Atheist Icon Richard Dawkins Being Disowned Because He Reveals Hypocrisy of Woke Fanatics

Eric Arthur Blair

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2015
25,955
15,957
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?
 
Last edited:
Okay. So, what is it that you want to discuss?

urinal-your-opinion-would-fit-and-look-nice-here-png.490346
 
You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.

Nature produces MEN and WOMEN. Gender is not a subject for debate, it is MECHANICAL: you either have an Innie or an Outie.

The rest of this crap about what people "identify" with is a bunch of bull: you can "identify" as a black, a woman, a space alien---- now you are in the realm of semantics and psychology.

When a society decides as we seem to be doing that "facts" are simply what you want them to be instead of what they really are, you can kiss your ass goodbye.
 
I don't think Dawkins is all that offended by the recall of the humanist award. I think the elite atheists have no strong allegiances to the atheist organizations, because they want the elites to foster the membership for free, and the organizations suck.
 
It's refreshing to see someone break from the comfort of his "tribe" and voice an honest opinion.
 
"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?

I identify as a jet...been flying high home skillet
 
I identify as a brown man yet many on this board who defend the right of a man to identify as a woman so he can go into the same bathroom as young girls - insist I am a white racist.

Be consistent with your self identifier argument by not compromising it with a sense of entitlement to label all others.
 

Forum List

Back
Top