It's A Quote

[Fake Messiah]

Science doesn't teach us wisdom. 

It's not that science doesn't teach wisdom but that people are frequently not wise enough to accept it. Like when Galileo was using telescope to show that the planets revolved around the sun, not the Earth, and being hounded and threatened with torture and death by the Church.

[Belacqua]

The "belligerent slogan" that "trans women are women" is “scientifically false, a debauching of language, and because, when taken literally, it can infringe the rights of other people, especially women."

-- Richard Dawkins

This is a quote from the new book The War on Science, edited by Lawrence Krauss.

[Paleophyte]

Dawkins was always a git and he hasn't aged well.

[Belacqua]

Dawkins was always a git and he hasn't aged well.

The poor guy has been pushed into an unfortunate position due to his need to remain consistent with what he's said before.

He's argued strongly and consistently that we should only accept as true the things that science can demonstrate. Science is our only means to discover what is true about the world. 

Science, of course, works through examining only the objective, the empirical, the quantifiable, the repeatable evidence that's available for testing. This means that for Dawkins, the only way to determine if someone is a man or a woman is to look at chromosomes, genitalia, pelvis structure, etc. -- the scientific markers for maleness or femaleness. 

Gender, on the other hand, cannot be examined and tested in this way. Therefore Dawkins cannot accept claims about gender which cannot be empirically and objectively evidenced. 

He has no choice but to deny that trans women are women, if he wants to stay consistent with his "only science tells the truth" conviction. If he were to accept that trans women are who they claim to be, he would have to give up his commitment to the idea that only empirical and objective evidence should be trusted.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Dawkins was always a git and he hasn't aged well.

Right enough. There are (and always have been) better proponents for secularism and naturalism.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

He is has no choice but to deny that trans women are women, if he wants to stay consistent with his "only science tells the truth" conviction. If he were to accept that trans women are who they claim to be, he would have to give up his commitment to the idea that only empirical and objective evidence should be trusted.

So nice of you to stick your neck for trans people. I hope you are genuinely concerned about trans people and you are not just making a circus here by trying to pull a fallacy that if Dawkins is wrong about one thing that he must be wrong about everything. But then again, we already tried to explain it to you that you don't have to have empirical evidence for everything and yet you ignore it, which seems very disingenuous.

And yes, Dawkins can be wrong from time to time because he's a human and humans can be wrong sometimes.

[Paleophyte]

Dawkins was always a git and he hasn't aged well.

The poor guy has been pushed into an unfortunate position due to his need to remain consistent with what he's said before.

He's argued strongly and consistently that we should only accept as true the things that science can demonstrate. Science is our only means to discover what is true about the world. 

Science, of course, works through examining only the objective, the empirical, the quantifiable, the repeatable evidence that's available for testing. This means that for Dawkins, the only way to determine if someone is a man or a woman is to look at chromosomes, genitalia, pelvis structure, etc. -- the scientific markers for maleness or femaleness. 

Gender, on the other hand, cannot be examined and tested in this way. Therefore Dawkins cannot accept claims about gender which cannot be empirically and objectively evidenced. 

He has no choice but to deny that trans women are women, if he wants to stay consistent with his "only science tells the truth" conviction. If he were to accept that trans women are who they claim to be, he would have to give up his commitment to the idea that only empirical and objective evidence should be trusted.

I'm loving the absurdity of fundamentalists defending Dawkins for being a jackass. Onward good Christian haters! The Schadenfreude is so thick that you could cut it and sell it.

Ideology tells you that chromosomes are worth a damn for determining anything other than karyotype. There are women walking the Earth right now with a Y chromosome lurking in their cells and neither they nor you know it. Most people would rightly think a person crazy for referring to them as a male.

Science will tell you that even sex is more complicated than that. Gender is much more complex yet.

Dawkins isn't peddling anything other than his sad ideology.