Not long ago, Richard Dawkins posted the above tweet and the leftist world shit it’s collective pants. What the hell else is new? Yet this time, I think people are starting to recognize the standard progressive dog whistle isn’t actually working. Lots of very influential people on the atheist and skeptical side are starting to ask questions and recognizing that this isn’t actually making any sense. So here’s my take on it and why none of this is actually a surprise.

Hope you enjoy.

Now I can’t know what Dawkins’ intent was, nor will I pretend to, but just looking at the words, the way I interpret it, it isn’t about transsexuals, it’s about woke culture. Because it is demonstrably true that Rachel Dolezal was simply lying about her race. She pretended that one of her parents was black and that was simply false. It doesn’t matter how she “feels”, the fact is that she wasn’t black. It takes more than feelings to change your genetic makeup. Yet there are plenty of people who actually believe in trans-racialism, the belief that you can simply declare yourself to be a certain race because they just “feel” like it. The way I take it is that if anyone who declares themselves a man is a man and anyone who declares themselves a woman is a woman, and those are very clear “woke” talking points, then anyone who declares themselves black, they have to be black, right? There is a serious dose of hypocrisy on the progressive side.

But of course, they can’t deal with that, can they? So they twisted his words into attacking trans people, which he clearly never did, because they’re just running around with the goal posts. One of the worst examples I’ve seen of this is Hemant Mehta, the so-called Friendly Atheist… well, friendly only if you’re on his side, otherwise he’s a complete douchebag. Because he said, in an article on his site, he’s claiming that Dawkins’ tweet was “dehumanizing” of trans people when it’s nothing at all of the sort. The only people that are being attacked, again, in my opinion, are the woke crowd who absolutely deserve it!

That’s why, in a petty, childish move, the American Humanist Association revoked a 1996 Humanist of the Year award from Dawkins, because what else can they do? They’re a completely irrelevant, politically-motivated joke anymore, just looking to stir up controversy because any attention is good attention as far as these idiots are concerned. First off, who the hell cares? It was a meaningless award when he got it, it’s even more so today. You can’t just retroactively change reality because you’re unhappy. That’s stupid. Secondly, it’s getting a lot of people who have traditionally supported the AHA really pissed off. I’m willing to bet that you’re going to see a massive membership falloff over this.

There have been lots of people calling the AHA out over this nonsense too. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who said that it was absolutely scandalous on Twitter. People like Michael Shermer who is pointing out just how absurd wrong-speak ideas are coming from a freethought organization. People like Peter Boghossian, saying how sad it is that yet another supposedly skeptical organization has fallen to childish woke nonsense.

The best, by far, came from Sam Harris, who said:

David Silverman was right behind. He said “Please pretend we are still relevant and that Dawkins still gives a fuck about our impotent mess of an org. Don’t pay attention to the inactivity. Watch the virtue signaling. White man bad, give us money so we can continue to accomplish zero things for atheism. We are heros.” The list goes on and on and on.

All of these people seem to recognize what the tweet and the subsequent fallout meant. Why can’t the regressive left? Oh right, because they’re stupid and emotional, that’s why. Because when someone points out, quite correctly, just how irrational they are, instead of just recognizing that they were in the wrong, they twist it around and go on the attack, just like the immature little children they are.

Now I don’t think he made a lot of good points, but Steven Woodford made a video on this, which I will link to below. He’s gun-shy because he’s seen the wild feral nature of the woke left first hand, which always makes me wonder why he continues to pander to them. The first thing you do after you see the children start throwing stones is walk away, like a lot of the members of the Atheist Community of Austin did following their attack of Woodford. It’s really hard to maintain a credible hold on the title “Rationality Rules” when you continue to associate with abjectly irrational people. Yet here’s his video for your perusal.

But let’s get back to Mehta because he really is an idiot. He’s virtue signaling over and over on his blog how terrible Dawkins is because Richard doesn’t agree with his own woke viewpoint and that’s just dumb. The whole point of being rational, of valuing critical thought and intellectual endeavors, is that you go where the evidence leads, not where your feelings want you to go. None of these woke assholes are capable of that.

In this other post, he says the following: “Trans people, on the other hand, aren‘t changing genders just for the hell of it. They sure aren‘t doing it because it gives them some kind of advantage in society. More to the point: They don‘t choose to identify as the other gender as if it‘s some kind of light switch, they are the other gender. If they undergo surgery or take hormones or request a change on their driver‘s license, it‘s to ‘correct a mistake’, not because they wanted to be another gender on a whim.” Except that’s not necessarily the case. Now yes, there are plenty of people out there diagnosed with gender dysphoria, people who have a legitimate gender misidentification in the womb. Those people deserve help and they deserve our respect and our sympathy. It wasn’t their fault.

Yet we also see people who, almost entirely on the far political left, who have decided, with no medical diagnosis whatsoever, that they are the other gender (or any number of made up genders) and we’re finding that a lot of them actually regret transitioning. You have to remember that the majority of these people are young and easily impressionable and manipulated by their political ideology. When your entire thought pattern is trying to be different and unique and edgy, then it’s no surprise that a lot of them think “well, maybe I am…” And that goes for gay, that goes for trans, etc. I’m not saying that being progressive makes you gay but it sure seems, based on the statistics, like there’s a strong correlation. This is especially true when you see these regressive idiots in public schools forcing their agenda onto young children. They are very much using the tried-and-true religious childhood indoctrination methodology. Get ’em when they’re young, when they can’t ask any questions and you have power over them. They’re also very much pushing for “shut up and just do it” methodologies for gender reassignment. Don’t ask questions. Don’t insist on tests. Don’t question their commitment. Just get into the surgery suite! And that’s just stupid. It’s like someone deciding that they “feel” diabetic, so give them insulin.

But let’s continue:  “So back to Dawkins. He‘s comparing a liar, whose lie he passes off as genuine, to trans people, whose truths he dismisses. He‘s comparing race to gender, as if they‘re the same thing, in a way that allows bigots (including right-wing Christians) to use his words as a weapon against trans people. He also defines trans women as ‘men [who] choose to identify as women‘ (and vice versa) when that‘s not the case at all.” Is it though? Because keep in mind, I think anyone with a true, demonstrable medical condition deserves the help they need, but that doesn’t mean we ought to hand out operations for those who are just trying to get in good with a particular political ideology. We know that happens. People can convince themselves of all kinds of things and the demand of the left is always “shut up and listen”. Don’t ask questions, even when the questions are legitimate and valid. That’s “racist” or whatever childish insult the far left are tossing around these days. For people who pretend to value science and reason, they certainly don’t when it comes to their feelings. It’s why they are behaving exactly like the religious do and that’s a problem.

“It‘s not merely a question. There‘s nothing to ‘discuss.‘ It‘s transphobic rhetoric & red meat for conservatives’ that someone who supposedly values reason should know better than to promote. It‘s as if he watched the J.K. Rowling debacle and thought I want to get in on that. It‘s not the first time he‘s done this.” Except that’s just emotion on overdrive talking. It’s paranoia without evidence. If you notice, it’s blind fear that the “conservatives” are out to get them and that’s ultimately childish. If you look at a lot of this from the progressive side, that’s a large part of their narrative. Holy shit, the conservatives might get ahold of this and then what will we do? And that’s just stupid.

Dawkins said “discuss” and that’s what rational people do. They have conversations focused on reason and evidence and the far left wants nothing at all to do with that. They don’t, any more than the religious do, because there are very, very strong parallels between the two. Because the left, like the religious, have their own holy writ to which they are not allowed to ask any questions or have any doubts. They are totally blinded to the fact that they are so messed up. When it gets pointed out, as I think Richard Dawkins was trying to do, they don’t come out with intelligent positions and demonstrable evidence, they freak out and act like 5-year olds throwing temper tantrums. Once again, they have done exactly what rational people would have predicted that they’d do. They proved that they were not rational.

That’s not exactly a surprise, is it?