(Natural News) Biologist author Richard Dawkins has been stripped of an honour awarded to him by The American Humanist Association in 1996, following tweets that he says merely called for a discussion on transgender issues.
(Article by Steve Watson republished from Summit.news)
The AHA issued a statement that claims “Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values.”
“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,” the organisation added.
Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins.
Tap the preview below to read the board's statement explaining why. https://t.co/VfxMgbISh5
— American Humanist Association (@americnhumanist) April 19, 2021
Leaving aside the fact that the honour was awarded TWENTY FIVE years ago, the AHA has not actually provided any specific instances where Dawkins made statements that could be viewed as intentionally demeaning to trans people.
He has previously tweeted regarding transgenderism from a biological science standpoint, which he argues is necessarily in direct opposition to the modern phenomenon of ‘wokeism’:
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.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) October 26, 2015
Yes, I know it’s behind a paywall but it’s worth it. Superb article by Trevor Phillips on the oppressive nonsense that can flow from aggressive “wokeism”, e.g. demanding that employees should sign a statement that “trans women are women”.https://t.co/EYp3EPElBg
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) November 8, 2020
Most recently, Dawkins compared people identifying as a different gender to their biological gender to Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who identifies as black, and complained that if you ‘deny’ their identity you will be vilified:
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. 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.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) April 10, 2021
The way Dawkins whacked ‘discuss’ on the end of the tweet in an effort to suggest it is not his opinion, but rather just a topic of debate, riled those who disagree:
I've had low expectations for you, for quite some time. As I believe I've made clear. Even so this is disappointing. You've worked hard to be the spokesperson for causes I hold dear; if you can't perceive an accompanying obligation to be more decent than this—step back. Way back.
— Greg M. Epstein (@gregmepstein) April 11, 2021
Why not read absolutely anything that's been written about this and understand it. Absolutely pathetic that you're going down the Gender Critical conspiracy theory hole after reading one stupid book. This is like a teenager level argument about trans people
— Katy Montgomerie 🦗 (@KatyMontgomerie) April 11, 2021
Cool. Can we stop pretending that Richard is "just asking questions" now?
Or does he need to just start tweeting slurs before we acknowledge that he was always an overly hyped up science communicator writing readable books about other people's work? https://t.co/EHkxGHTUcK
— Eli Bosnick (@elibosnick) April 11, 2021
For later, when people ask why I'm more than completely done with Dawkins' repeated obtuse transphobic crap.
It's long past time he could have been educated out of this crap. https://t.co/BkcrIdD1LI
— Matt Dillahunty (@Matt_Dillahunty) April 10, 2021
So it's not even fucking subtle anymore. Cool. Cool cool cool. https://t.co/Cav56kflTP
— Vi La Bianca (@AuthorConfusion) April 11, 2021
Dawkins issued a follow up tweet, claiming that it was not his intent to “ally in any way with Republican bigots” in America:
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 .
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) April 12, 2021
It appears that these latest tweets were the straw that broke the camel’s back for the American Humanist Association, prompting it to sever all ties with Dawkins.
Remarkable really, given that Dawkins has sent out far more controversial tweets in the past, such as that time he suggested eugenics, the practice of selective breeding supported by the Nazis, would work perfectly well if applied to humans, because it works on animals.
It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020
Or the time that he tweeted about Winchester Cathedral’s bells being “nicer” than the “aggressive” Muslim call to prayer:
Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding “Allahu Akhbar.” Or is that just my cultural upbringing? pic.twitter.com/TpCkq9EGpw
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) July 16, 2018
Some supported Dawkins’ cancellation, while others labelled it another successful attack on science by the woke mob:
The American Humanist Association is using the guise of secularism to enact religious zealotry; offering Dawkins up as a sacrifice to appease their woke gods.
— Many Bad Opinions (@OneBadOpinion) April 20, 2021
They have quite explicitly placed their political orthodoxy above science, above rational discussion, above reason. The feelings of approved minority groups trump that.
Fair enough, AHA, take that position. It's your party. But it's not humanist in any way. It's pseudoreligious
— Mar Vickers (@mar_vickers) April 20, 2021
I’m a humanist, and not a fan of, Dawkins, but if I were a member of @americnhumanist association, this action would lead me to terminate my membership and withdraw financial support. Enough of this nonsense.
— M Stone (@M_Stone969) April 20, 2021
— O.T. Ford (@ot_ford) April 20, 2021
This is a very bad call. Many well-intentioned people believe transracialism should be more accepted. That he broached the issue doesn't mean he thinks trans people are fraudulent.
— util forager (@util_forager) April 20, 2021