Richard Dawkins on Transgenderism 

no it s not, but framing trans people in negative ways will inevitably manifest in to hate

@@chrisharvey7461 Disagreeing with someone is not negative framing. Saying that people who think they are otherkin, or who think they are God, are confused, does not inevitably lead to hatred. Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not saying transgender people are mentally ill. I'm saying that feelings can not be trusted implicitly. If as little as 1 in 10000 transitioners regret it, we need to tread carefully, and not be afraid to ask difficult questions for fear of hurting peoples' feelings.

@@chrisharvey7461 I'm not seeing any hatred from Richard Dawkins here. I think he's wrong on this issue, but we need to have the discussion.

It is to the woke identity politics followers. According to them any kind of disagreement of someone's "own truth" (someone's subjective belief) is the same thing as hate. According to the wokesters everone must agree on what they believe (or stay silent), otherwise the person who disagree is a "spreader of hate".

@@Templetonq yes perhaps not hate, clearly discomfort...which i think we all may go though to a degree with social norms changing, i think its can be perceived that powerful platforms that dont give any middle ground is polarizing

There is no comparison to be made here. Trans people are one of the most targeted groups of people. I'd like to hear Dawkins clarify "there are no exceptions" to the big/small gametes. Infertile people don't produce any gametes, does that mean they're sexless? There are also hermaphroditic animals like some snails that can reproduce without a mate. I reject that there's such a strict universal sex binary and especially that there's a strict gender identity binary. If the psychological phenomenon of gender dysphoria exists, it seems ridiculous and dangerous to not let them explore their identity. That is THE treatment, letting people be.

It's unfortunate that we live in a world full of lies and half-truths that distort meaningful conversation. I wish the trans activist some well needed good reading and enlightenment. I might even suggest The Selfish Gene as a good start.

​@@ajs1998 Gametes are one indicator. If a person is infertile then other tests can be done to indicate sex. Hermaphroditic animals are the rare exception, not the rule, and of those animals there is a clear binary which is switched between (or maintained). There is no evidence that sex is a spectrum (unlike race which is a spectrum). It's fine to explore one's social identity, but I think it goes too far when you start dehumanizing cis people or if you deny the fact that sex goes far far deeper than just how you appear to society. For instance, calling women 'birthing people' is dehumanization and saying a penis is a unisex organ destroys language.

Because you're asleep. He doesn't know anymore than you do

Same, I'm so grateful for this channel and his Spotify

i love him so much, he’s a true scientist. he thoroughly studies and explains evolution and genes, and isn’t afraid to call out woke BS

Dishonesty you mean. I mean ,a nyone who has taken highschool biology knows that the development of complex organisms depends on more than genes (you need nutrients, specific conditions in the cells for reactions to occur in specific ways, and more). So, how is this biologist so confused on that? Your brains and thus your identity don't even develop together with your genitals - they're not even in the same place, for most people anyway. Maybe that's different for Dick here. But he knows. He is just dishonest, deliberately. But if you equate that to honesty, maybe you should just join a religion. There's a reason why fascists and theists so easily align: their idea of what is true is the same: whatever you want, excused with lies and fallacies.

@Soliloquy-gy6zf seems awake to me. You mad because Dawkins doesn't pander to your mental illne- I mean religious beliefs?

Thank you. As if it’s our job to convert the world.

When Nietzsche said God is dead, it was a warning that values which are even WORSE then Christianity will replace Christianity. And that is what we seem to be seeing.

I don’t see atheists going so hard on Islam in Europe, probably for ideological reasons. Only Christianity is the subject of their scrutiny, i wish all religions got the same treatment. That’s a failure to me, because they know that attacking the Catholic Church for the billionth time has no real consequence.

​@Schizophonic92 because most atheist live in christian dominanted societies. And not only that but have you been on the internet, atheist rip Islam a new asshole on the daily. The only reason you don't notice is because you're not Muslim.

@@RichardCranium. wrong. He was saying “they could” be worse, pointing out the potential vacuum. He hated Xtianty. It was a passive aggressive slave religion, based on worshipping the weakest as the strongest to him. It was against everything he believed in. You need a better tutor if you are using Nietzsche as a defense for that pile of lies called Christianity.

Clueless... still

Logical? Quantum logic contradicts traditional Aristotelian logic. There could be many more “logics”.

@@KiruvMedia Next it will be put that "logic is on a spectrum" FFS.

@@KiruvMedia jfc speak english

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf you must be one of those lemmings who was indoctrinated as a child. Am i close to the mark?

Well I think what she means is "embed", not train, even though she might be able to.

Nice to listen to a genuine logical person

He is a racist

Honestly, the question in and of itself is a declaration of war, on merit of how its written alone. Its not a question its a straigth up acusation that RD is a hatefull person that likes to trample minoritys for the sake of sadistic pleasure. While at the same time painting themselves as the ultimate poor victim that just wants to be left alone.

All he has done is tricked more people into going to hell, i wouldn't say that's a good thing.

Hell is fictitious just like God and all of the other fairy tales from the bible.@@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

@@paulmcglen9413 It is the fool that hath said in his heart there is no God.

@@paulmcglen9413 Are you a fool?

Good point. My older brother was my biggest role model. Because I grew up with him, but didn't know much about my parents as a kid.

I find this very interesting, but as much as we are shaped by our peers, I can't help but think that there is still an awful lot that genetics contribute. I am not very much like either of my parents in personality. My father, especially, was quite conservative, very religious, and tended to see things very much in black and white. Things were either right or wrong in his mind, and nuance barely existed. My mother tended a bit more toward nuanced thinking, but was a paragon of moderation in all things, which actually made her quite unlike her own family, so I'm not sure where that came from. They were both born in Poland, and displaced during WWII (my father and brothers orphaned), and eventually made their way to England along with their siblings, where they met and I was born. When I was very young, we moved to the USA, so I never really knew any of my cousins. I was also an extremely shy and introverted child with very few friends, probably on the autism spectrum, though never actually diagnosed. But when I reconnected with cousins and uncles in England as an adult (in my early 20s), I found soul mates I never realized I was missing. Introverted atheists, foodies, musicians, with artistic and rebellious streaks, and a fascination with analyzing the way minds work...Not all of them were carbon copies, of course, but most of them more recognizable to me in personality than anyone else I had ever really met.

@@ivonav3751 Really interesting story, thanks for sharing. In this eternal debate of nature vs. nurture, I do agree genes are VERY powerful. However, when it comes to language (the limited area I was referring to), it's a different story. We typically pick up the accent, etc. of the place and time we spent our early teenage years in, not that of our parents or relatives from other places.

@@felixarquer7732 ​ @felixarquer7732 Yes, that makes sense. Actually, I was brought up speaking Polish. My parents spoke good, though accented English, but never used it at home. I had an English accent until we moved to the USA, but quickly lost it. As for my own children, with my husband being in the Navy, we moved around often, and they never really developed any distinctively identifiable speech patterns. I suppose the longest time we were ever in one place, which would have been roughly in their teenage years, was in Hawai'i, which does have a very distinct cadence in local speech, but they never seemed to pick that up. I suppose they had enough peers among other military kids that it overrode the tendency, though the schools they went to were actually comprised more of locals than otherwise. Interesting.

Sorry, brazilian here and didnt understand this idea of Peers. What is it?

RvW was bad law, similar to Dredd Scott. That’s why it’s a states thing now. One day we will understand the barbarity of killing children, I hope.

Because sometimes pregnancy ends in miscarriage we need to kill our babies before that happens?lol My sister and I have two kids each and have never had a miscarriage. Very faulty logic.

i doubt they did. the stats are tempered with. have you seen brown people poping kids like candies. no miscarriages. in a city it might happen. but natural old times have better chances

What are you on about?

@@queenbee7749 Which part are you having trouble with? I try to make my comments easily comprehendable.

I suspect...that if it's that refreshing, it's not common.

I wanted to say exactly that but you beat me to it.

it was lovely yes

Unfortunately trans is about gender, not sex. That’s why they are called Trans-women and not women. Not sure why Dawkins misses this basic point.

@@ihatespam2 gender is an entirely individual feeling that doesn't exist outside of the brain of the person feeling it. Talking about someones gender is as relevant to the outside world as talking about their feelings on palm trees. If the trans activism movement hadn't tried to push this massive shift towards transition being a seen as an otherworldly, unexplainable, indescribable and magical gender soul experience, we wouldn't need to constantly bring it back to Sex. They want to scream that sex and gender are different - great, yes we know, your sex is binary and your gender is made up and nobody needs to take part in your external performance of gender.

very very few people argue that biological physical sex isn't binary. so using this as an argument to dismiss how complicated the psychology and behaviour behind gender is, is quite ridiculous and also disingenuous, and doesn't contribute in any way except shed light on the fact that you are biased and frustrated by this for no good reason lol.

Are we really gonna pretend like the trans movement doesn't INTENTIONALLY blur the distinction between what one is and how one feels? Statements like "trans women ARE women" obviously do this. We already know what they feel like. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

@@ihatespam2if it’s not about sex then single sex spaces shouldn’t be an issue. Sadly it is. Because gender and sex are conflated all the time. Woman means female. No man transitions to female.

He appears smart but in reality he's not.

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf I suppose it depends upon what _you_ mean by "smart." He's certainly intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable. That's good enough for me.

@@pcbacklash_3261 I'm sorry friend . His knowledge is non-existent. Just a dreamer with opinions

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf "Non-existent?" That's a pretty grandiose claim, even if you disagree with someone. Perhaps you'd like to offer some evidence?

@@pcbacklash_3261 if "knowledge is power" why the army, if not to prove that human conflicts are solely caused by ignorance? Dawkins has opinions. Knowledge is something else. Human science is primitive. Relating to primates inevitably results in crude thinking. He doesn't know anything. At all

There are definetly people who overreact, doesn't surprise me in online spaces. I don't agree with either Rowling or Dawkins on some of their statements. I don't see them as massively problematic though. There are people who are calling transsexuls and or gay people abominations that should be exterminated, neither of them does that thankfully. I still don't see the problem with the use of language. I don't see woman as being a biological term. Using people who menstruate, whilch seems to be Rollings original issue doesn't ring wrong to me, it's actually way closer to the target audience, although I don't think it was necessary. Adressing people with a prostate, when you talk about prostate cancer would still be accurate. If you need the word women to distinguish females by age, that's fine by me. The discriptor trans seems to be pretty good at communicating that that person is of the opposite sex, trans women are male and trans men are female. Where is the problem with that? Discriptors are sometimes left out for convenience, but usually that doesn't matter in social settings. I don't like compelled speech either, I read the changes that were supposed to be made in bill c- 16 and I didn't see much that would infringe on speech. Adding "gender identity and expression" to the list of things you shouldn't discriminate for, doesn't mean that you will be jailed if you adress someone with the wrong pronoun. There has to be a hateful intention behind that to be remotely relevant. Feel free to point out, if I am missing something here. My only problem with their rhetoric is that it makes trans people seem dangerous and it plays into the hands of people who aim for violence.

agree. I've unsubscribed to Atheist Experience and The Line for that very reason. Hearing some of the hosts (not all of them) use the same faulty rhetoric and fallacies they attack when discussing religion but use to defend pronouns or gender/sex issues...I'm not interested in arguments presented by such dishonest debaters. It's not because I disagree with their ideology but with their lack of consistency when applying sound logic and reason to any argument.

@@maggienewton8518 I noticed the same

Same with genetically modified skeptic

I'm not as bothered with a person's wish to be called something as some, but I am bothered by the apparent lack of a good third-person pronoun that can effectively refer to an individual in a gender-neutral way. It has nothing to do with gender theory or sexuality, etc., it has to do with the inadequacy of the English language. "They" and "them" just doesn't land in my ears as anything but plural. One example is the recent death of a high school student the day after being assaulted in a bathroom. News reports used phrases like "they died the following day." Until I read or heard other reports I was not clear on how many people died.

Damn pronouns , lol

Interesting comment! In regard to your point about "young people", do you mean that most such people take their health for granted? If so, I would go further and say that even older people do this, unless they have experienced serious bouts of ill health. Also, I think that most people are irrational most of the time (myself included), regardless of whether we are atheist or religious. We have so many inherent cognitive biases that we are unaware of, and on top of that our emotions colour our perspectives all of the time. Evolution only requires that we are good at surviving. Thus, there is no evolutionary pressure to be rational like Dawkins, which is why most of us aren't. Briefly, I do have great respect for Dawkins as an honest and capable thinker, but I think he lacks understanding for people who are not as clever and especially those who don't strive to learn. I think he looks down on the wilfully ignorant. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Take his position on Transpeople for instance. There people are going through a hell of lot of stress. Can you imagine feeling like you are in the wrong body? Transpeople are NOT what they want to be biologically, but I think we need to be compassionate to such people because they are vulnerable. We need to be kind to each other regardless of how clever or not we are.

@@decimustv4257 "the fact that people have a psychological feeling that they're born into the wrong body - which i think is probably true. and i have great sympathy with such people". he says this - i don't mean to argue against you, but something i've wrestled with on several occasions when it comes to 'minorities' is how much weight to put on intellectual respect (in a social setting) as opposed to emotional pity/sympathy. in practice i can't emotionally relate to feeling like this since i don't, while intellectually i can perfectly understand it. i've always felt like 'looking past' the difference and treating people the same (through intellectual respect) is the way to go, and handing out sympathy cards just to make people feel better has never been my thing. i completely agree with your point at the end, being kind and showing respect always wins because as you said, we are usually the most ignorant on topics we are convinced we know alot about. sorry if this was a bit rant-y :D

@@decimustv4257 I don’t think he lacks understanding or looks down on those kind of people at all. He gets irritated and frustrated by their ignorance when constantly being challenged and confronted by them. YOU imagine being a Physics teacher (or in Dawkins case a Biologist) and having a student who has no formal education steadily and constantly arguing with you trying to tell you you’re wrong about Biology and or Physics. That’s what Dawkins deals with and I can completely understand his attitude towards those kinds of people.

@@decimustv4257 and on your second point regarding irrationality - i've always been curious (due to my personal experience) wether being an overly anxious person can help with the habit of rational thinking. at least for me i alot of times feel like it has, because i'm often uncomfortable being comfortable with my opinions. this can go in both ways obviously, but it has forced me to think and re-think scenarios and arguments (especially when i find them to fit with my presupposed narrative). this usually also makes it very obvious to me (usually after the fact) when i was being very emotionally convinced about something, to the point of it pushing away my rational thinking for some time. in retrospect i usually feel silly about my emotional conviction and spending so much energy on my inherent bias, when after a week or two i usually realize it was completely irrelevant, or at least not constructive (for myself or anyone else). the few times it is has been constructive is when it leads to a conversation that is enlightening - but it very rarely does. and sorry about getting a bit lengthy, but i am in complete agreement that for the most part we are completely emotion and bias driven - and as long as everything in your practical life is fine it's not in most people's interest to stop and consider/rethink things simply because it isn't relevant to the things that affect them. the positive perspective here would be to assume that people are generally good and a personal lack of interest/relevance in things is usually a question of exposure to it, and doesn't mean that they are judgmental or disrespectful. the other side of the coin of this would be this whole wokeism thing (which i find very loose and unspecific) where it's argued that ignorance on something like trans issues is indirectly (or even directly) the same as de-valuing or disrespecting these individuals - while in reality it's just not something that is relevant to most people most of the time.

I guarantee I can find one.

That's because men have had surgery and hormones to become women and women have taken hormones and surgery to become men since the Roaring Twenties. Languages change over time and place. Beowulf shows that English began as Anglo-Saxon, a Germanic language related to Swedish. An ideology is only "extreme" if its believers hijack airplanes, assassinate activists and politicians, become dictators and war criminals, or commit hate crimes. Transgender activists peacefully protest transphobic laws and have hormone therapy and surgery.

Ever tried ice cream

@@rodmartin-nl8ns Are you lonely?

@johnoneofmany Thanks for your concern If l was an atheists yes l. think l would be Something to make you think Scientist atheists believe religion is crap because nothing plus nothing is nothing BUT scientist will prove one day the start of man Scientist was asked a question any ideas Haven't got a clue LATER was asked what about another world Yes there could be can't imagine it's just us Your great Richard said this Not relizing his belief is no different than Religion TO all the big thinkers. CHEERS

@johnoneofmany Have you heard of double standards SCIENTIST say you can criticize climate change BUT you have to have some thing to replace it But they can criticize Religion and replace it with nothing ok

​@@rodmartin-nl8ns No scientist ever said what you just said they said... Where on earth do you get your information!? Scientists just say there is no _evidence_ for god. That is all... You need to stop regurgitating what ignorant theists say about scientists and get it from the horse's mouth.

He sure knows how to talk... IN THE WIND

sapiosexualism

Then bring her to me

What did he say

Yeah, I won’t do Dawkins until he wakes up and learns how to learn. I’m done. He might as well be dead.

You're easily pleased

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf should we expect miracles? Ascension to heavens?

@@d.l.c7456 yes friend. All people go to Heaven. In their own time. We need enlightenment. Not religion. God never belonged in a group. He is with every soul, regardless of our beliefs.

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf Okay this almost sounds like a universal "One Above All" type god. Am I accurate in saying this? because it would honestly be better than Allah or Yahweh

Getting smart is the regular direction. Getting unsmart would have been Alzheimer, Senility or Kreuzfeld-Jakob. Getting more religious with age is willful dumbdown.

You should be more sceptical of the pseudo-scientific BS whenever you hear "trust the science" dogwhistle.

​@@yarpenzigrin1893 Actually peer review and the scientific method is the best way to test what any scientist claims. Whereas supernatural religious belief just says believe without evidence or ' its God's mysterious way '.

@@iainrae6159 You're not familar with humanities' "peer review" process, are you.

@@iainrae6159 Believing something on bad evidence isn't any better than believing without evidence. The result is the same.

I love Gattaca, underrated.

He is if I face him

@@Soliloquy-gy6zfwe gotta alpha here boys🐺🐺🐺🐺‼️‼️‼️‼️

@@dammitiwantweed between "here" and " boys"... add "little"

If you refuse to watch further content because of a single in-video sponsor, then too bad, you'll be missing out.

This is exactly it. The biggest challenge will be convincing those with very little understanding of genetics and natural selection, and who automatically equate "eugenics" with murder or evil that this would be a beneficial thing for all when done right. As a person who was born health issues and has developed many more along the way due to genetic issues I think I can say it would save a hell of a lot of suffering.

Too long

What is controversial about eugenics is its links to racism and the nazis. The vast majority of eugenicists (outside of Asia) did (and still do) believe in European if not Nordic racial superiority.

"fundamentals of natural selection are still operating in accord with the well-being of the species" Tell us that you have never read a word by Richard Dawkins without telling us that you have never read a word by Richard Dawkins. The whole point of Richard Dawkins's first book, _The Selfish Gene,_ was to explain that natural selection happens at the level of the genes. That was what made him famous in the first place. Natural selection never favours "the well-being of the species". Group selection is bunk. Dr. Dawkins has engaged in many public arguments with more woolly-minded scientists about precisely this point - always coming out on top - and it is sad that his message has not got through to you.

​@@RichardCranium.Currently children are pushed to let themselves castrate/sterilize, when they don't perfectly match traditional gender norms. This is designed to prevent homosexuals, neurodiverse, ... from reproducing (removing their gene pool). It's pure homophobia. This shows humans are just not to be trusted with such questions. Not doctors nor anybody else.

His intelligence is mediocre

@@Soliloquy-gy6zfAre you just gonna go through and reply to everyone because you personally don't like Richard...?

@@Wojacksamillion I love all people. Richard is a fine man. Clueless, but a beautiful soul regardless

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf Okay you can have that opinion, I think my neighbours are clueless, but I don't go around town, telling everyone like a Jehovah witness. But anyway "god" can mean whatever a person wants it to, so saying "god is" does not really point towards anything

@@Wojacksamillion God isn't what you want Him to be. Just the opposite. You .. are whatever He wants you to be.

Agree. Seems like it was filmed on an iphone without an external mic.

but great questions and remarks

Yeah her sound recording is always very poor

Is it really that poor and unbearable to be worth whining about it in a comment lmaooo. You must be a pleasant bunch, glad you found each other 😂

Along with an improved mic, the room she’s in needs some acoustic treatment.

I could say the same thing about every question asked 🤪🤪🤪

Thumbing the nail

Martyr!

😂😂😂

Good question.

My condolences

The same thing happens with less intelligent women as well.

There are signs though…

@@jonjonson-dd7gq Not when religiosity is heritable and the religious are outbreeding the non-religious several times over both globally and locally. Darwinism heavily filters for religiosity, atheism leads to nihilism and flatlines fertility.

Yep. Very much the opposite. Massive growth of Christianity in China. Big in Iran too. And from strength to strength in Africa. New Atheism has given Christian thought a bit of a boost in the west, so I think we'll see a rise here too.

​@@jonjonson-dd7gqWould you say more?

@@MrNikkiNoo The religiously unaffiliated has grown from 16% to 28% since 2007. It’s now the largest cohort in America edging out Catholics and Protestants. That’s a big sign.

You immediately reminded of a quote from Frank Herbert's Dune... "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

One further opinion of my own I might add.... I believe true AI if possible is inevitable simply due to the fact that countries, or the powers that be worldwide do not all align in interests and much like the atomic bomb a race is already underway.

Hate speech laws and punishment for telling jokes will lead to government abusing power. We have to say no, now.

What do you think is happening now?

@@mindymildif you are so addled to think it is the Governments and not the misinformed population that is doing this you aren't paying attention. Bidens politics are in line with any liberals, the only reason he fares away from his politics is the loud and insane left, same with Trump, look at idiot Trumps inability to have a single issue where he doesn't play both sides to try to secure his win.

Well Dawkins argues that transgenderism is a condition that some people experience, and that the person can't change their born sex, but rather change their physical appearance to become another gender. From what I could tell at least.

Most people understand the distinction between gender and sex. Your assertion that “conservatives and others” don’t make a distinction is incorrect. We make the distinction, we simply recognize that sex is an objective fact while gender identity is a subjective feeling. Facts always take precedent over how someone identifies in their head.

@@cyclicozone2072 I have watched several trans critical debates and it is often asserted by conservatives that gender and sex have always been the same (interchangeable terms). It's an observation of those who identify as conservative, who have voiced an opinion on this debate. Perhaps I should have qualified it as some or many, given you challenged my observation and you identify as conservative. But you are the first conservative that make this distinction, I have come across.

@@PianoDentist I’ve seen many gender debates where conservatives acknowledge the difference between gender and sex. And many liberals and moderates also acknowledge the distinction and still oppose gender ideology. So your whole point seems moot.

​@@cyclicozone2072 Then you're experience wildly differs from my own, so no, it is not a moot point. More likely to be the collectivization of groups such as "conservatives", given from my experience you're an outlier, but identity as a conservative . To repeat myself; perhaps I should have said "many" or even "some" conservatives. Perhaps someone should perform a survey and ask political affiliation and then if they regard the 2 terms as interchangeable or not. I can't recall the individuals who specifically deny the distinction, but many do, particularly in the US. I just wrote an AI prompt that has citations, so you can recreate it. Can't post links so here is an excerpt. Prompt: "do conservatives make a distinction between the words or concepts of "gender" and "sex"? _Conservative views on this topic can be diverse, but many conservatives may adhere to a more traditional understanding of gender roles, often aligning them closely with biological sex. Some conservative perspectives might argue that gender is inherently linked to biological sex and that there are certain roles and behaviors that are natural or appropriate for men and women based on their biological differences_ _However, it’s important to note that not all conservatives think alike, and there can be a range of opinions within conservative circles. Some may recognize the complexity of gender and acknowledge that it can be distinct from biological sex, while others may hold more rigid views that do not make such a distinction_

@@PianoDentist Yes, you should have said some conservatives. That’s exactly why the point is moot. It’s incorrect that all conservatives fail to make the distinction, and there is nothing inherent to conservative principles that requires one fail to make the distinction. Anyone from any political stripe could fail to make the distinction.