Here’s How Well-Known Atheists Are Defending Richard Dawkins’ Anti-Trans Tweet April 22, 2021

Here’s How Well-Known Atheists Are Defending Richard Dawkins’ Anti-Trans Tweet

Over the past few days, a number of people have chimed in on Richard Dawkinscontroversial tweet about transgender people.

His clarification days later didn’t change anything.

I said last week that original comment was dehumanizing, and I stand by that characterization because it compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal (who brazenly lied about her racial identity), implied that trans people “choose” to adopt a different gender (which is not what they’re doing), and whined about how anyone questioning their identity is “vilified” (what does he want, a hug?)… all while treating this topic as some kind of academic debate instead of right-wing fodder that ultimately harms the lives of trans people.

The backlash went into overdrive after the American Humanist Association announced on Monday that it would retroactively withdraw the “Humanist of the Year” award they bestowed upon him in 1996, citing his multiple controversial tweets which “use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups.”

(I’ve heard people say the AHA could’ve just criticized his statement without revoking the award, a move some critics are claiming was silly or petty, but that would’ve lacked bite. If the AHA’s board truly believes what Dawkins said was harmful, rescinding a major award they gave him is honestly the only leverage they have over him. And while other past Humanists of the Year have their own problems, like Margaret Sanger (1957) and Alice Walker (1997), no one represents atheism to the broader public like Dawkins does.)

Anyway, over the past couple of days, a number of other prominent (or once-prominent) atheists and skeptics have weighed in on the matter, many of them on Dawkins’ side. I thought it’d be helpful to post their comments below in case anyone’s wondering what some of the people who influenced them are now defending. I’ll post them with as little commentary as possible since I think my own position is clear on this.

Get ready for a whole bunch of people who use “woke” as a pejorative while praising themselves for being The True Rational Classically Liberal Critical Thinkers™.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (author of Infidel and Heretic):

Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic magazine):

Peter Boghossian (author of A Manual for Creating Atheists):

Jerry Coyne (author of Why Evolution is True):

… It is true that people who raise arguments against the acceptance of say, transsexual women as completely identical to biological women are unfairly maligned (viz., J. K. Rowling), and the “unfortunate” word “choice”, which is technically accurate, should be interpreted charitably, not as an attempt to denigrate transsexual people.

These days, a more charitable attitude is needed by many of us, but especially by the censorious Left, which seems gleefully eager to pounce on awkward tweets or even purely innocuous statements and deeds (i.e., wearing Hawaiian shirts!), and then damning the transgressors for good. This kind of reaction will not produce social progress. And it’s sad to see that Hemant, at least in this case, has joined the ranks of the Unempathic Offended.

Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith):

David Silverman (former president of American Atheists):

Michael Sherlock (former president of Atheist Alliance International):

Daniel Dennett (author of Breaking the Spell):

Todd Stiefel (a prominent donor to a number of atheist organizations):

For your budgeting purposes, I wanted you to know that none of your organizations will be receiving money from me or my foundation going forward. AHA, Freethought Equality Fund and Center for Freethought Equality have all been eliminated from my funding and that of my foundation.

You have embarrassed the entire secular movement with your extremely public withdrawal of the 1996 Humanist of the Year Award. You have failed to live up to the values of free inquiry by figuratively burning a heretic for their dissent from dogma…

Finally, your entire argument against Dawkins is based on the concept that transethnic people are frauds. Who the hell are you to judge transethnic people in this way? I have a transethnic person in my family. I don’t understand it, but I’m not going to attack them for it. I’m utterly amazed by your hypocrisy of supporting transgender people while hating on transethnic people. Where is your humanist compassion for these people? Ironically, 25 years from now I can easily imagine transethnic people as accepted and loved by humanists while the AHA board erases all of you for your attacks on them.

Cancel culture works two ways. I’m canceling my support of you.

Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein (former AHA Humanists of the Year):

Dawkins did not call for discrimination against or marginalization of any individual or group. And he explicitly denied any intention to disparage anyone or to lend support to transphobic or racist political movements. Now, it would still be completely appropriate for those of you who objected to the substance of his tweets to criticize them in The Humanist or other forums, explaining the nature of their objections. But to seek to punish, dishonor, or humiliate a writer rather than engage with his words is a betrayal of humanism.

The Humanist Manifesto III declares that “the lifestance of humanism [is] guided by reason.” Since no one is infallible, reason requires that a diverse range of ideas be expressed and debated openly, including ones that some people find unfamiliar or uncomfortable. To demonize a writer rather than address the writer’s arguments is a confession that one has no rational response to them.

This illiberal response is all the more damaging to an organization that claims to repudiate the repressive practices of religion. It has not been lost on commentators that an association of “freethinkers” has deemed certain thoughts unthinkable, nor that it is enforcing dogmas and catechisms by excommunicating a heretic. The AHA is turning itself into a laughingstock.

Give it time. The professional comedians will weigh in soon enough, I’m sure.

I should point out that there are several well-known atheists who have been critical of Dawkins, too. Not everyone is jumping to his defense like the people above. But unfortunately, when reporters want to talk to a prominent atheist, they’re far more likely to ask the people mentioned above. Those reporters can do so much better.

***Update***: You can see what more thoughtful atheists are saying about Dawkins on this thread.

(This post may, unfortunately, be updated.)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!