The monstrous regiment
Bros line up to brosplain trans ideology for Dawkins. (That is, they line up that way on my Twitter, because they would, wouldn’t they.)
And what is the “expertise” that tells us men are women if they say they are? Having a trans significant other, of course. What more do you want?
There’s no such thing as “their” pronouns. Pronouns aren’t something we can own.
It’s true that bullies can use opposite pronouns as insults – referring to a man as “she” implies he’s girly, and referring to a woman as “he” implies she’s too butch. We still don’t own any pronouns.
More to the point, it’s not “respect” to pretend men can be women. It’s that other thing, that opposite thing.
By “other forms of respect” he means male bodies in women’s sports; convicted rapists with penises in women’s prisons; and lesbians being kicked off dating sites for not wanting to see transwomen in their dating pool. and etc., etc.,
Not that it really matters, but in the interview, Dawkins states that his position is that he will call people by the names and pronouns they prefer. Joyce explains that used to be her position and why it no longer is, and while Dawkins says something like “yes,” or “I see,” there’s no indication that he has changed his mind on that.
One of the world’s most famous and accomplished biologists was asked to write an article about what he saw as a biological question. He is very well qualified to answer a biological question. He answered, as a biologist, that there is a clear sexual binary, that men and women are different, and that one can’t turn into the other through wishing, drugs, or surgery. An adult human is always either a man or a woman, and that does not change. Biologically speaking, that is.
If the question he was asked, “what is a woman?” is not a biological question, then all his biological knowledge, facts, and experience might be considered beside the point. Mehta seems to think that the question is outside of Dawkins’ realm of expertise, that it is not a question for a biologist (it may also be beside the point that Mehta is, it appears, an ex-math teacher, and so what expertise he brings to the question is even less clear).
If the question “what is a woman” is not a biological question, then what is it? A question about feelings? Imagination? Identification? A biologist might have little to say about people’s feelings, imagination, and identification, though after Dawkins explains the sexual binary, he talks about the much more complex set of descriptions called “gender,” which provides, at times, a “fictive sex.”
Perhaps Dawkins is not, as Mehta says, qualified to talk about “gender.” But for that claim to be true, “gender” must have nothing to do with biology – which is very much what Dawkins himself said. Mehta can say that it’s very important to him to recognize a person’s “gender” is not based in biology, but that means he is simultaneously indicating that a person’s biological sex is not important to him. To Mehta, (identity-defined) “women” are important, but (biology-defined) women are not important at all.
Mehta is a misogynyist, and furthermore Mehta is not an atheist. He believes in one of the newest religious dogmas, that associated with the trans-substantiation of the lady penis. Dawkins is about six inches more of an atheist than Mehta is (and six feet more of a mensch).
Of course, if you want expertise on what is a woman, but don’t want it to be biological “reductionism”, then the thing to do is ask a woman…but that won’t do, because women have this pesky idea that men are NOT women (though unfortunately way too many women are acquiescing or even believing the TWAW mantra).
But if you want to ask a woman, you first have to know what a woman is so that you can find one to ask. If you don’t know, then someone who isn’t a woman might tell you that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, and then you’re in trouble again.
Once one accepts that the basis for womanhood is self-identification rather than biology, it’s not a great step to accept that the basis for expertise is self-identification rather than professional preparation. So perhaps Mr. Mehta identifies as a more knowledgeable biologist than Richard Dawkins. Or – why stop there – maybe he identifies as a person with unparalleled insight into any topic he chooses. Second star to the right and straight on to godhood.
In that case, Papito, I think I’ll identify as a Pulitzer prize winning playwright.
Responses to his tweet have been quite negative. He has responded to them with a greasy attempt to move the goal posts:
Matt: Dawkins is talking outside his expertise.
Others: wtf are you talking about, he’s a biologist.
Matt: this isn’t about biology. Discussions of trans people also include gender theory, sociology etc.
Others: but you are objecting specifically to a clip of Dawkins talking about sex.
Matt: [further replies not found]
And what exactly is Matt’s expertise on the subject? Having a trans significant other does not count as expertise (it’s more of a bias), so what’s his?
I suspect the answer to that runs something like ‘I read the experts in sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and trans advocacy!’ – probably without realising there there are sociologists, anthropologists and such that disagree with the ones he listens to, and definitely without realising gender studies and trans advocates are essentially preachers. Oh and also with a big dollop of the fundamental attribution fallacy – he gives himself credit for learning through subject matter materials written by professionals, without giving the same credit to those that disagree.
Expertise in Trans/Gender Studies = idea laundering, because that expertise is reflexively/recursively validated. People don’t realize that it’s like being an expert in phrenology, reflexology, astrology, osteopathy, homeopathy, chiropracty, etc. That is: expertise in a particular fiction. I think the confusing thing is that the expertise per se isn’t fictional, but its object is. Like expertise in the history of Middle Earth. One can make objective, truth-functional statements about the history of Middle Earth, but that doesn’t mean that Middle Earth isn’t fictional.
The funny thing is it is entirely possible to have useful or interesting or both expertise in fiction. It’s Kathleen Stock’s field, for one example, and good lit crit can be a beautiful thing. But of course that’s when the fiction is known to be fiction, not disguised as a thrilling new truth.
Writing good fiction pretty much requires having expertise in fictional things. Without it, internal logic, consistency, and coherency are rather difficult to achieve, which is exactly what we see in all the tv/movie adaptations of books where the screenwriters have an active disregard for source material. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.