I found the book a little depressing eg. the quote on the cover of some editions “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”
He got a bit more upbeat in later books. I'm not sure Dawkins is detestable but he's a bit humorless at times. The Telegraph has quite a good article on his culture war stuff https://archive.ph/kNJXN
> robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes
I think, his proposed theoretical framework about genes as the sole target of selective pressure, seems to be widely rejected by evolutionary scientists, these days. Anyway, the way he argues and illustrates evolution on the "atomic" level, that's what I consider extremely valuable. He inspires an intuition for evolutionary processes transcending "living matter". At least in me.
> The Telegraph has quite a good article on his culture war stuff
In what way do you think this is a good article? Do you think it's a very sincere and thorough representation of the extent of his activism?
This is a culture war piece itself, white-washing Dawkins as someone who is "just concerned" about debate and free speech, when in fact he seeks the legal abolition of transgender people, all the way up to the UN's declaration of human rights [1]. Not quite the neutral portrait, full of journalistic integrity, you linked there.
Now, I don't want to get into that argument.
However, should be no matter your political opinion on the issue, if someone in a position of power uses his influence to kick down massively at basic legal protections of a tiny, tiny, tiny and weak minority, without need, just to stay relevant ... that should classify as detestable in my books.
Sorry, I wasn't clear: Dawkins signed and promoted it [1].
Side note: A move, by an outspoken and activist atheist, celebrated by various christian think tank outlets. Can't make this up.
Then again, WDI founders themselves collaborated with United Families International, The Heritage Foundation and similar before [2]. All natural allies... lol. But hey, guess that 0.5% of the population, disproportionately affected by precarious living situations and suicide risk, certainly poses the greatest threat to civilization right now, so women's bodily autonomy has to take the L. Totally organic outrage Dawkins is participating in...
They don't straight up call for the extermination. Lol. The whole text is about abolishing protections granted by gender identity in a law and practice. It is based on the presumption there no such thing as gender identity, as recognized by the UN, most of the medical and psychology community, and advocates for manifestation of their own ideology - therefore implicitly abolishing transgender people legally, and effectively by restricting medical care and access existential resources.
But you know all that. Made an account just to spread some doubt. I wonder, if it's all that harmless and good, why not use your primary account?
No, it's about protecting women's sex-based rights. Having every point in the declaration enacted in law and policy would abolish no-one.
Men could still claim to be women and present themselves in a feminine manner if they so desire. There's nothing to prevent their freedom of belief and freedom of expression. The difference is that this wouldn't entitle them to access female spaces, and indeed would not grant them any special privileges under the law.
This isn't abolition, just like separation of church and state doesn't abolish religious folks, with them being free to practice their beliefs within their own communities of like-minded people. Same principle should apply to 'gender identity' beliefs.
If you disagree, please cite those parts of the declaration that you believe shows otherwise.
He got a bit more upbeat in later books. I'm not sure Dawkins is detestable but he's a bit humorless at times. The Telegraph has quite a good article on his culture war stuff https://archive.ph/kNJXN