various commenters #transphobia

various commenters #transphobia ovarit.com

( furyosa )
Richard Dawkins Q&A | Can a woman become a man and a man become a woman?
Richard Dawkins answers various questions in this video.

At 42:07 he answers the question "Can a woman become a man and a man become a woman?"

His answer: "No, of course not".

( Agrimonium )
I want to go back to talking about transgenderism like this tbh. No complex explanations, just "of course that's not a real thing" and then move on.

( TheKnitta )
The very basis of it all really is that simple, isn’t it? All the rest is just noise to obfuscate.

( OwnLyingEyes )
The entire bulk of the rest is men who refuse to take no for an answer trying to equivocate that 'no' into a 'yes' (and too many women supporting that attempt, for that matter).

( questioningtw )
IKR. I can't believe we are seriously debating in 2023 on what a man and a woman is.

( Moonflower )
This is great. It’s been incredibly disappointing how so many of the “new atheism” folks I used to look up to in the early/mid 2000’s (like PZ Myers and Hemant Mehta) are now throwing their support behind gender ideology without subjecting it to the same level of criticism or question they used to aim at religious belief. Dawkins was one of the clearest voices among them, and it’s refreshing to see how he just isn’t having any of it.

( sevenfatesforetold )
Gender ideology is the new religion and anyone who carries water for it are its priests

13 comments

Richard Dawkins is a sexist piece of shit who happily defended a guy who cornered a woman in a hotel elevator at like 2 in the morning to hit on her. You know, what you accuse trans women of doing! So of course you like him. Your colors are showing again!!

Dawkins is a traitor to reason and the biggest broken pedestal of my young adult days.

This is great. It’s been incredibly disappointing how so many of the “new atheism” folks I used to look up to in the early/mid 2000’s (like PZ Myers and Hemant Mehta) are now throwing their support behind gender ideology without subjecting it to the same level of criticism or question they used to aim at religious belief. Dawkins was one of the clearest voices among them, and it’s refreshing to see how he just isn’t having any of it.

Have you considered the possibility that it is you and Dawkins, not everyone else, who have fallen off the path of rationality when new discoveries in science challenged your preconceptions?

"Can a woman become a man and a man become a woman?"

If the question is "Can a cis woman become a cis man and a cis man become a cis woman?" then Dawkins is right.

But the likes of these various commenters thinks gender identity is 100% about at-birth genitals. They don’t WANT people who are a She born in the body of a He or vice versa to exist, because the existence of such people would challenge their fixed beliefs.

Dawkins, as brilliant as he can be in certain aspects, always rubbed me the wrong way. I was already starting to become an agnostic when I read The God Delusion, and while I agreed with some of his points, I felt like he was often making very surface level criticisms of anyone not a “christian cultured” atheist like himself. Then when I learned of the gene-centered interpretation of evolution, I found it interesting and it definitely can be applied in quite a few ways, but he is so fervent in his belief that it explains all of evolution and that the gene is the only important individual unit of life that it also feels strangely fundamentalist sometimes (and I find it embarrassing that both scientists favoring the gene-centered interpretation and other alternate models have put their grievances with each other in some of their papers in a highly passive-aggressive manner).
And now he has this sudden absolute belief in biology somehow invalidating trans-identities. He was always a bit of a biological determinist, but this goes against multiple studies which clearly show that trans-identities do have a biological background.
Feels like he always had a bit of a fundamentalist streak or at least a strong bias when it comes to anything that doesn’t fit into his own worldview (which he himself stated was heavily influenced by a christian background, and he has compared Christianity favorably with Islam before for example because of that).

For ovarites and other transphobes this is of course a blessing, since they have one of the most famous evolutionary biologists of our time on their side now, meaning (in their minds) they were in the right all along. Wonder what Steven J. Gould would have said to all of this.

@Malingspann #180665

Unfortunately, judging from other posts by Dawkins, he didn’t mean cis w to cis m and vice versa. He really seems to think that transidentities don’t actually exist and that a transwoman for example will never be a “real” woman.

Can certain species of animals that are male become female and female become male? As a line in “Jurassic Park” goes: ‘Nature finds a way…’

…as for you, Dick: you’ve lost yours.

Make of that last line what you will, OP.

“The very basis of it all really is that simple, isn’t it?”
No, it isn’t. Supporters of Transgenders don’t see it as a man becoming a woman, it’s a woman getting the chance to live as a woman.
You aren’t even on the same page as ‘the basics.’

Guess what? Biology isn't simple. Your sex is controlled by various chromosomes and there's plenty of times where it turns up surprises. What made a man/woman a man/woman has varied throughout history and even today is pretty contentious.

And that’s what scares them the most, that there is contention on what they’ve always thought of as settled. Like finding out Archie Bunker wasn’t the hero. Or Dumbledore was gay. Or Pluto isn’t a planet. The Founders weren’t Christains. Jesus wasn’t white.
They have to either learn and grow or lash out at new facts.

<@KeithInc.> #180683
lash out at new facts

Not unlikely in the hope that the whole thing shall become like a crime story where the prime suspect is first declared to have been found to be innocent, but is later revealed to be guilty after all: the new facts are found to be incorrect and the old facts were true all along.

@Malingspann #180687

the new facts are found to be incorrect and the old facts were true all along.

Conservatism in a nutshell.

At 42:07 he answers the question "Can a woman become a man and a man become a woman?"
His answer: "No, of course not".

You know what? I agree 100% and I'm a transgender woman. I was never a man to begin with.