I agree that it's their prize and all. I mean, it is. There's no disputing that.
I think what's at issue here is: has the American Humanist Association used good judgement in revoking Dawkins's award?
On the one hand, Dawkins's remarks were clearly meant to stir the pot. They weren't made in a vacuum.
But on the other hand, the remarks themselves don't seem "antithetical to humanist values." Like, having a conversation about biological sex and gender... even to broach points of controversy... is a good thing.
I don't really think Dawkins opposes trans rights... although I'm unfamiliar with his exact position. I assume that if he ever did say anything that expressed clear opposition to trans rights, those remarks would have been cited instead.
I think what's at issue here is: has the American Humanist Association used good judgement in revoking Dawkins's award?
On the one hand, Dawkins's remarks were clearly meant to stir the pot. They weren't made in a vacuum.
But on the other hand, the remarks themselves don't seem "antithetical to humanist values." Like, having a conversation about biological sex and gender... even to broach points of controversy... is a good thing.
I don't really think Dawkins opposes trans rights... although I'm unfamiliar with his exact position. I assume that if he ever did say anything that expressed clear opposition to trans rights, those remarks would have been cited instead.
