Dawkins loses humanist title

[The Grand Nudger]

No one is at all concerned that the aha might be right about this? That dawkins, for example, can be expected to be intelligent enough to know that no one gets vilified for saying that a biological male is biologically male - but for inserting that into the context of a political disagreement wherein that seemingly inconvenient fact is somehow the basis for a collection of abusive ideologies and laws - the same sorts of which he built a reputation persuasively criticizing in that work which he was awarded for?

Everybody fucks up. Some people fuck up alot or all at once.

Then there are the things that (and this is just me) I think he gets absolutely right, but for completely explicable and rational reasons as humanists the aha has previously distanced themselves from.

[Anomalocaris]

I am very concerned that AHA might be right, so I thought about it long and hard, and concluded they are totally wrong. They are hiding behind grandstanding, dishonesty and bullying because they lack patience and appreciation for thoughtfulness, and fear their goal might be farther away and they would have to do more work to attain it if the case is shown to be no where as clear cut as they would have others believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you..too, could probably understand that the case of whether or not a biologically male person is biologically male and the case of transgender issues and their relationship to humanism aren't really the same case at all - but for the utility of the former to be used as a cudgel against the latter.

I'd like to point out that it's completely unremarkable to find that a person who has consistently described religion as a mind virus eventually runs afoul of humanist associations.

[Anomalocaris]

If a fact has utility as a cudgel, but not a rebuttal, against an otherwise sound position,  it only undermines the otherwise sound position if the defense or furtherance of the position is seen to nonetheless rely on the suppression of the fact.  It elevates the cudgel to something approaching legitimacy.

Rather the position would be strengthen if the inconvenient fact is reiterated while the case for it not being an rebuttal allowed to crystallize in the popular mind.   When the crystallization occurs, the cudgel will be as easily dismissed as cobweb.

If the case that the fact is not an rebuttal can not be made clear enough in popular minds to allow the position to advance, the society in general can certainly stand to loses more by advancing the position anyway through suppression of the fact than allowing the position to languish until a more opportune time.

That I wonder if that is something AHA considered or even cared to consider.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you're missing the forest for the trees. There are a huge number of potential facts which would be, assuming that they were both factual and relevant to any given societal discussion, problems for humanist ideology. Dawkins has not only been a loud advocate for some of these, he's been their originator. He's also had some truly bad takes that were neither factual, or, if they were, relevant. I agree, for example, that religions are a mind virus - but the description of something so fundamental to humanity is, objectively, an issue for humanist ideology. Two things can be true.

Here, in this case, I think that what Dawkins got right was that he would be vilified for making his comments, though he got the reason wrong, and he completely blew the fucking pooch on context and framing. I expect one of those clarifications that the aha specifically referenced from past instances of the same. At some point, we have to decide whether dawkins is a doddering geriatric with a bad mouth - or if it's truly his opinion that the bad take is true and relevant. Sometimes, it certainly could be, and sometimes in that case, the bad take would be true - and still a problem for humanist ideology. Two things, can be true.

[Anomalocaris]

I think that you're missing the forest for the trees.  There are a huge number of potential facts which would be, assuming that they were both factual and relevant to any given societal discussion, problems for humanist ideology.  Dawkins has not only been a loud advocate for some of these, he's been their originator.  He's also had some truly bad takes that were neither factual, or, if they were, relevant.  I agree, for example, that religions are a mind virus - but the description of something so fundamental to humanity is, objectively, an issue for humanist ideology.  Two things can be true.

Here, in this case, I think that what Dawkins got right was that he would be vilified for making his comments, though he got the reason wrong, and he completely blew the fucking pooch on context and framing.  I expect one of those clarifications that the aha specifically referenced from past instances of the same.  At some point, we have to decide whether dawkins is a doddering geriatric with a bad mouth - or if it's truly his opinion that the bad take is true and relevant.  Sometimes, it certainly could be, and sometimes in that case, the bad take would be true - and still a problem for humanist ideology.  Two things, can be true.

No, I think I am seeing the forest of the general societal attitude towards intellectual honesty and broad minded appraisal of greater good, and not obsessing over the trees of this particular pet issue or that.

[The Grand Nudger]

If we're being intellectually honest, is the biological fact of biological maleness relevant, in any way, to the humanist concern for trans humanity?

[Anomalocaris]

If we're being intellectually honest, is the biological fact of biological maleness relevant, in any way, to the humanist concern for trans humanity?

It would be, if the society tend to regard gender roles as fundamentally, if not perfectly, about the biological roles of the individual.   The case to be made is it shouldn’t be, not it isn’t.

[The Grand Nudger]

For me, like plenty of times before, I have no problem agreeing with dawkins that a biological male is biologically male, but I also understand that the issue of a persons vilification has absolutely nothing to do with the mere utterance of this assertion to fact. I also understand why a humanist association would, with statements like this and the others he's made over the years, have an issue regardless of some trivial or banal sense of factuality.

[Foxaèr]

described religion as a mind virus

Yet, it is just that.