Agnostic.com

17 16

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

17 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

I agree with @Diaco and @Heavykevy1985 how exactly does Dawkins' declaration oppose trans rights directly? Did you even read the whole thing before posting this? There have now been multiple documented instances of trans women harassing and brutalizing women from sports like ladies' MMA in which trans competitors unmercifully brutalized their biological female opponents, out west in either Oregon or California (can't remember state now) leftwing policies have allowed the mixing of individuals who identify as trans women with biological women in jails and the end result was one of the women getting raped by a trans and getting impregnated, which is beyond horrible assuming we all here actually do believe in women's rights. Please note my restraint on talking about the multiple eyewitness accounts of those who claimed to be trans women who walked around naked in the women's locker rooms with a full hard on. Now, how in the hell could someone claim to be female while simultaneously obviously having a penis? That's not physically possible, and anyone with even a basic education could not argue that much.

Also, Mehta hasn't exactly been known to be an unbiased individual, and in the past has ruthlessly slandered fellow atheists simply over difference of opinions- [michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com]

[shadowtolight.wordpress.com]

The modern atheist movement is truly doomed if we allow our opinions to be swayed by creeps like Mehta. When is this insanity going to stop, and Mehta claims to be a supporter of women's rights? Sorry, but no one could claim such if they think it's okay for trans women to mix with biological women in jails and let the trans individuals brutally rape the female inmates, or allow anyone who would merely identify as female despite being born male and let them beat the shit out of biological female MMA athletes, nothing moral about any of that. By the way, Dawkins is taking the truly liberal path there by trying to protect the rights of biological women, I can't say the same for those who oppose him and or think he's being biased in some way. That sort of mentality is authoritarian or something, but certainly nothing liberal or open-minded on the matter. As with what the one guy below mentioned, I too am going to sign that because I care for women's rights and think things like female sporting events should be protected, for when we start to undermine things strictly meant for women then we ultimately undermine women themselves. I leave you with a good part from that declaration, and it raises a valid point we all need to take into consideration assuming we all actually care about women's rights as much as we claim to.-
Article 7 of the CEDAW affirms the importance of measures to eliminate discrimination against women in political and public life, and Article 4 affirms the importance of temporary special measures to accelerate de facto equality between men and women. When men claiming female ‘gender identities’ are admitted to women’s participation quotas and other special measures designed to increase women’s participation in political and public life, the purpose of such special measures in achieving equality for women is undermined.

4

I don't have time to read the whole declaration, but it's clearly about protecting the rights of actual women by maintaining some crucial distinctions between them and men identifying as women. Is that really so bigoted?

Here's an example: "Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to undermine the right of women and girls to assemble and associate as women and girls based upon their sex, and without including men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’."

If actual women are not convinced that a man identifying as a woman is as good as female, are they really not in a position to judge that? There's a women's naked swimming session at my local pool, so should I be allowed to join it just by claiming to be a woman?

"Concerned that the inclusion of men and boys who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ into competitions and prizes set aside for women and girls, including competitive sports and scholarships, constitutes discrimination against women and girls."

Are all sports for women supposed to let men compete and win all the prizes just by claiming to be female?

"Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to justify the intrusion of men and boys into single-sex spaces aimed at protecting the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls, and at supporting women and girls who have been subject to violence."

This is a real concern. The idea that you can become a woman just by wanting to and that there is no difference between you and an actual woman is plain wrong. Most of them may genuinely believe themselves to be women, but they should not be providing a means for frauds to use that as cover.

"Concerned that the conflation of sex and ‘gender identity’ is leading to the recording of inaccurate and misleading data about violence against women and girls, thereby hindering the development of effective measures aimed at eliminating such violence."

That too could happen with killers who claim to change gender when in prison having all their crimes relabelled as being carried out by a woman. This is not a simple issue with bastards on one side and lovely people on the other, and you can see that from all the vicious hate directed at J K Rowling who has also expressed legitimate concerns. A mob of arrogant simpletons are trying to turn a complex issue into one of black and white (nothing to do with race) and that is not the right way to handle this.

A man who simply states that he identifies as a woman is NOT the same as a transgendered woman. The process of transitioning from one gender to the other is long and requires a multitude of steps from counseling, getting a doctor's approval, starting hormone replacement therapy and/or hormone blocking drugs, and then multiple surgeries, as well as legally changing their gender and name.

So, trans-women people shouldn't be allowed to mingle with biologically born women? So, who would they be allowed to mingle with? Certainly not biologically born men nor trans-men. What exactly are people afraid that a trans-woman might do?

What about inaccurate and misleading data about violence toward women? If you check the news you might notice that the murder of trans women is all too common. Trans women probably have just as much to worry about in regards to violence as biologically born women.

Also, the punishment for crimes does not vary based on gender. So if Ted Bundy has transitioned to Tina Bundy in prison, they still would have been executed for their multiple murders.

All of these "concerns" you're bringing up are basically baseless made-up fears. The things you describe simply aren't happening. No where are there "women only" places being infiltrated by men claiming to be women.

And if a man (not a trans-woman) does claim to be a woman in order to victimize a woman, then that is a man committing a crime, not a woman and not a trans-woman. There's a huge difference between a man in drag and a trans-woman.

@Charles1971 It is stops at the ones who've actually had the chop to prove their dedication to becoming women, there isn't a problem with those individuals (other than in sport where they can retain an unfair advantage), but a lot of people are trying to drive the laws beyond that such that all you need do is self-identify as a woman to count as a woman in full, while anyone who questions that is accused of being a bigot. That is the big issue here.

@David_Cooper So, even if it were legal for a biologically born man to self-identify as a woman without any prerequisites... what do you think would happen? You think that a man is so desperate to be in a group of women that he'd legally change his gender to do so? Let's say that he did. Then what? He'll join a women-only gym? Go to a women-only college? Go to a YWCA? All this just to ogle women?

Meanwhile, this guy will likely face a great deal of ridicule from his employer and coworkers, friends, family, and neighbors in a ridiculous attempt to comingle with women.

Seems like a lot of effort that could be saved simply by going to a strip club or going to a beach.

I'm not quite seeing the reason to be in a panic over this issue.

@Charles1971 I don't see any reason to panic over it either - I just see an awful lot of hate being generated by it against people who urge caution in how fast and far it goes.

2

Obviously religionists have no monopoly on being gullible. SJW's, ugh, spare me... Critical thinking is to be used, people. (Let anyone show where Dawkins said or did anything Transphobic. )

Apparently, ppl don't even bother to read or research what they hate about! 😀

@Diaco It's scary to think that adolescents would be allowed to mutilate their bodies because they had been socially influenced to do so. Most of these people have severe psychological problems (depression, etc.). Their decision-making capacity is not just naive and underdeveloped, it's compromised. The expression of gender is entirely artificial, a social role of dress and practice that has no real basis. Trans do everyone a favor by pointing this out, albeit indirectly.

@racocn8 , Scary indeed! Consequence​e of transsexual surgery and Hormone therapy ( transgender Hormone therapy ) before puberty age! When an adolescent is underdeveloped and unstable emotionally nor with hormones. Environmental factors are well-known players besides the person's brain itself, which can have a huge emotional misleading and effects on sex steroids, sexual functions. simply like foods and diets. on the other hand, we have social norms and trends, and as you mentioned Psychological disorders like depression.
it's a disaster to think transsexual surgery and Hormone therapy before 18 is a "RIGHT"! consider XXY "Klinefelter syndrome" or anything like it wrongly as part of EVOLUTION!!! and then say it's being open-minded!
Personally, I will go with Richard without any bias, Till it's just a personal choice thing. btw I'm not Transphobic 🙂

3

Every person has exactly the same Rights, no more, no less.

2

Sorry, Dawkins. We all have civil rights.

5

Just fucking wrong

6

Well that puts him at the top of my list of those whom IF I found by the road-side freezing to death I would REFUSE to give the warmth from a steaming fresh turd to keep them warm.

8

You can educate the ignorant, but you can't do anything for the stupid.

9

Dawkins needs to shut his bigotied mouth. He is a transphobic acehole.

3

Trans people should be respected, but not at the expense of other discriminated groups. It's disappointing that people don't or won't recognize this propaganda for what it is.

True, The sad part is when someone talk about scientific facts and clear definitions, people accuse that person of being "uncomfortable" against trans, ignorance...

9

I know I already commented once, but I have further thoughts.
One of which is that the most basic thing that has always driven evolution is "adapt or die".

The evolutionary process has always taken a fairly significant amount of time in most species.
Transgenderism is not some new phenomena.
It is reasonable to surmise the process has been happening in some humans for a very long time.

It doesn't matter that some folks don't like the idea of it. Change is inevitable.
Including changes in human physiology.

Again, adapt or die.
Just because it makes some folks uncomfortable, doesn't mean it isn't happening, or that it isn't perfectly normal.
No one's ignorance, or personal feelings, are capable of stopping it.
Emotional opposition is irrelevant.

12

Just because someone is an Atheist, doesn’t mean they are open minded.

He's a biologist scientist, sadly with being open-minded we can't manipulate or bend scientific facts/terms. I think we are Atheists, due to the lack of scientific evidence in religions! right? being open-minded come from philosophy, not science. the Declaration, clearly talks about Women's rights, to cover all rights from childhood to maternity and ... all, you have to clear what you mean by a woman. transgender at birth is Not transgender.

edited ( 'my dear' removed from the beginning )

@Diaco I am not your “my dear” or anyone else’s. I don’t agree with your opinion, let’s leave it at that. No response needed.

@Redheadedgammy , I used "my dear" JUST because of my Respect and your Kind personality as I see so far 🙂

Diaco Well...I'm usually a polite person, but I see that as being patronizing and condescending.

@Organist1, Well Idk how it sounds, but you can check my comments, I never used such a word for anyone, but she always was welcoming and kind, especially when I was new here she was one of the first ppl who made this place warm for me, like you All, that was hard for me to reply with an opposite opinion and don't start with a kind word. I think after a while we know ppl around a bit, do I look that sick ?! it's so strange we can't have a simple conversation about clear things without bias!

@Diaco IDK, nor do I have any stake in this issue. Why don't you ask her how she feels? Oh, wait... she already told you.

@Diaco I appreciate you explaining why you wrote “my dear”. I had many years of men calling me “dear” or sweetheart or sweety over my working career and it was said to try and diminish me, and let me know my presence in the industry I worked in (finance) wasn’t where I should be. I took offense to those words and should have explained that to you instead of being so curt in my response. Thank you again for your explanation. 😉

@Diaco I know two transgender people personally. One has gone through his transgender process to transition from female to male, the other is the child of a friend of mine who was born as male but knows they are female. Both of these individuals know they were born into the wrong bodies/sex organs. Dawkins is using this declaration to further hurt and diminish transgender people, something he seems to love to do. He is simply being a bigot. Science does tell us that biology is either male or female, but it doesn’t factor in what is happening in the evolution process of we humans. I have done no research on whether a transgender man or woman can procreate so my opinion may be totally wrong, but I believe evolution is making these changes to humans because we are over populating our planet. This is one way that biology steps in to assist us in not destroying ourselves. Again, only my opinion. Thank you for your edit.

8

I'm frequently amazed at atheists who are just as bigoted as believers. Gender can be male, female, or infinite variations in between and it has nothing to do with genetics or genitals. I feel sorry for all of you to rigid to see this.

3

Did you even read that declaration ?! if so , then Pls Help me to Understand, Where is the "Opposing Trans Rights" part in this declaration ?!

[womensdeclaration.com]

Diaco Level 7 Dec 2, 2021

Thanks for posting the link. Interesting document. I can see the purely legal, therefore significant, aspect of the word "sex" excluding trans folks (all of them) so would remove that word from the document. Moreover, zooming out (as I do) a bit, if we simply declared all human beings, regardless of any other distinction, as equal in Rights and Health (aka Human Rights) then all of this goes away.

@rainmanjr , but the title is: "Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights" ! right? as an example could you pls define a logical relation between "maternity" and a transwoman?

@Diaco A trans person who's genes were used to create a test tube baby would be a parent and, therefore, have reproduced.

7

Mr Dawkins should STFU.....what business is it of his by any standard?

4

Very misleading title. So saying that trans-women were biological men is “bigoted?” We are definitely living in clown world here

Also, saying that women and men are two separate categories with marked differences is transphobic too? Hemant needs to pull his head out of his ass. I signed it too.

It is much more like MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

@Heavykevy1985 They aren't listening man, they are in their own world, look how many people voted on this post which is an indicator to how many actually agreed with that tripe.

2

Well damn.
You'd think someone that intelligent would be smarter.
Personally, I'm really surprised he doesn't recognize evolution when it's right in front of him.

what you mean by evolution?! trans genders ?!

@Diaco Evolution doesn't stop. Why wouldn't that include transgenderism?
Makes perfect sense.

@KKGator, Well, then for sure you misunderstood about Evolution!

@Diaco I'm not going to argue with you.
My understanding of evolution increases all the time.

@KKGator , then, Good, I'm sure you will find out that evolution is a biological process and has nothing to do with identities.

@Diaco There you go again, completely missing the point.

@Diaco Biology creates identities so I can't agree with you, here. I do admire the thought process but think you're mistaking identity politicization with the identity's foundation. The foundation seems part of the pouring mixture so can't be separated. As I often say, and did so in reply on this thread, define a human being (scientifically) and then declare that ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL and the prob is solved. In fact, a lot of prob's get solved in one big Easter basket.

@rainmanjr , Nope, my friend, Biology defines "SEX" which means an individual's reproductive function. But "gender" is a social identity!

@Diaco Biology defines the operation of an individual body and that's all. It is not static and it is not uniform. My biology is different from your biology in some operational ways. SEX is whatever we define an act as. Gender is fluid.

@rainmanjr, so did I say anything else ?!

@KKGator I believe the point is on top of his head.

@Diaco My point still holds. Define a human being (scientifically) and then declare that ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL and the prob is solved.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:637003
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.