Dawkins loses humanist title

[Anomalocaris]

I don't attach a negative value to the term rhetoric,  dawkins statement was certainly rhetorical and factual.  I prefer to believe that dawkins understood why organizations like the aha would distance themselves - especially since he offered up exactly that?  

He entered that arena, he spoke his mind - they did as expected of a public facing club.  What is the problem, from either angle, supposed to be here?

It debased the AHA.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's something that they can freely choose to do. Their prize, their reputation. His mouth, his reputation.

[brewer]

As a technicality/nit pick, it is entirely possible, though rare (about one male in 20,000), for a human male to be 'chromasomally female'. Chromosomes aren't the only thing that determines sex in humans, though XX males are sterile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

True, but I doubt that was taken into account by the parties involved.

[Jehanne]

As a technicality/nit pick, it is entirely possible, though rare (about one male in 20,000), for a human male to be 'chromasomally female'. Chromosomes aren't the only thing that determines sex in humans, though XX males are sterile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

As a transgender female, the question is one of one's gender everywhere and always being reducible to one's biological sex.  And, guess what, "Who cares?"  Seriously, if I, as a biological male, am gender non-conforming, and present myself as being a biological female (and, am sometimes recognized as one, even if only temporarily), what different does that make?  Just treat me as being what I fundamentally am, a human being.  I often refer to myself as "Dawn," but if someone calls me by my birth and legal name, "Don" (or, "Donald", as my wife and mother refer to me), so what?  A lot of female associates often conclude business with me with, "Have a good one..."  Seems like that is more of a female-type interaction, but, I'll leave it to the true biological women among us to sort that one out.

[arewethereyet]

Seems to me the only time it should matter is in medical situations where the genetics and any treatments (like HRT) need to be factored in to achieve the correct care.

Beyond that, I agree with the who cares attitude.

Many years ago...like in the mid 80s, I worked at a chain drug store that had all the usual departments. An older (senior) couple would come in...male/female, but he was presenting as a woman and the wife would help with makeup and skin care selections. It's obvious now that no hormone therapy or surgical alterations had been done but they were making the best of the situation for the time and place (small town AZ). That was my first, knowing, experience with someone choosing their gender.

[Anomalocaris]

whether it matters from a particular point of view should not obscure the fact that underlying differences exist.   we would dearly love to be exactly what we wish to be, but it is a disgrace to deny we are not all we wish to be, and the part of us that is not as we wish is just as salient as they part we are thankful for.

To resent reminders of parts of what we are that is not what we wish is small minded, and ultimately an indication of profound moral dishonesty.   one might say the main reason to do this is a desire to pull a fast one in the name of a “good cause”.

There is nothing fundamentally different between resenting what Dawkins said and trump claiming to be “very stable genius”,  or christians claiming “i am saved”.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that reasonable people could disagree with that very strongly. I even suspect that Dawkins himself would understand why the aha reacted as it did. Two things can be true, after all.

Apparently, he's been saying alot of things that he later feels the need to clarify, over the years, which has repeatedly taxed the patience of interested observers and the broad leeway that good will built up for the man in the course of his career as a public figure.

[Anomalocaris]

No doubt Dawkins understood both what he did, and why AHA did what it did, much better than the majority of people in AHA who might have voted to reclaim the prize understood either.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the part where we probably won't agree. I think that they understand what they did and why they did it, and it really doesn't matter what you or I think of it, anyway - not our club, not our prize.

He's either courted or somehow accidentally stumbled into a series of social and political minefields which are, as the aha puts it, antithetical to humanist values. Those values as they see them, ofc.

[Ranjr]

Dawkins is qualified to speak on the matter and should, since the topic is increasingly politicized.  He could lead a rational discussion where emotion and political capital are the current drivers.  But oh well.  Wield that power AHA.

"Hello Ranjr?  This is Betty down at the Piggly Wiggly where you worked as a teenager."

"Mrs. Betty?  But you would have to be. . . um, hi Betty, it's great to hear from you."

"You too son, but I'm afraid we're going to have to take back that employee of the week award we gave you.  You've said some pretty ugly things on the internet."

"But I already spent the $10 and the certificate went straight to the trash."

"Oh that's okay.  It's just for show."

"Don't care.  Got laid."