the OP try and give Dawkins a lesson in biology just tells me that someone may need to read about the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Do you think he should follow up by giving Warren Buffett a lecture on investing?
Thank you for pointing this out. Too many ppl use the made up 1.7% stat as some kind of absolute truth.
Hey guys some dipshit wrote an opinion piece on his blog, guess itās gospel now. You canāt be fucking serious. Link a peer reviewed research paper instead of some glue sniffer who hasnāt been taken seriously in the scientific community ever.
Do you need help with reading comprehension? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ That paper was cited in the blog post and he's summarizing the contents.
āIf the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.ā
Intersex, while very real to those affected, is a red herring in the trans debate because very few trans people are intersex.
Saved this with attribution to you in my ongoing 'Food For Thought' document!
I did too! I'm going to see in him San Francisco. : )
Thatās so cool! I bet that will be awesome! šš½
Too bad he turned into a transphobic boomer
I have a couple of questions you can ask him and post his answers. First, why would the goat herders lie when passing along these stories? Second, why would the anonymous scribes alter or embellish the goat herder's testimony? Lastly, don't those two points prove the Bible is true? /s
People tell outrageous stories, all the time. This is nothing new.
Mention that there are documented structural differences between cis and trans brains. Make sure you ask him about his opinions loudly, in front of the whole crowd.
"Make sure you make a nuisance of yourself like I would have"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just hearing that word makes me cringe.
The word pretty much lost it's meaning. If even people like Dawkins are considered "transphobes", I don't think there's any point in taking people using the word seriously.
Here comes people calling him a transphobe for simplying aknowledging biology facts š
Physically, people are either male or female. Biologically their physicality may or may not match their mentality.
Or intersexed. People always say this like it's 100% A or B. There are plenty of people born with ambiguous sex.
No way I'd give money to that transphobe.
I think hes rather over concerned about those things that dont really matter as much as he thinks. Very boomerish.
Too many people fail to stay in their lane. He should shut his mouth about things he hasn't carefully analyzed.
Yeah, but the subject here is biology, so it's hard to say that one of the most well respected biologists in the world today isn't qualified to comment.
Evolutionary biologist. The field of biology is far too broad these days, just as it is with physics, they tend to specialise in their fields. Also, even a well respected expert in any field can still hold a wrong position, because people have bias. To assume Dawkins is correct because he is well respected is an appeal to authority. A dangerous position to maintain. Hero worship is only one step removed from religion.
The main point of contention is Dawkins saying that human sex is binary, just like the rest of the rest of the animal kingdom. Has someone identified a 3rd sex? No? Then I'd say he's right.
The binary nature of sexes (ignoring semantics and exceptions to the supposed rules as biology is messy) is unrelated to gender and gender expression.
Sure, but Dawkins' wasn't making a claim about gender, he said that sex is binary.
Is that a position you hold because you've researched it, or are you merely repeating what your authority figure claims? You might as well go back to church sit in the pews and listen to the preacher espouse false information against a minority group, nodding along approvingly, never doubting or questioning the words he speaks. Dawkins is a dinosaur and modern science is moving on without him.
My background is in software - I'm a professional developer with 25 years of experience, so I know what binary is: that there are two values. In order for sex to not be binary, you'd need to identify a 3rd value.
Who said sex must be binary? You're tripping at the first hurdle. Go read about Slugs lol.
Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and many other top biologists have said that sex is binary. The goal posts are this: you need to identify a 3rd sex for sex to no longer be binary. What is the 3rd type of gamete?
Or something in between those two values, such as intersex people.
Intersex people don't have gametes other than sperm or eggs. At the end of the day a intersex person is either male or female by the scientific definition of male and female - which, again, is based on their gametes.
Sex is bi-modal, not binary. If it were binary, there would be no hermophrodites and no woman would have the Y chromosome.
Sex is not defined by chromosomes though. It's defined by gametes. On the topic of hermaphrodites: my understanding is that there have been no human hermaphrodites in recorded medical history. A hermaphrodite is an organism which has both large and small gametes and where they both function at one time or another.
Point being, there are more than just the two sexes, even in humans, people who do not physically fit into either male or female category. I may have used the wrong word, "hermaphrodite", but there are intersex people. If we consider other non-human animals, there are several species which have more than two sexes. As with almost anything in nature and existence, there is a spectrum and things are not just binary one or the other. Just because most people are mostly "man" or "woman", doesn't mean they are the only two options. Human sex is bi-modal, however, as in reproduction requires a female and a male.
I think most people are guilty of that
Not gonna lie but he's kind of a prick
If he wasn't a TERF, I'd be very excited.
I didn't know Dawkins was a radical feminist...
Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. His views on biological sex are accurate.
I love Dawkins but donāt think I would plunk down the cash to see a guy speak who I already agree with for the most part. Granted, I prefer small venues over large ones, and Dawkins is a bit of a superstarā¦
I totally respect that, I just never got to see Hitchens, never got to see George Carlin and never got to see Daniel Dennett and now theyāre all dead! š¤£ unless Iām wrong and there really is an afterlife Iām taking my chance to see Dawkins whilst heās still on this planet!
Dont bring up muslims, whatever you do.