American Humanist Association withdraws Richard Dawkins' Humanist Of The Year award

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://americanhumanist.org/news/a...ement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/

Established in 1953, the Humanist of the Year Award is conferred annually by the American Humanist Association (AHA), recognizing the awardee as an exemplar of humanist values. Communication of scientific concepts to the public is an important aspect of advancing the cause of humanism. Richard Dawkins was honored in 1996 by the AHA as Humanist of the Year for his significant contributions in this area.

Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.

Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Pathetic.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The skeptic to reactionary pipeline seems to be one well traveled. It's a shame to see all these people steadily become old men shouting at clouds.

 

[angrysoba]

The skeptic to reactionary pipeline seems to be one well traveled. It's a shame to see all these people steadily become old men shouting at clouds.

Shuttup Cumulo Nimbus!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here's the context: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments

 

[theprestige]

The skeptic to reactionary pipeline seems to be one well traveled. It's a shame to see all these people steadily become old men shouting at clouds.

Between Atheism Plus and Science Before Feelings, I prefer the Dawkins failure mode of skepticism.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

He's certainly not humanist of the year 2021 and is in many ways a silly old tosser but it seems a bit pointless to withdraw a 25 year old accolade.

 

[d4m10n]

Deploy the humanist signal of virtue!

 

[theprestige]

He's certainly not humanist of the year 2021 and is in many ways a silly old tosser but it seems a bit pointless to withdraw a 25 year old accolade.

I think it has a pretty clear point. They want people to know that Dawkins does not share their values and they do not want their organization to be associated with him in any way. It doesn't matter that the award is 20 years old. What matters is that people understand that the AHA no longer feels that way. This announcement meets that need pretty effectively. Or at least the AHA hopes so.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Deploy the humanist signal of virtue!

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210420/53e1a40e5f058b728a71430bcc4bada3.jpg[/qimg]

Surely it's taking away the humanist signal of virtue?

But, honestly, I don't know why anybody would be surprised that a society whose motto is "Good Without God" would signal what their values are.

 

[theprestige]

Surely it's taking away the humanist signal of virtue?

The announcement is a signal to others of their virtue in withdrawing the award.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the context: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments

So Dawkins is not necessarily the villain being implied.

Dawkins later responded to criticism, writing: “I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic ‘Discuss’ question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue.”...

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

And the reply might also suggest a little Atheism+ attitude:

The evolutionary biologist’s latest comment, the board said, “implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient”, while his “subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity”.

An awful lot of people villainize Dawkins. I'm not sure what these comments of his say about his actual feelings towards transgender people or blacks.

One must remember he's old, so that might influence his attitudes towards transgender people, and also I'm not sure blacks in the UK are having the same experience they are in the US.

As an evolutionary biologist he might very well be looking at assumed identities in purely that biological context.

And remember, using Dolezal as an example, black people themselves were outraged by here charade.

 

[Olmstead]

It's hard to teach an old skeptic to stop thinking about stuff.

 

[sphenisc]

Here's the context: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments

So Dawkins is not necessarily the villain being implied.
.

Clearly not, as the Guardian blames someone called "Dawson".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

One must remember he's old, so that might influence his attitudes towards transgender people, and also I'm not sure blacks in the UK are having the same experience they are in the US.

I don't know enough about the American Humanist Association to comment on them specifically, but I can say that if I was running an organisation that had as promoting social justice as part of its mission statement, then "he's old" wouldn't work as a mitigating circumstance if someone that organisation was associated with was saying things that I didn't think matched those values.

And remember, using Dolezal as an example, black people themselves were outraged by here charade.

That's rather the point they're making.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Clearly not, as the Guardian blames someone called "Dawson".

It's not called The Grauniad for nothing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So Dawkins is not necessarily the villain being implied.



And the reply might also suggest a little Atheism+ attitude:

An awful lot of people villainize Dawkins. I'm not sure what these comments of his say about his actual feelings towards transgender people or blacks.

One must remember he's old, so that might influence his attitudes towards transgender people, and also I'm not sure blacks in the UK are having the same experience they are in the US.

As an evolutionary biologist he might very well be looking at assumed identities in purely that biological context.

And of course never bothered to study much about expressing of biology but good to see he rejects the womanhood of people with androgen insensitivity for example.

Seriously as a biologist he should know a lot more than that half assed chromosome line.

 

[Olmstead]

That's rather the point they're making.

I've re-read that part three times, and I still don't get it. Either Dawkins disparaged transgender identity by implying it's fradulent, or he disparaged Black identity by implying White people can simply assume it. He can't have done both in the same argument.

I'm going to call this Schrodinger's Insult.

 

[theprestige]

And remember, using Dolezal as an example, black people themselves were outraged by here charade.

Only after she was outed. She passed for many years among black people that were not at all outraged, as long as she passed.

So that's one example of being able to assume a black identity "when convenient".

Another example is probably one that a lot of mixed-race people can relate to: "Coding" as one thing or another depending on social context.

Yet another example is probably one that a lot of black people can relate to: Coding as "white" when it's advantageous to be the Clean, Articulate Black Person, and coding as "black" when it's advantageous to be "more black". Some black people seem to get pretty outraged about this kind of code switching, too.

 

[Venom]

Dawkins is a bit of an *******, maybe a lovable one, but a real jerk.