(January 2, 2025 at 11:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Debate among working scientists or university-level science professors seems more likely to be worthwhile.

Yeah, isn't it a shame that somebody like the APA didn't get this figured out a decade ago.  

(January 3, 2025 at 1:00 am)Paleophyte Wrote:

(January 2, 2025 at 11:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Debate among working scientists or university-level science professors seems more likely to be worthwhile.

Yeah, isn't it a shame that somebody like the APA didn't get this figured out a decade ago.  

Absolutely, a lot of people will accept the decision of a professional group like this. 

Others don't, of course.

Quote:Sex assignment

In 2024, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and physicist Alan Sokal co-authored an op-ed in The Boston Globe criticizing the use of the terminology "sex assigned at birth" instead of "sex" by the APA, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dawkins and Sokal argued that sex is an "objective biological reality" that "is determined at conception and is then observed at birth," rather than assigned by a medical professional. Calling this "social constructionism gone amok," Dawkins and Sokal argued that "distort[ing] the scientific facts in the service of a social cause" risks undermining trust in medical institutions.[54]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_P...ssociation

So there are some high-profile people still beating the horse. The debate comes down to how we decide what's true -- and there are those who are strict about what they consider to qualify as science. Since a lot of atheists, at least those on line, tend to rely on science-type explanations for what they hold to be true, this is a debate that many atheists will be interested in following.

Why does anyone give 0.02 fucks about how someone else feels how they are regarding gender, or any other thing that doesn't harm you, at all?

You busybodies need to shut the fuck up already. Masturbate into your own toilets already. That goes across the spectrum, I don't care who believes in what god, or doesn't. People are people.

(January 3, 2025 at 1:22 am)Belacqua Wrote: , this is a debate that many atheists will be interested in following.

Not really. That's why you are constantly forcing this issue on this forum because none of us care about it. People have disagreements - big deal.

Also, Dawkins and Coyne still tolerate trans people, but if the west was under the Christian morality, instead of secular, trans people would be burned alive on the stake and you would be defending their burning like you defend the burning of Giordano Bruno.

(January 3, 2025 at 2:02 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Why does anyone give 0.02 fucks about how someone else feels how they are regarding gender, or any other thing that doesn't harm you, at all?

You busybodies need to shut the fuck up already. Masturbate into your own toilets already. That goes across the spectrum, I don't care who believes in what god, or doesn't. People are people.

If everyone felt as you do, then there would be no need for a public debate, or for well-structured arguments. 

However, as you have noticed, Trump has been elected president, and the forces of reaction are on the move. 

Not that long ago, Dawkins was considered a serious spokesman on the subject of how to distinguish science from ideology. Now that has changed. 

You don't have to worry about it if you don't want to. But others feel that trans rights should be defended publicly, and for that we need clear and persuasive spokespeople.

(January 3, 2025 at 2:18 am)Belacqua Wrote: Not that long ago, Dawkins was considered a serious spokesman on the subject of how to distinguish science from ideology. Now that has changed. 

Really? You considered Dawkins a serious spokesman on anything? When? From what I noticed you've been trying to poison the well about him since you arrived.

I doubt that Dawkins's views are similar to Shapiro's, since Shapiro's is driven primarily by religious bigotry, his latching onto science here, seems little more than opportunism. FWIW here is Richard Dawkins's email explaining his reasons for his resignation:

"Dear Annie Laurie and Dan


It is with real sadness, because of my personal regard for you both, that I feel obliged to resign from the Honorary Board of FFRF. Publishing the silly and unscientific “What is a Woman” article by Kat Grant was a minor error of judgment, redeemed by the decision to publish a rebuttal by a distinguished scientist from the relevant field, namely Biology, Jerry Coyne. But alas, the sequel was an act of unseemly panic when you caved in to hysterical squeals from predictable quarters and retrospectively censored that excellent rebuttal. Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own Honorary Board. A Board which I now leave with regret.

Although I formally resign, I would like to remain on friendly terms with you, and I look forward to cooperating in the future. And to delightful musical evenings if the opportunity arises.

Yours sincerely,
Richard"

I tend to agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson on this, and as he told Shapiro in their debate, "If someone wants to identify in a way that differs from their biological sex, why would I even care?"

I guess these kinds of growing pains are what societies must go through, when long held views are changing rapidly, hopefully extreme views and hysteria from both sides will eventually be marginalised to the point where they become irrelevant.

(January 3, 2025 at 2:18 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(January 3, 2025 at 2:02 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Why does anyone give 0.02 fucks about how someone else feels how they are regarding gender, or any other thing that doesn't harm you, at all?

You busybodies need to shut the fuck up already. Masturbate into your own toilets already. That goes across the spectrum, I don't care who believes in what god, or doesn't. People are people.

Not that long ago, Dawkins was considered a serious spokesman on the subject of how to distinguish science from ideology. Now that has changed. 

That's nonsense, clearly. One need only read that email I quoted and see his resignation is precisely because he cannot square some extreme ideological claims, against scientific rigour, however well intended. That you suggested this in any way aligns his position with Shapiro's is also bullshit. As the latter is simply a bigoted right wing religious extremist, making hay...he'll abandon science when it suits him, and then cite it in the same opportunistic way, when he thinks it justifies his bigotry. This was never clearer than when NdGT tore his nonsense apart like warm bread in that video. 

Telling a prominent scientists that they can't care about trans rights because it's unscientific, is like telling them they can't have a favourite colour, or can't object to murder or rape. Since all moral judgments ultimately rest on subjective opinion, this is an asinine position, as are many of Shapiro's of course.

Who gives a shit what Dawkins is a spokesperson of? He is right about some stuff, and wrong about other, like all of us. And who gives a shit about what Bel thinks of Dawkins?

(January 3, 2025 at 7:32 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Who gives a shit what Dawkins is a spokesperson of? He is right about some stuff, and wrong about other, like all of us. And who gives a shit about what Bel thinks of Dawkins?

This is of course true, though to liken his stance here as similar to Shapiro's was a an egregious falsehood, but yes he is just one man, entitled to an opinion, but like everyone else not infallible.