Eric Arthur Blair
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2015
- 25,955
- 15,964
- 1,415
"Earlier this month, Dawkins compared the lives of trans people to Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who claimed to “identify” as Black while trying to forge a career in Black activism and academia.
He tweeted on 12 April: “In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black.
“Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men.
“You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”
Atheist Richard Dawkins has earned the rage and hatred of woke pro Trans imbeciles and Humanists for logically pointing out that if men can deny their immutable biological characteristics and claim womanhood, because that's what they want to do, why can't former Spokane, Wa. NAACP president Rachel Dolezal claim blackness (instead of her actual white heritage) because she prefers being a "Black" person.
It's a simple logical question. Why does it infuriate some?
The American Humanist Association punished him, to the degree they could, by revoking his 1996 Humanist of the Year award in a classic woke move designed to punish a now discredited apostate.
But once the award has been given, a twenty-five year old award, taking it back now is rather lame
and pointless, isn't it?
The leftist hypocrites can despise Dawkins now but can they dispute his simple point? It seems they can't.
All they can do is cast into leftist Hell now next to Donald Trump or Caitlin Jenner or whoever else they despise.
The question still is: If a man can identify as a woman why can't a white woman identify as a Black person?
It exposes the silliness and absurdity of the trans movement (though in rare cases someone may actually believe they are in the wrong body which would appear to be a mental disorder).
There is no way to deny one disorder (male/female) and not grant the other (black/white) and that
pisses the woke transgender people off. Like really pisses them off. And Richard Dawkins will be hounded to
his grave for his simple truth. If one is okay, why not the other?
He tweeted on 12 April: “In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black.
“Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men.
“You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”
Atheist Richard Dawkins has earned the rage and hatred of woke pro Trans imbeciles and Humanists for logically pointing out that if men can deny their immutable biological characteristics and claim womanhood, because that's what they want to do, why can't former Spokane, Wa. NAACP president Rachel Dolezal claim blackness (instead of her actual white heritage) because she prefers being a "Black" person.
It's a simple logical question. Why does it infuriate some?
The American Humanist Association punished him, to the degree they could, by revoking his 1996 Humanist of the Year award in a classic woke move designed to punish a now discredited apostate.
But once the award has been given, a twenty-five year old award, taking it back now is rather lame
and pointless, isn't it?
The leftist hypocrites can despise Dawkins now but can they dispute his simple point? It seems they can't.
All they can do is cast into leftist Hell now next to Donald Trump or Caitlin Jenner or whoever else they despise.
The question still is: If a man can identify as a woman why can't a white woman identify as a Black person?
It exposes the silliness and absurdity of the trans movement (though in rare cases someone may actually believe they are in the wrong body which would appear to be a mental disorder).
There is no way to deny one disorder (male/female) and not grant the other (black/white) and that
pisses the woke transgender people off. Like really pisses them off. And Richard Dawkins will be hounded to
his grave for his simple truth. If one is okay, why not the other?
Last edited: