Dawkins loses humanist title

[Reforged]

If a males personal inclination from as young as he can remember is toward the female gender can that inclination partially be linked back to the genetics responsible for his brain chemistry and sexual development?

If a large team of well funded social scientists study a culture long enough is it possible they could gather statistical data on what aspects of that culture influence gender?

If both of the answers to these questions was yes could you more accurately predict a studied individuals desired gender based on genetic and cultural data without meeting them?
"Discuss."

[The Grand Nudger]

If a males personal inclination from as young as he can remember is toward the female gender can that inclination partially be linked back to the genetics responsible for his brain chemistry and sexual development?

Who knows, but it would hardly matter, since..at least in dawkins formulation...explicitly, he's a man regardless of how long or when or why he feels whatever way he feels.  

Perhaps this is what the aha took issue with?

If a large team of well funded social scientists study a culture long enough is it possible they could gather statistical data on what aspects of that culture influence gender?

They have, spoiler alert, it's not biological essentialism.  Let wonder lead you to knowledge.

If both of the answers to these questions was yes could you more accurately predict a studied individuals desired gender based on genetic and cultural data without meeting them?
"Discuss."

Probably, and all of that discussion would be irrelevant to the humanists concern for trans humans in thei capacity as an advocacy group for a political and ethical ideology, except insomuch as bigots use it as ammo in that discussion to deny the same.

Which may... be what the aha.... had an issue with.

[Reforged]

The ideology of humanism is exactly that people should tow the humanist line, even if...and especially when...reality does not conform to the ideology.  

That's what humanism is, that's it's goal.  Not to accurately describe reality as it is, but to actively change reality so that it's closer to how we wish it to be.  

All of that is at play regardless of any disagreement you and I have about whether he was actually throwing himself against public opinion in the pursuit of empirical or objective truth.  I don't think he was, you might think he was...but the item of that disagreement is irrelevant to the advocacy and pursuit of an ideology.  That's what the aha does.  Advocates for and pursues a specific ideology.  I think it's strange to be upset at a dog for eating a biscuit.  He wasn't stripped of the title humanist, there is no such title, and the aha can't give it out or revoke it.  He was stripped of an award that -they- granted, because he no longer fits the organizations goals as they see them, due to a pattern of behavior and comment that is perfectly available for anyone to go and have a look at, for themselves.

But that doesn't stop an ideology forcing people to conform to what they say reality is. Stalinism springs to mind. There is an odd sort of logic to it. If you can get enough people to admit something they know isn't true then that can it as irrefutable and as binding as any reality. The fact is, you can be made to conform to a fiction. There isn't a single person here who doesn't know that to be true. 

How can you use a map if you can't begin to fathom where you are on it?

Alright, what do you think he was trying to do?

Being stripped of an award by a self-proclaimed society of humanists sends an unavoidably clear message. "You're not one of us, you're not a humanist". Thats a hell of a brand to be given.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're only telling me that an ideology can be bad. Sure. Do you think that humanism is a bad ideology, to justify the immediate comparison to stalinism? They certainly believe that things which aren't true, should be true, how about you?

While you ponder over that, consider this. I have a fun little conjecture I use in a bunch of circumstances that describes a perfectly equivalent statement to the one that dawkins made. The sun will rise tomorrow morning at 6am, because that's when I take my morning shits. No need to thank me, yet another service I provide. Now, you might say "that's ridiculous, you got that plainly and absurdly wrong - the sun doesn't rise because you take shits even if you happen to take shits when the sun rises". -something to that effect.

Similarly, dawkins predicted that if he said a thing, he would be vilified for saying it. He can point to the fact that he's now being vilified - but, just as you might above, we might all notice that he's not being vilified for the thing he claimed. He was not only wrong with respect to the ideology of humanism, he was wrong with respect to empirical fact.

Maybe, just maybe, dawkins doesn't share the values of the aha? That wouldn't exactly be surprising. Marriages of convenience can end in divorce.

[Brian37]

You're only telling me that an ideology can be bad.  Sure.  Do you think that humanism is a bad ideology, to justify the immediate comparison to stalinism?  They certainly believe that things which aren't true, should be true, how about you?

While you ponder over that, consider this.  I have a fun little conjecture I use in a bunch of circumstances that describes a perfectly equivalent statement to the one that dawkins made.  The sun will rise tomorrow morning at 6am, because that's when I take my morning shits.  No need to thank me, yet another service I provide.  Now, you might say "that's ridiculous, you got that plainly and absurdly wrong - the sun doesn't rise because you take shits even if you happen to take shits when the sun rises".  -something to that effect.

Similarly, dawkins predicted that if he said a thing, he would be vilified for saying it.  He can point to the fact that he's now being vilified - but, just as you might above, we might all notice that he's not being vilified for the thing he claimed.  He was not only wrong with respect to the ideology of humanism, he was wrong with respect to empirical fact.

Maybe, just maybe, dawkins doesn't share the values of the aha?  That wouldn't exactly be surprising.

"Idology" or "economics" or "politics" or "religion" are nothing more than the human excuse to fight over dominance.

[Belacqua]

Toe, not tow.

[Reforged]

If a males personal inclination from as young as he can remember is toward the female gender can that inclination partially be linked back to the genetics responsible for his brain chemistry and sexual development?

Who knows, but it would hardly matter, since..at least in dawkins formulation...explicitly, he's a man regardless of how long or when or why he feels whatever way he feels.  

Perhaps this is what the aha took issue with?

If a large team of well funded social scientists study a culture long enough is it possible they could gather statistical data on what aspects of that culture influence gender?

They have, spoiler alert, it's not biological essentialism.  Let wonder lead you to knowledge.

If both of the answers to these questions was yes could you more accurately predict a studied individuals desired gender based on genetic and cultural data without meeting them?
"Discuss."

Probably, and all of that discussion would be irrelevant to the humanists concern for trans humans in thei capacity as an advocay group for a political and ethical ideology, except insomuch as bigots use it as ammo in that discussion.

Which may... be what the aha.... had an issue with.

Oh this is separate from Dawkin's stuff. I'm just fascinated by how assured you are that genetics can't explain these things given time.
I sort of have a stake in genetics, I'm pursuing a career in research. Nothing I've seen so far would lead me to believe these questions weren't at least within our grasp.

I'm also well aware those sorts of studies have been done and continue to be done, that was my point. That science is an endless pursuit that gives us more understanding and a better capacity to make predictions the longer it continues.

So I can really not quite square that circle you've created. Dawkin's would have access to far more data than either you or I would. He would have access to other scientists of the highest caliber as well as an understanding of genetics that would dwarf pretty much anyone you could ever hope to meet.
How do you know genetics can't at least partially answer these questions and that other scientific disciplines can't fill in the other parts?
It seems to be doing rather well with most questions so far.

EDIT: Oh wait, my mistake. You answered their question for them.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not at all assured that genetics won't explain these things over time - genetics is already a part of that explanation. I'm pointing out that genetic reality has nothing to do with a political or ethical ideology.

What is is not equivalent to what should be. What is natural is not equivalent to what is right.

We can assume that dawkins both has access to more data and is an immensely smarter person than both of us, but this would only make his comments even more inexplicable, even worse. That's exactly what the aha assumes. They just said so.

[vulcanlogician]

But that doesn't stop an ideology forcing people to conform to what they say reality is. Stalinism springs to mind. 

(my bold)

Where are the humanist gulags? I don't think anyone is forcing people to conform to anything here. The AHA making this determination is bound to start a discussion on the issue (which it has here and elsewhere). Stalinism was about ending discussions... or making them "disappear"...

I think we need to be realistic about the level of coercion going on here. Stalinism doesn't come to mind. I think the more defensible thesis is: there is a nonzero amount of coercion going on.

That's what I hate about the cancel culture debate. It's so overblown. There is no Orwellian empire pulling the strings here. It's a bunch of people running their mouths on the internet. If I were to dispense any bit of advice to cancel culture opponents, it'd be to stop taking it so seriously. It's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Is it beyond reproach? Certainly not. So let's take the conversation from there...

[Reforged]

I'm not at all assured that genetics won't explain these things over time - genetics is already a part of that explanation.  I'm pointing out that genetic reality has nothing to do with a political or ethical ideology.

What is is not equivalent to what should be.  What is natural is not equivalent to what is right.

We can assume that dawkins both has access to more data and is an immensely smarter person than both of us, but this would only make his comments even more inexplicable, even worse.  That's exactly what the aha assumes.  They just said so.

Yes, sorry. Something went wrong with the reply and it didn't show who I was replying to. That part concerning generics you responded to was directed at Belacqua.