Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[Belacqua]

I doubt that Dawkins's views are similar to Shapiro's

Both Dawkins and Shapiro want scientific standards by which to judge whether a person is male or female. In this their views are similar. 

It's very likely that their motivation for reaching these views are different. But people may have different motivations for reaching identical views -- whether these views are true or false. 

why would I even care?"

Since we're making guesses about other people's opinions here, I'll hazard a wild guess: I think that Dawkins would say he cares about the question because some things are true and some things are false, and we should care to believe only true things. Even if this is not what some people want. 

We should have logical arguments for what we believe, and not just punt because we want it to be a certain way.

[Sheldon]

I doubt that Dawkins's views are similar to Shapiro's

Both Dawkins and Shapiro want scientific standards by which to judge whether a person is male or female. In this their views are similar. 

No they don't, as I said Schapiro's only interest is justifying his own religious bigotry, if science found out that being trans or gay were genetic tomorrow, his faux support for science would likely  evaporate. 

It's very likely that their motivation for reaching these views are different. But people may have different motivations for reaching identical views -- whether these views are true or false. 

Their views on trans rights are not "identical". It is facile to pretend they are. 

Since we're making guesses about other people's opinions here, I'll hazard a wild guess: I think that Dawkins would say he cares about the question because some things are true and some things are false, and we should care to believe only true things. Even if this is not what some people want. 

Did I guess? I quoted Dawkins own email, stating his reasons for resigning. Shapiro's opinions are littered with religious bigotry, regardless of whether they have any basis in objective reality.  

We should have logical arguments for what we believe, and not just punt because we want it to be a certain way.

Indeed, but morality isn't based on objective truth, all moral claims ultimately rest on subjective opinions, are you then suggesting we abandon all pretence of morality, or accept subjective belief as a credible standard for all beliefs? 

This seems an absurd position to me, it was of course the argument Shapiro tried to peddle with NdGT, and he gave it the contempt it deserved. Just because one sets a bar for credulity that requires beliefs be supported by sufficient objective evidence, does not mean one can't have a favourite colour based on an entirely subjective view, and the same for moral judgements. I can abhor actions like rape and murder that cause harm to others unnecessarily, but this does not mean I delude myself that it is objectively true that harming others is wrong. 

You seem to be wrongly conflating objective truth, with moral judgments, and while we should endeavour to make more informed judgments, those judgments ultimately will rest on subjective assertions. Shapiro is using an objective scientific truth, to pretend this lends some weight to his subjective moral assertions. Whereas Professor Dawkins is making a statement about objective truth over subjective ideology, and keeping his subjective moral views separate, as he should.

[Paleophyte]

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.

Others who aren't qualified to question the professionals whose jobs it is to get this right.

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.

You either accept the science or you reject it. You can't have it both ways. If you reject the science and make up something sciencey-sounding to support your agenda then you're little better than a creationist.

[Deesse23]

We should have logical arguments for what we believe, and not just punt because we want it to be a certain way.

Some people think we should have higher standards than that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

You clearly missed my point. I'm not bemoaning the defense of transgender rights. I'm bemoaning the fact that bigoted fucks who claim to be for small government are still busy injecting said government and said bigotries into the private lives of the citizenry.

I had thought that point to be obvious, but it apparently wasn't so obvious for you.

Also, whoever did consider Dawkins a spokesman, I'm not one of them.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Belacqua

Both Dawkins and Shapiro want scientific standards by which to judge whether a person is male or female. In this their views are similar. 

There already ARE such standards - Dawkins knows this and has said so on numerous occasions.

For the teenth time, this is not a debate about male/female, it is about man/woman.

Ffs.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

[quote='Belacqua' pid='2220196' dateline='1735872282']

Is "The Friendly Atheist" Myers? I'm not sure. Anyway, it was this blogger who used  the word "trash." Myers used the word "rot."

[quote]

'The Friendly Atheist' is Hemant Mehta.

[The Grand Nudger]

This seems an absurd position to me, it was of course the argument Shapiro tried to peddle with NdGT, and he gave it the contempt it deserved. Just because one sets a bar for credulity that requires beliefs be supported by sufficient objective evidence, does not mean one can't have a favourite colour based on an entirely subjective view, and the same for moral judgements. I can abhor actions like rape and murder that cause harm to others unnecessarily, but this does not mean I delude myself that it is objectively true that harming others is wrong. 

Just another disingenuous objection used as cover by a religious nut.  It follows pretty cleanly from the notions that there is objective evidence for the existence of trans people and objective evidence that harming people is wrong...that harming trans people would be wrong.  They don't give a shit about that, though.  Their god has an opinion.  Their culture has a position.

[Belacqua]

Is "The Friendly Atheist" Myers? I'm not sure. Anyway, it was this blogger who used  the word "trash." Myers used the word "rot."

'The Friendly Atheist' is Hemant Mehta.

Thank you! I didn't know that.

[Belacqua]

You either accept the science or you reject it. You can't have it both ways. If you reject the science and make up something sciencey-sounding to support your agenda then you're little better than a creationist.

Yes, I think so too. And I think that to Dawkins, he is supporting real science while his opponents in this debate are making up something sciencey-sounding. Or simply ignoring the standards which science imposes in order to get the results they want. This is why Coyne, et.al., compare "wokism" to a religion. To them, it seems to operate like creationism. People want it to be true so they accept it as true.

As you know, scientific claims are supposed to be empirical, repeatedly testable, and quantifiable. Dawkins got rich and famous for applying these standards to the claims made by religious people, and showing how religious claims do not meet the standards of science. 

Now he is confronted by a different set of claims which are not empirical, repeatedly testable, and quantifiable, and he rejects those as well -- these are the claims made by people who see maleness or femaleness as something not knowable through empirical, repeatedly testable, and quantifiable methods. 

So he may be a lunkhead, but he's not a hypocrite. He is being consistent. Those of us who support the claims of trans people should be able to explain to him why the standards he's successfully applied in the past are not relevant here. 

This may require a shift in some people's thinking. Quite a few people on line, especially atheists, have taken a very similar line, to say that the only claims we accept as true should be demonstrable through objective evidence. But when we accept the claims of trans people, we are accepting something subjective. 

If gender is NOT provable through empirical, testable, and quantifiable observation of physical structures or functions, then it is the subjective experience of the individual. It is the subjective life-world they inhabit. And we have to give credence, in this case, to the truth of their subjective experience. 

Seen in a larger sense, this brings us back to an old debate -- the difference between body and mind. The fact that the scientific method cannot explain how we get from brain events to subjective experiences (qualia) remains a sticking point. A number of atheists, like Daniel Dennett, simply deny the truth of subjective experiences. But I think that if we're going to accept subjective claims regarding gender, then we have to acknowledge that there is a disconnect which is still inexplicable. 

I'm not really interested in opening up the whole mind/body debate yet again. Probably we've all heard enough about P-zombies to last a lifetime. 

In fact the number of people who are happy to accept subjective claims as true, in this case, is encouraging to me. I have long felt that people like Dawkins try to use the methods of science in places where they don't really apply. Some people, who formerly seemed to support that sort of strictness, are now openly advocating for a different sort of standard, and that seems like a good development to me.