Dawkins loses humanist title

[Silver]

Richard Dawkins loses ‘humanist of the year’ title over trans comments
theguardian.com

The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

The AHA honoured Dawkins, whose books include The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, in 1996 for his “significant contributions” in communicating scientific concepts to the public. On Monday, it announced that it was withdrawing the award, referring to a tweet sent by Dawkins earlier this month, in which he compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal, the civil rights activist who posed as a black woman for years.

Read further:

---

“In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black,” wrote Dawson on Twitter. “Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”

Dawkins later responded to criticism, writing: “I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic ‘Discuss’ question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue.”

Among his critics was Alison Gill, vice president for legal and policy at American Atheists and a trans woman. She said Dawkins’ comments reinforce dangerous and harmful narratives. She said: “Given the repercussions for the millions of trans people in this country, in this one life we have to live, as an atheist and as a trans woman, I hope that Professor Dawkins treats this issue with greater understanding and respect in the future.”

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

The evolutionary biologist’s latest comment, the board said, “implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient”, while his “subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity”.

“Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award,” said the organisation.

The Guardian has reached out to Dawkins for comment.

---

[The Architect Of Fate]

Never liked Dawkins

[Anomalocaris]

terribly small minded and intolerance of dissension.
An award is given for what had been done, not a perpetual lien to ensure good future behavior, especially if the behavior would not have been considered good at the time when the award was given.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's their award

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

For denying that a trans woman isn't chromosomally female and getting vilified for it, Dawkins had his point proved.

Boru

[brewer]

Emotionally based knee jerk reaction.

[Mister Agenda]

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Looks to me like we have two parties in the right on this one. The aha doesn't want to be associated with that rhetoric, and dawkins knew as much.

Like sungula said - it's their club, their prize. Similarly, dawkins mouth, his call.

[Anomalocaris]

Looks to me like we have two parties in the right on this one.   The aha doesn't want to be associated with that rhetoric, and dawkins knew as much.  

Like sungula said - it's their club, their prize.  Similarly, dawkins mouth, his call.

So AHA is to stand for statements of fact being considered no better or more unimpeachable than mere rhetoric, and the right kind of rhetoric should rightly be considered to trump the wrong kind of facts?    

Prizes from an organization demonstrating such a view besmirches the recipient, especially if the recipient is a scientist.   Taking their prizes back does the scientist recipient a big favor.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?