I'm trans myself. Female born in a.male body. Lots of people do think it's a choice. But it's not. No sane person choose a life like that. I feel trapped in my body. When I was a child I thought I was the only one. I was ashamed and to be honest I still feel.ashamed. Nowadays most people know what trans is. There's a possibilty to talk about the subject. It's a good thing for people who are trans. Knowing.you're not alone but on the other hand.... there's so much hate. We're freaks, monsters, disgusting, etc... and sometimes it can be very painfull. I know people mostly don't like what they don't know and it's ok if people don't like me. No hate towards them but it would be so nice to just be quiet if you don't have anything nice to say. Yet again I swear it's not a choice. I feel and I know what I am. I was never confused, nobody forcede me.... I just always knew. I didn't transition my body because once puberty sets in.. it's too late. Your body will form and no matter how many cosmetic surgeries you get... you'll always see there's something of.I'm not that strong to live my life that way just because people are cruel. You will be starred at, bullied and all kinds of negative things. In my opinion if you're under 18 there's a possibility to take hormones and get the surgery done. It will give the best results. But before those things there must be tests done by psychiatrists to see if the person in question is really trans. In this day and age there are some 'activists' who forces their childeren to be something there not just to be progressive and that's horrendous. If a person has doubts about its gender it's probably not a good idea to start procedures. If you're trans... you just know it without hesitation. One more thing, there's a lot of talk about transpeople in professional sports.Every sane person knows that transwoman should not compete with real woman. It hurts me to say but it's reality. Even if your body is transformed it's still male and nothing you can do about that. Mostly it's some type of activist who think it's ok to put transwoman with (real) woman and those activists are hurting us. They're putting us in a very bad place and I hope people will realise that life is hard for us and please don't call us freaks. It hurts. My apologies for my english, it's not my main language. ;)
I love trans women 💜 I'm cis but I'm someone who had an uncomfortable relationship with femininity. Trans women's courage and strength helped me overcome my own issues. I'm so happy to share womanhood with you 💓
But you're not female. You're born in the only body you have, and the only body you ever could have had and still be you. Discomfort at being male is not the same thing as being female. I'm sorry you feel such distress at the reality of your sex, but that doesn't mean I or anyone else should have to pretend that you're really a woman.
And not a single voice raised in over 30 minutes, no bulging eyes or fire spewing. Journalism is so much better when neither the interviewer nor the interviewee is hell-bent on appearing to "win" an argument like we see ad nauseum these days. Just solid and respectable discourse with well-presented questions for one of our greatest thinkers. Well done, David.
They agree on every point. They share the same culture, same economical system, political system, race and world view. There is no point of major disagreement. What i can't understand is that you are glad for no reason and that 2 white english speaking eurocentric guys are in agreement. I was not even expecting it,idiot. They hate the same folks, races and cultures. So, no matter if they show us they agree or not. They already misrepresented islam and christianity.
He hasn't been so civil about people when not face to face though. He's very quick to misrepresent the views of others and demonise people with whom he disagrees. He's just too much of a coward to say it in front of them. He's a pure and simple ideologue.
Hitch was one of a kind. I'm sure right wing pseudo intellectuals like Jordan Peterson would have been languishing in total obscurity if Christopher had lived another 10 years. He would have annihilated Peterson and his moronic conjectures
@@jupitermoongauge4055 omg I would kill to see Hitchens and Peterson on the same stage. Peterson's pontificating and gish-galloping wouldn't have lasted long.
Dawkins knows his silly metaphysical lying game is close to over. Dawkins continues to speak this direct LIE concerning TRUTH. New Atheism does NOT use any scientific methods , they use METAPHYSICS & specifically those in the style of Hegel. That approach with its splitting is binaries suits the invention of thought crime design like white fragility. New Atheist from its inception was the first wave of WOKE. It was founded to create and design thought crimes & Dawkins could not give a damn about 'The Truth' New atheism has been an exponent of post truth all along new atheist is a thought crime designing project that unleashed the ideas that now plague our lives. New atheism is Hegelist Metaphysics - see here what A.C. Grayling gets up to : ( QUOTES) Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates: (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist; (b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist; (c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group. - Unquote . So to focus on this : ''(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;'' - ( Unquote ) In other words the new atheist argument is Metaphysical same as the god argument & no scientific method is involved.
Except of course when he equated the increased number of people who feel comfortable to express their dysphoria as an "epidemic of measles". Evokes the language used toward gay people and black people in certain bygone eras (and today among the far right)
@@empiricalskepticwhat’s your point? He respects one single woman? But no one else? Address the actual comment by @accesscrimea, not some distraction effort.
@@sineadmurtagh943 Exactly, Dawkins "respecting" one single woman, but discrediting all the trans people with EQUALLY VALID situations and experiences is no consolation. This is the same thing the rightwing bigots would do with gay people. They'd pick one and say "we don't hate this one! We aren't hateful!" all while legislating against them and spreading hate. It's the same situation playing out against trans folks.
@@accesscrimeawhy are you writing the same response for all positive comments? People can like the interview without adhering to your sensibilities. Dawkins isn’t anti-lgbtq by any means.
Yes. I mean even when I disagree with his view from time to time, I can understand where he’s coming from as he appears to think about it closely before responding. I can respect that. The man is also f’ing brilliant, so that helps.
@@kirapoodle That's a fair point. Richard Dawkins is 82 with chronic high blood pressure and has been warned by his doctors to avoid controversies. Do you see that as possible in this crazy controversy filled world? And then there was Richard Leakey, Paul Farmer, Luc Montagnier, Beatrice Mintz, Beryl Benacerraf, Donald Pinkel, Robert F. Curl Jr., Ben Roy Mottelson, Arthur D. Riggs, Sophie Freud, Kamoya Kimeu and many other scientists who died just in 2022! Death is a part of life. I was devastated when Christopher Hitchens died. That man was a fantastic representative of the truth in my eyes. Dam those cigarettes and alcohol. Oh, and if we die before Dawkins, all our problems and concern evaporate with consciousness. Have a great day!.
@@bloodstone1992A healthy lifestyle and confidence in medical science goes a long way. I doubt Dawkins was popping Ivermectic while bloviating about preserving his "free-dumbs."
I've definitely had some pretty major disagreements with Richard Dawkins over the years, but finding his debates with creationists on early TH-cam started me down the road to questioning what I had been taught as a child and lead me down the road to where I am now, and I'll always have respect for him for that because I know I'm not the only one.
Yes, exactly this. I'm not thrilled with a number of views he's espoused over the years, but he did set me down a path of learning and exploration that changed my life. For that alone he'll always hold a special place for me.
They're likely referring to his views on social topics like transgender. I'm most bothered by comments he's made that undermine sexual harm towards children. Like when he essentially insinuated people needed to toughen up because he was molested by an adult and turned out fine. Not sure if you're familiar with this? He broached this sentiment more than once in interviews. Look up 'mild pedophilia' with his name and I am sure you'll see them... Indeed nobody is perfect, and I agree with much of what Dawkins says on a number of topics.
You do realize that dawkins did ZERO of the work he took credit for... He did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to contribute to paleontology, genome research, biological classification etc... While his predecessors (like Darwin) did all the work... All he did was read and regurgitate. As a "professor" he adopted the strategy of insulting people, when they posited questions that he couldn't answer... He's on record responding to students with, "that's a stupid question that doesn't deserve an answer..." I'd say any idiot can behave that way!!!
Mr Dawkins confronted many lunatics over the years. I can only thank him for his contributions to educating & enlightening me but standing firm in the reality of the world.
The first lunatics he confronted were those who would follow his tragic marxist political agenda. Dawkins continues to speak this direct LIE concerning TRUTH. New Atheism does NOT use any scientific methods , they use METAPHYSICS & specifically those in the style of Hegel. That approach with its splitting is binaries suits the invention of thought crime design like white fragility. New Atheist from its inception was the first wave of WOKE. It was founded to create and design thought crimes & Dawkins could not give a damn about 'The Truth' New atheism has been an exponent of post truth all along new atheist is a thought crime designing project that unleashed the ideas that now plague our lives. New atheism is Hegelist Metaphysics - see here what A.C. Grayling gets up to : ( QUOTES) Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates: (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist; (b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist; (c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group. - Unquote . So to focus on this : ''(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;'' - ( Unquote ) In other words the new atheist argument is Metaphysical same as the god argument & no scientific method is involved.
I betting now that you’ve heard his views on trans people and how he’s against medical intervention on children that you might review your thoughts on him
@@dorianshadesofgray You clearly are an example of what he means by a trans activist deliberately causing trouble for no good reason. I'm against gender change operations in children. Any sane person should be.
As a Canadian, who isn't a fan of Jordan Peterson, that wasn"t his concern He argued that the bill would classify the failure to use preferred pronouns of transgender people as hate speech, which would be a legitimate concern. However, most legal experts think not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for the Criminal Code offence of promoting hatred.
@jamesshepherd9390 Peterson's claims about Bill C-16 were widely and publicly debunked by a host of legal experts years ago. I wasn't even close. It was flat out lies and he never corrected himself when confronted by the facts which makes it not an honest mistake but makes him a liar and bad faith actor.
@@Avatinfernus he's one of those people who is not always right ,but is never wrong. A deGrasse Tyson -Peterson debate would rapidly descend into an ego contest.
I'm very impressed by how neutral and understanding David managed to come across. Not often you hear a progressive being this receptive to alternative opinions.
@@zacharyshort384I still remember how she won herself the dubious achievement of being the first host on The View to get booted off the show entirely... but at least she has matured since then, so better late than never. 😅
Except when he equated the increased number of people who feel comfortable to express their dysphoria as an "epidemic of measles". Evokes the language used toward gay people and black people in certain bygone eras (and today among the far right)
@@accesscrimeae's a career biologist and famous atheist writer, I wouldn't expect him to know about the latest, or any, lgbt issues, or where to get that info. His take seems kinda wild
@@moezandy9367 Which is fine of course, but I do take genuine umbrage with his frankly disgusting wording above and beyond any simple disagreement. Let's attribute it to a bout of ageitius!
@@accesscrimea Yeah, that one was hurtful to hear. Like, OK, I get maybe suggesting "punching TERFs in the face" isn't going to garner anyone's sympathy, and that the language we have for describing things sometimes is (speaking strictly from a language perspective) not the clearest it could be. That said, trans people asking to be treated like people and then being up against all of the targeted bulling from TERFs and LGB groups AND anti-lgbtq+ groups here - expecting no reaction at all is asking for far too much.
I'm confused, how can one recognize the existence of intersex people but also still continue to say that sex is binary? For most people, yes, you fall into one category or the other, but it is also a FACT that some people are not born in a way that fits into either category. If binary implies there can only be a 1 and a 0, the mere FACT that a variation can occur where a number is neither 1 or 0 would indicate it not being binary.
This is the contradiction that had me scratching my head. He says that sex is one of the last true binaries that exist in biology as if it needs to be that way.
I am a transgender female. I have studied biology, chemistry, physics, and more at the university level. I agree that sex is binary. I have never been offended being called male or female in any situation and tell those that feel they have offended me to not be. I express myself as female but I was born a male and so that's that. Also something to consider is 1.7% of the population is intersex while only 0.7% are transgender. So if intersex is a negligible percentage and so not necessary to discuss than certainly transgender discussions are blown way out of proportion, simply becoming a political issue which is not an actual issue.
That's actually a very common myth spread throughout the internet. The true rate of intersex is closer to 0.018%. Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
@@iuliaionelapetcu1411 This being an example of others struggling with my identity. If you really want to dictionary this idea then let's remember that being female is able to produce eggs that can be fertilized by a male and so any "female" that can't do this is no longer a female. Let us now begin the rage that is the internet.
Good interview. I think David could have pushed him a little harder on the last question though, that being; "Are the trans community the new societal scapegoats that gays once were?" Dawkins deflected like a politician on that point.
He didn’t deflect, Pakman repeatedly asked him his views on American culture war issues to which Dawkins had explained he only follows a little from a distance (he’s British). And he pointed to local reports in the UK on the matter
@@pathologicaldoubtthe abuse and scapegoating of transgender people is just as awful in the UK as in America. Unfortunately for a man of great intellect he shows none of it in relation to the subject at hand. The LGB group he refers to is a hate group established with American right wing money in order to attack trans rights and they have done so as only the evangelical fundamentalists in the US can. They are exactly the same as the GAG lunatics over there. The Gays Against Groomers that are now falling apart after the shock that DeSantis is coming after them now he’s already destroyed trans rights in Florida. This is well known in the UK. It takes some effort on the part of a person of intelligence to remain ignorant of it. Effort, or an intellect that is no longer what it once was.
@@ilect1690 didn't say it was but I very much doubt he is unaware of the media campaign the host alluded to, there haven't been the same results as the US but the claims about transfolk are widely known.
As an avid people watcher and fan of Richard Dawkins since I was a boy ( He used to do the BBC Christmas lectures way back in the 80's 90's) I enjoyed that thoroughly. He warmed to David because to begin with his expression said "Let's get this over with" I imagine he was quite surprised to get intelligent questions and thoughts from an American. Amazing..... 🙂
I'd be shocked if Dawkins had interacted with so few Americans that he'd be surprised that a professional American broadcaster from Massachusetts is intelligent.
@@gigameter You just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it's a great comfort for you. But the UK is still the best place in the world to get an education. As I said. You prove my point for me. Being stupid is obviously important to you.
The "God Delusion" is just an anti-Abrahamic religions narrative with scientific arguments against patriarchal totalitarian omnipotent God. I agree with Dawkins, all Abrahamic gods are inhumanely oppressive and hinders the human development of societal culture because of its sickening perception toward people's lives.
Once you realise new atheism only helped crush christianity in order to helped install a separate abrahamic religion you won't feel the same. Hopefully by that time you see they were in fact a thought crime modelling lab whose designs cancelled everyones free speech as well.
Yeah...There's no God delusion whatsoever. God placed evidence if you know where to look. "professing to be wise, they became fools". Richard Dawkins was one of the most idiotic people ever given a chance to speak.
@@TheConstitutionalOathkeeper Congratulations......you just reinforced every claim that Dawkins has ever made about people like you. Quick to judge, quick to anger, and slow to understand - just like the god you worship. I spent years studying the origins of the bible, and where the ideas in it came from. I spent years debating people like yourself about the existence of god - and your crappy one-liner platitudes such as - "You just have to know where to look!" Know where to look...... Where? The bible? Already tried that - turns out that it's man-made fiction. Outer space? Already tried that. Nothing has come fourth that has presented itself as a god for all to see. My mind? Already tried that. Turns out it was nothing more than years of indoctrination and brainwashing. So what do you have left but to make ignorant slags against a world-renown scientist and educator? You have nothing in your arsenal. I have debated the likes of you more times than I can count, and you people always get sent home with your tail between your legs, because you don't have any good arguments for your beliefs that cannot be backed by any historical or scientific evidence. So don't even try, you're wasting your time. This will be my only reply, so with that being said - good day.
The Four Horsemen: The Conversation That Sparked an Atheist Revolution (book, 2019) by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett Foreword by Stephen Fry A review by Steven Poole in the Guardian: “The Four Horsemen review - whatever happened to ‘New Atheism’?”
@@afsar_gunner5271the third time I've read this pathetic comment... you've really got nothing of substance to say it seems. Can you not tell the difference between attacking an idea and attacking people. YOU are attacking Dawkins... Ad Hominem... because you don't like the ideas he has espoused. Dawkins has never advocated attacking people for what they believe, he attacks that demonstrable falsity of the belief. Unlike religions that prescribe murdering people for believing something different.
@@afsar_gunner5271 The trouble is that Dawkins applies quite a narrow definition of religion, he only sees it as religion when it opposes science. So when he talks about Christianity, he already excludes about half of the christians who are catholic, at least those following the formal dogma of the catholic church concerning science. His whole 'atheistic fanatasism' seems to narrow down on keeping religious dogma's out of the science classes, though alas he is only explicit about this when specifically asked, thereby alienating many religious people who share that goal and would have otherwise been his ally.
So you believe in half-breed ape men? Millions of years never happened to even begin to support that fairy tale. Millions of years never happened. "It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried." "It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals." "How many years are we talking about? 10 million between trilobite tracks and trilobite fossils; 35 million between amphibian tracks and amphibian fossils; and 10 million between dinosaur tracks and dinosaur fossils. That is a curious pattern indeed."
As an Australian who has followed Dawkins & Christopher Hutchins for years & years ...I think it was a terrible interview.. Dawkins was completely unprepared for David's "USA only related questions"
@@cherylmccloud8709 his information regarding UK events was grossly lacking too. He has made reference to the same easily checked misinformation in multiple interviews.
@@afsar_gunner5271So 'The Selfish Gene' was an anti-Christian grift? 'The Extended Phenotype' was just to insult innocent religious people? I think you might be confusing innocence with ignorance and projecting malice... a man who has studied evolutionary biology has every right to publish books explaining how there is no evidence demonstrating Yaweh made Adam from clay, or Eve from a rib. And in particular if you're in the US, you should respect the Contituionally guaranteed freedom of speech that he was exercising.
Are you kidding me????? There are MILES of film recorded where dawkins has engaged in moot and pointless debates about theism, atheism, and agnosticism... The dude is the quintessential mental masturbator... What's worse is that he is the ANTITHESIS of "dispassionate" as you describe him, he's on record ranting like a child and insulting people for disagreeing with him, or presenting contrasting points of view. The sum of his whole life has been an emotional trip of railing against organized religion from an obtuse and completely unscientific belief set that "time" is the factor that explains how all evolutionary processes came to be without intelligent design!!! That's his answer... "given enough time, a pile of turds will eventually grow a brain and solve the conundrum of fusion ignition." LOL!!! Seriously... You have no clue what an ass this man has made of himself!!! "Never dramatic" LOL!!! Jesus Kryst, the man goes on stage to debate Deepak Chopra and starts screaming @ people that religion should be abolished!!! He's even threatened by AGNOSTICISM for pete's sake!!!!
Bravo David for this high-quality interview and exchange with such an esteemed and intelligent academic like Mr. Dawkins. I could listen to him all day. His replies are always considerate and thoughtful and notice how forthright he is when he doesn’t know and readily admits he doesn’t have the expertise to reply. Just a great interview! Thank you.
@@porkramen Your claim is that his "assertion is unsupported", but what he spoke to as a biologist is the relative biological truths and he is one of the foremost people in the world to speak on the matter and his claims are fully backed by the data.
Dawkins is a legend! So great to see him on this show. Always intelligent, sincere and insightful; he is the culmination of what makes the human race great.
@@rrickarr I'm not familiar with what he said on Covid, but why should a British biologist know about book banning in the States? It's irrelevant to us
@@getme2morenow565 Everything he said in the last 8 minutes was misinforming people. 95% of what he said prior was on point. That's why it's quite disappointing to see. I even own one of his books.
@@w0ody16 So you would not agree with gis statement to the effect that sex," is one of the few binary things we have..everything else is a continium "? What else would a biologist think ?
@@phillipsugwas I would clarify that if we are talking about just sex, not gender, the two are quite different. Then I'd remind Dawkins as an esteemed biologist who should know this that there are intersex people. This alone shows that it's not binary and is what's known as bimodal distribution. He should know better which is why this is all quite disappointing.
People like Richard Dawkins are very important for the world in which we live. He provides nuance and a clear head in his approach to issues that are prone to evoke emotions and extremism. Thank you David Pakman for this interview, I hope more will follow.
Dawkins continues to speak this direct LIE concerning TRUTH. New Atheism does NOT use any scientific methods , they use METAPHYSICS & specifically those in the style of Hegel. That approach with its splitting is binaries suits the invention of thought crime design like white fragility. New Atheist from its inception was the first wave of WOKE. It was founded to create and design thought crimes & Dawkins could not give a damn about 'The Truth' New atheism has been an exponent of post truth all along new atheist is a thought crime designing project that unleashed the ideas that now plague our lives. New atheism is Hegelist Metaphysics - see here what A.C. Grayling gets up to : ( QUOTES) Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates: (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist; (b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist; (c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group. - Unquote . So to focus on this : ''(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;'' - ( Unquote ) In other words the new atheist argument is Metaphysical same as the god argument & no scientific method is involved.
A lot of old people, even old intellectuals, seem to have weird ideas about trans people and "trans activists." What is the difference between supporting gay people and trans people? Because trans people also deal with body changes? Are these same people against plastic surgery or is this just reserved for people who are dealing with gender dysmorphia. As soon as I here someone say that being trans is a "trend" I tend to tune out. Clearly they don't really know what they are talking about.
@@dandawson1982 I was shocked that Dawkins wasn't able to recognize his own warped perspective here. It's obvious that he reserves respect and validation for specific individuals like his friend, but shows a generalized disdain for what he understands as the trans movement.
@@Wonzling0815 I don't think that is what he is saying here. Warped? Shocked? He has a right to disagree (he said he would respect a person's presentation in life - just doesn't feel it should be a law that he has to follow). I understand your feelings on it but disdain is not the appropriate word. He has concerns about some aspects. It doesn't mean he tunes it out or poo-poos it. He states that he is fine that someone was helped by surgery, and I cannot discount his feelings on it being a trend. If you're of a certain age, you have seen a lot of things, including a time when every other person, it seemed, suddenly was bisexual. The same is true here. I mean, how many men now are guilty of sexual assault all of a sudden after #metoo. I am a woman and I do not choose to believe that every single man is a lecherous sexually deviant criminal. But I cannot go a day without every other celebrity, athlete being accused of it. I know that a lot of things went silent for forever, but it cannot be ALL men. Of course the converse thinking is perhaps more are reporting things and being more open publicly about things. But there does suddenly seem to be a ton of people that say they are trans. Are we keeping everyone quiet and now half the world is trans? There was a kid in school who was validated, because of a movement, to say he identified as a tree.
@@jbjacobs9514 I can clearly see why Dawkins' words would meet your approval. You seem to be quite content with your firm perspective, too, good for you.
I agree that it seems to be a generational thing where they are “ok” with a certain level of trans persecution. Dawkins can’t see that trans people are being scapegoated/persecuted by the right? He thinks it’s a war between gay and trans??! I dunno. Maybe he’s a little out of touch on that issue. He’s falling back on some shit that Jordan Peterson was whining about in 2016
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 as if RD is some challenge. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Or so you think..you haven't crushed anyone and cannot. You have been posting the same copy-and-paste straw man for years..and everyone has debunked you, yet you remain incessant in your religious delusions. What a retard..
Thanks David. One of the most civil interviews I've seen in ages. I'm a lifelong atheist and I've been a great admirer of Mr. Dawkins for years. I guess he articulated my thoughts on religion.
It was only civil because he was only looking for agreement and validation. He intentionally avoided any area of disagreement because he knew he would have no argument against Dawkins.
@@blue24563 , it's called building report.. He did a great job of gaining Dawkins trust by starting with what he knows they agree on and then move into the disagreements at the end.. There's no point in arguing against him on something he's not even willing to discuss in good faith.. I'm not sure he's even willing to discuss it with fellow biologists, many of which disagrees with Dawkins on sex and gender..
Religion &religious beliefs are nought but ideology with no basis in historical fact The bible wasn't written until around 400 hundred years after the supposed occurrences depicted in the new testament, it was also written by power hungry patriarchal monks intent on controlling society
@@afsar_gunner5271have you read The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker? Atracking ideas is not attacking people. Unlike religions that prescribe murdering people for holding different beliefs.
It almost seemed that Richard misunderstood the final question. It would have been interesting to hear a followup. It almost seemed as though he thought you were asking about the gay community using the transgender community as a scapegoat. If you arrange another interview I think it would interesting to confirm whether that was a misunderstanding or, how it literally came across, just a wild diversion from your question.
That's how it seemed to me too. I think a lot of these oldsters are just out of touch and are opining on things they don't have much education on. Dawkins kinda said as much when he was talking about the cultural shifts towards liberalism over centuries and decades. For example, my grandma is pushing 100 I don't expect her to keep up on culturally appropriate language and attitudes. It's just too much of a lift for her when her ideas have been set for longer than I've been alive.
It seemed to me he deflected from politicians scapegoating trans people to some gay activists bullying trans people. Did anyone pay attention to the trans inclusivity of the Pride celebrations two weeks ago?
Dawkins gave Dave's disingenuous leftist orthodoxy the smackdown. The trans and LGB are not getting along in Britain and Richard clearly isn't very sympathetic toward the T. He is an evolutionary biologist. From the top rope
@@michvroom8784 Dawkins is a smart guy. I think the political discussions around this subject in the UK are different, and that the way things are in the U.S. is not easy to keep up with for anyone if they're not actively paying a lot of attention to U.S. politics. I also suspect that Dawkins is in a bit of a "bubble" in terms of the people he's getting information from about these subjects out of the U.S. I really wish that Dawkins could have taken the time, before the interview itself, to have a long private discussion with David Pakman. I think David could have really helped him understand the contemporary American political landscape and debates much better around these issues.
I absolutely love seeing this video! Richard Dawkins is one-in-a-million he is truly a world treasure and if I saw somebody else comment he genuinely makes me miss having the legendary Christopher Hitchens! Both excellent and truly exemplary men! Thanks David!😊
@@mourlyvold64Dawkins could push back harder, but he would still been wrong. He is welcome to his opinion, but he should present it as such, rather than as "settled" scientific fact. This is where Dawkins is sadly disingenuous.
Recently I had my issues with Richard Dawkins because of my concerns with his views about trans people. This interview has changed my mind a bit. By listening to him during this interview, it seems his view on transgender people is not derogatory. He obviously is not for children seeking gender affirming care but seems to think that adult may make those decisions for themselves. He did mention that he thinks the current situation around transgender people seems to be a fade of late. I’m don’t agree with that assessment but he is certainly for human rights. This was a good interview and I appreciate hearing what RD had to say and how David handled this interview. Great job David!
His opinions on the state of gender-affirming care for minors are based on false information and can be dismissed. He's not authoritative in the subject.
RD seems to think the activist community just woke up one day with random malice in their heart. Those people are such a tiny minority of the millions of trans people. And when it's those people he's laser focusing on in every discussion, it seems like he has bad intentions toward that community. Studies show that trans people who find gender affirming care when young (before/during puberty) have better mental health on average. For example, those treated 14-15 are happier than those treated 16-17, who in turn are happier than those treated 18+. This isn't remotely surprising: would you want to stand out your whole life because you're visibly trans or simply pass as a member of the general populace? And that's not even mentioning the dysphoria you'll be saddled with the rest of your life. So yes, there is indeed a conflict. Either we believe trans people, letting them get the treatment they need at the proper age and blend into society, or literally remove their bodily autonomy to permanent effect and put them at the mercy of random far-right lunatics who spot them in public and think they're groomers or something. jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423 www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/
I respect a lot of Dawkins' biological work (research into evolution, etc.), as well as his anti-theism, but, on trans issues, he's dead wrong. In this interview, he basically says "women can't have penises" and that misgendering is fine. Also that biological sex in humans is binary - it's not. At some point, I would've named him among my intellectual heroes, but this makes me sad.
He has bought into anti-trans (and in particular TERF) rhetoric. He claimed sex is a binary in one sentence and in the next admitted (grudgingly) that intersex people exist, which is proof positive that sex is NOT a binary. He also cited imaginary situations of children being injected with hormones and receiving cross-sex surgery, which is also not true. And claimed a largely imaginary divide between the rest of the queer community and "trans activists" by citing a literal hate group that supports trans conversion therapy. I don't consider any of that proof that he is "certainly for human rights."
One of the pros that sets Mr. Pakman apart from his contemporaries, is the inflection in his speech. He accentuates as well as paints a picture with his use of figurative language. The listener is carried away in careful hands. He chooses his words so surgically that his video's transcripts can be documented verbatim.
@samildanach I am perplexed by your tone. I AM NOT " NATIVE" OR A YOUNG PERSON WHO HAS UNEDUCATED PARENTS. MY FATHER IS AN LOGISTICS ENGINEER FROM LOCKEED MARTIN AND MY MOTHER IS AN REGISTERED NURSE. I USED A THESAURUS FROM THE 5TH GRADE I AM NOT ONLY AN HOMECOMING QUEEN, CHEERLEADER BUT A DEBATE AND PERSUASIVE SPEECH AWARD WINNER. I EARNED MY MBA AND LAW DEGREE AS WELL. MY COMMENT IS NOT BASED FROM AN IMMIGRANT PERSPECTIVE
Richard Dawkins was very important for my personal Journey in dealing with religious Members of my Family. I certainly don't agree with all of his viewpoints, but I think its a great effort of David to proof, that you can have a reasonable and friendly discussion about these topics without falling into hostile conflict that just keeps dividing us.
But what if hostile conflict is called for? Dawkins blithely stated that sex is a binary (it's not and he even admitted to the existence of intersex people which is absolute proof of no binary), cited imaginary cases of children being injected with hormones and getting surgeries, and espoused that gay people are against the "trans activists" by mentioning the LGB Alliance as some sort of validation for this. An organization which has been described as an anti-trans hate group that wants trans conversion therapy to remain legal and for all trans related medical care for youth (such as puberty blockers) to be banned, among other anti-trans positions. I'd say that spouting anti-trans rhetoric calls for hostile response and David was soft balling it. Which means either David was intimidated by his guest or his previously stated views on trans issues was pandering. Super disappointing to see David fold in this way. We know he has the chops to do better. He didn't. Dawkins may have been a giant at one time but now he has bought into anti-trans BS and he needs to be called out in a serious way. Dawkins himself described the necessity of publicly fighting rhetoric when it relates to serious issues. His concern was anti-vax misinformation. But it holds for his own arguments when they are erroneous and dangerous.
@@blackenedsprite8542 True. Well, I suppose if you're raised to believe that you're living in "the shining city on the hill" that all of the barbarians fumbling around in the darkness of the rest of the world look toward with either awe and reverence or envy and hatred, and nothing in between, then the last thing you expect is indifference.
Its Satanism. All of these people are Satanists, Kabbalists and Zionists. Anyone who is brought on TV to speak or is made popular on the internet or his books get published, is fake.
Many Democrat voters aren't huge fans of that for sure. Although many voters of both parties aren't huge fans of what voters of the opposing party do/teach their kids already and have to live with it. Should parents be allowed to perform genital mutilation on their kids (circumcision)? Should parents be allowed to teach their kids that their gay neighbors are evil and not to be trusted and will burn in hell for all eternity?
@@IvanBaturaChannel no such decision should be made by ANYBODY aside from making the decision, and ONLY if the person making it has a fully developed brain.
He's a total fraud. Millions of years never happened. "It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried." "It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals." "How many years are we talking about? 10 million between trilobite tracks and trilobite fossils; 35 million between amphibian tracks and amphibian fossils; and 10 million between dinosaur tracks and dinosaur fossils. That is a curious pattern indeed."
@@afsar_gunner5271 They’re not innocent. They’re trying to force their religion onto people who aren’t as goddamn stupid as they are, and that’s unacceptable. Cope harder, dear.
Damn good job here David. Richard Dawkins is an absolute legend and your thoughtful, nuanced questions elicited excellent responses. As always with Dawkins, it would’ve been best to speak for 2-3 hours or more, but you only had your 30ish minutes. Applause to you for great prep, thoughtful questions and overall just great discussion. Hopefully you can have him back on to discuss these same issues and maybe more about Islam in the face of what has reared its ugly head since Oct 7th.
I've always been a big fan of Dawkins but his unscientific use of J Peterson's pointless pronoun protest as example is too much . The Canadian statute re: pronouns has no such proscription or any punishment for not following what are clearly stated guidelines and suggestions, not requirements of employment (kudos to David for trying to point this out). Dawkins should know this. And why would he align himself, intellectually, with Peterson at all?? Further, his apparent lack of ability to grasp any distinction between sexual difference and gender is kind of frustrating, not to mention a useful tool for the anti-trans right. Finally, Dawkins brings up an incredibly rare attack by a trans person on a "straight" person, utterly blind to the millennia of abuse, attacks, rapes and general violence against LGBT+ people. That's hardly a scientifically informed position to take. Regardless, excellent interview as usual by DP.
I was a young Dawkins debate watcher on "old TH-cam" so I really appreciate this interview as a paying member! A lot has changed both with the world and my politics and nuance in my world view so it's interesting to hear from him again - especially after I had disagreements with him over trans comments I came across. I gotta watch that film and more of his books now that they're brought to my attention! I do own a hard copy of The God Delusion. 🙂
@@davidadams2395 I feel like the trans stance he had was a somewhat reactionary one. And I feel like he'll have some future concerns about letting himself get drawn into this cultural debate down the line. "Oops! Shouldn't have been the 'Actually' guy right there.."
@@davidadams2395 It is largely just an extension of being critical about all religions - Dawkins doesn't pick favourites. I feel I understand Dawkin's position on Trans ideology because I share a similar one, and share similar logic with most other points Dawkins makes. The case here is essentially that religion shouldn't be pushed upon anyone. If I don't want to call a Christian priest 'Father', I do not have to. I also do not need to pray, I do not need to forgo something at lent, I do not need to follow the Christian commandments or decisions. Same goes for Islam. Same goes for Hinduism. Same goes for Trans. Policies should not be made based on religion, laws should not enforce people to obey religious prescripts.
If I am informed correctly, the books that Ron DeSantis censored were books that displayed gay (or any other) sexuality to 6-year old children. That to me seemed the right thing to do. You have to be accurate when you talk about these things.
That's why lowlife lying loser Pakman couldn't name a single book when Dawkins asked. Neither can any of the people licking Pakmans nuts in these comments.
A Richard Dawkins documentary that I watched back in 2011 or 2012 is what lead me to fully embrace atheism. I will be forever grateful to him for that and for leading me to some other great atheist thinkers like Christopher Hitchens.
Loved the video, David. You’re interviewing is top notch and I respect the both of your for taking these issues seriously and giving reasonable responses.
Dawkins is truly a treasure, the man along with Hitchens literally changed my life and deprogramed me into a better person. This is your best interview get ever David. What an honor to speak with him.
What an incredible conversation you and Richard (FREAKING!!) Dawkins!🎉🎉 I truly enjoyed listening to you ask him exactly the questions I didn't know I needed answered!!
Great convo. Tough at times. Great job, David. Surprised that Dawkins didn't acknowledge the hate trans people recieve but did call out the minority of people calling out cis women as terfs. I'm not denying it but it's definitely not as bad as what the trans community is going through.
Thank you, however am sure most rational folk are ONLY calling out cis women who actually are TER"F"s", the rest have been mislead/ misinformed by multi pronged, multi-million dollar misinformation campaigns, hate groups and anti trans think tanks supported by the wealthy/ privileged and their large media platforms. The powers that be have framed "the issues" as trans women against cis women" there will always be bad faith people and criminals from every race, sex and gender identity I love my Cis-sisters although we do not have exactly the same experiences of womanhood, they understand why (especially the queer ones) that many issues trans girls/ women face are similar to the double standards, violence, oppression/hypocrisy against them from the ruling misogynistic and sexist patriarchy, excluding of course the reproductive hypocrisy why strong, no submissive women have always been feared and hated by such men.
Richard never plays ball in an interview. I like him. A long time ago he lectured near the university I attended and I skipped lectures to go and listen to him speak. In the Q&A or debate afterwards he was gently ferocious.
An old sour puss scared of change in the English language like many others, Jordan Peterson is fragile and mentally ill yet he has the nerve to pathologize and disrespect all trans folk for living out in the open as their true selves and wants to drive them back into the shadows.
Hello David, given this interview with Richard Dawkins I wonder if you’ve heard of the symphonic rock band Nightwish out of Finland. They have an album called Endless Forms Most Beautiful which they took from Richard Dawkins and an absolutely beautiful epic song called The Greatest Show On Earth which is about evolution and Richard Dawkins narrates parts of it. When they played Wembley Arena about 5, 6 years ago Richard Dawkins came on stage at the end of that song to narrate to massive applause. If you haven’t heard it yet please give it a listen, it’s very powerful.
We too often forget that Psychology is an extension of science and scientific related understanding of how we should conduct ourselves in a healthy and moralistic manner to benefit ourselves and others. And I find that there is far more moral integrity and empathy for others found among those that study in those fields than those that preach in churches.
The official christian denomination (The Church of England) in the UK is anglican, not catholic. It is a different.* It was a big surprise to see someone like Richard Dawkins on your show! I liked it! I agreed with most he said, with the exception of his view on the transgender approach. I feel he has not thought a lot about it yet to come to a more nuanced conclusion/opinion. There is this fact that the not so distant past was not so socially open to people who fall out of the "norm" of sexuality. Now that this is being fought for more openly, many recognize more and feel more boldend to live their life as who they experience they are. Concerning children, there is not sudden decision to start hormones or churgery whatsoever. There is a whole process to go through. I just think he did not give it a lot of thought or explored it well enough yet.
He was completly right. Sex is not a spectrum. Period. No amount of ideology and delusions can change that fact. In fact, there isn´t even any evidence that would justify the separation of gender and sex. And if some people can´t accept facts, then there is nothing we can do. But we are not obliged to take part in their delusions. I have no problem calling a trans woman she, but I will never think of that person as a woman. A woman is an adult female. Notthing else. And trans women belong into men´s sports and certainly have no place in women´s spaces. They can have their own if they like. And Dawkins did explore a lot more than some uneducated activist have. I hear americans aren´t even taught basic biology in some schools anymore becuase of this stupid gender hysteria.
@@andrejluneznik9254 That is the whole "new" thing we have to explore further, isn't it? It is true that biology presents two sexes and intersex. Although the latter is rather small in occurance, it is important to aknowledge their existence. What it does not address is the sexual preference and genderdysphoria. Those two are not determined by the sex, but nevertheless are part of the human species. That is also a fact. It does not pose any downside to economics, just socially there still seems to be big challenges and the backlash they get just does not make sense to me, because we are talking about a fraction of the population. You know it's okay to call it genderdysphoria instead of delusion all the time. I feel one is more respectful than the other, don't you think? "I have no problem calling a trans woman she, but I will never think of that person as a woman." Same. And I do not think there is any trans person who would ever deny the sex they are born with. It could be me, but you seem to only focus mtf, but not ftm. "certainly have no place in women´s spaces." Do you mean like restrooms? Where people just go to head the call of nature... I'm a dude and I would go into the ladies restroom (if there is place) if the male one is too occupied. A toilet is a god darn toilet. The seperation of restrooms is a luxury thing. Concerning open dressingrooms... It depends how this person looks like and behaves tbh. The media (with all do respect) usually show the worst looking ones to fit a narrative. You'd be surprised how many transwomen there are where you wouldn't even be able to tell, even if they stared you in the face. (yup, I know a few) Wether transwomen belong in men sports or not, I find more difficult to answer. Imo they should not be in neither, just because of the implications of the body, unless if these trans have not been through their normal hormoneyears during puberty and got rid of the testes (with mtf) and are on HRT, there really is not much of an issue imo. The occurance of transpeople in sports is also rather small. Know there are enough women who are naturally build like men... But there's no issue there? Did you know there are tests done before you can participate in tournaments? Testimonies by transwomen done that due to the HRT they feel weaker in the muscles and do not have the force like they used to have, even before these transathletes got into the media. I think this sport thing is being blown up out of proportions. Well, the USA and education is a nightmare in =>certain
A pleasure to watch them both. It seems to me that David tends to forget he's talking to a real scientist. Mr. Dawkins cannot comment on whether something has changed over the last 20 years if he does not have the data to show it. You'll need to press a scientist hard for him to comment on what he 'feels' about a subject, and he'll always prefer not to. I love that.
Yes, Richard Dawkins is a clear thinker, but David you are remarkably clear, in every interview you bring the discussion back to where your point and the interviees point can best be understood. That is art \ \
28:37 Don't be pedantic, David. Just because a law doesn't say "jail" or "prison" in the bill, the mere fact that it's in the bill that it's mandatory to use the pronouns and other gender terminology means jail is ultimately a possible outcome. For example, if it's a fine/ticket you have to pay, well, what happens if you don't pay that fine/ticket out of protest? That's right, jail. I'm heartened to see Dawkins takes the exact view I do on the trans movement. I couldn't agree with him more on that.
I have the sense Dawkins really should have been given a list of topics in advance because he showed far too little knowledge on a number of topics regarding American culture and policy to form an opinion. He should definitely have been more riled up about the book banning and general silencing of free thought in American, particularly the law regarding teachers providing certain literature being held feloniously liable, DeSantis taking over school boards and compelling teachers to register their books and school media centers to be emptied out, the end of AP African American, Studies, etc. That said, these are no Dawkins' areas of study or expertise so his voice here is of little consequence. On the other hand, his views on transgenderism and his blindness to many different sexual dimorphisms and aberrations of endocrine function, cellular mosaicisms, etc, should give him a broader view of the issue than he seems to hold. As to his objections on linguistic ground, get over it. When's the last time he's called someone "thee" or "thou"? Language, including pronoun usage, evolves, often rapidly, but his hangups with it obfuscate the point. I feel he's also really straw-manning the issues about LGB vs. T issues. Does he really suppose the greatest discrimination against LGB people comes from T activists? Really??? Is he totally ignoring the broad coalition these groups generally form which, to be clear, is undermined more by TERFs than trans activists. And as to gender affirming care, it is on the table no where in the country to provide sex reassignment surgery to minors. In most places, the most dramatic treatment being discussed for children under 16 is puberty blockers. Can we be done with the red herrings in this discussion? And sure, sure, Dick, transgenderisms is memetically spreading, but I think it's interesting that he names a trans woman he respects and uses her preferred pronouns with no hangups, even though she likely has a "Y" chromosome (not that that's a bad thing!). Kinda circles back around to who we want to give a platform to and who deserves to be met in debate on a level playing field...
Agree 100%, Dawkins was not at all up to date in half the questions David asked. But being an atheist doesn't make one progressive either. Dawkins was definitely ill-informed and downright incorrect several times. Not a great interview. David weakly corrected him on one front. JP basically lied and grew famous over lies about what would happen if he didn't use desired pronouns. Dawkins should know better. JP is not a good model for anything.
I used to defend Dawkins but his increasingly outdated views and knowledge became too much. Even his biological knowledge of sex it simplistic, about GCSE level. Not good enough. I believe he referred to the LGB Alliance, which is actually a group promoting trans hate. He's bought into this nonsense of trans activists being aggressors, when it's actually the anti-trans movement, backed by the UK government and the majority of the UK press, that are promoting transphobia.
@@JD-fx1np Agree. Dawkins is responsible for some brilliant writing, but he clearly has trouble seeing over his own ego, and didn't he get kinda soft-cancelled for some misconduct a few years ago? I love this channel but this video was definitely a fumble.
@@ianissimo He may not be even so un-media savvy, just...think of the digesting of media people who watch this channel, for example, on average on TH-cam, do, then think of how much actual media Dawkins' will ordinarily consume: not as much as even the average viewer of this show. So maybe this is why David is the person to give Dawkins somewhat of a needed take, that will pull him in a better direction. Some good points, here, though.
Dawkins is a legend for his past work, but in his own words he has not kept up to speed on or been concerned by the latest developments in the US. He was ready to point out that morality is constantly shifting and that he sees as being generally progressive. I am flummoxed by his idea that language should not. It comes across as logically inconsistent. English seems to be a most variable and constantly shifting language by nature. One might consider that to be one of many causal factors for its uptake globally. I am almost certain that one can point to several instances where changes in the common use of the English language has preempted (rather than followed) the bigger 'societal' changes. I have heard that argument made by historians and english language experts. I would be keen for anybody to send links if they have them available to hand.
No banning of books should be done in America
Ever
There are some publications that should be withheld from the very young.
Taking porn out of classrooms isn't the same as banning books.
Well, I don't think an elementary schools student needs a book on how to build bombs. Other than overtly dangerous things though I agree.
@@markzuckergecko621where is the porn you’re talking about?
I'm trans myself. Female born in a.male body. Lots of people do think it's a choice. But it's not. No sane person choose a life like that. I feel trapped in my body. When I was a child I thought I was the only one. I was ashamed and to be honest I still feel.ashamed. Nowadays most people know what trans is. There's a possibilty to talk about the subject. It's a good thing for people who are trans. Knowing.you're not alone but on the other hand.... there's so much hate. We're freaks, monsters, disgusting, etc... and sometimes it can be very painfull. I know people mostly don't like what they don't know and it's ok if people don't like me. No hate towards them but it would be so nice to just be quiet if you don't have anything nice to say. Yet again I swear it's not a choice. I feel and I know what I am. I was never confused, nobody forcede me.... I just always knew. I didn't transition my body because once puberty sets in.. it's too late. Your body will form and no matter how many cosmetic surgeries you get... you'll always see there's something of.I'm not that strong to live my life that way just because people are cruel. You will be starred at, bullied and all kinds of negative things. In my opinion if you're under 18 there's a possibility to take hormones and get the surgery done. It will give the best results. But before those things there must be tests done by psychiatrists to see if the person in question is really trans. In this day and age there are some 'activists' who forces their childeren to be something there not just to be progressive and that's horrendous. If a person has doubts about its gender it's probably not a good idea to start procedures. If you're trans... you just know it without hesitation. One more thing, there's a lot of talk about transpeople in professional sports.Every sane person knows that transwoman should not compete with real woman. It hurts me to say but it's reality. Even if your body is transformed it's still male and nothing you can do about that. Mostly it's some type of activist who think it's ok to put transwoman with (real) woman and those activists are hurting us. They're putting us in a very bad place and I hope people will realise that life is hard for us and please don't call us freaks. It hurts. My apologies for my english, it's not my main language. ;)
I love trans women 💜 I'm cis but I'm someone who had an uncomfortable relationship with femininity. Trans women's courage and strength helped me overcome my own issues. I'm so happy to share womanhood with you 💓
But you're not female. You're born in the only body you have, and the only body you ever could have had and still be you. Discomfort at being male is not the same thing as being female. I'm sorry you feel such distress at the reality of your sex, but that doesn't mean I or anyone else should have to pretend that you're really a woman.
And not a single voice raised in over 30 minutes, no bulging eyes or fire spewing. Journalism is so much better when neither the interviewer nor the interviewee is hell-bent on appearing to "win" an argument like we see ad nauseum these days. Just solid and respectable discourse with well-presented questions for one of our greatest thinkers. Well done, David.
They agree on every point. They share the same culture, same economical system, political system, race and world view. There is no point of major disagreement. What i can't understand is that you are glad for no reason and that 2 white english speaking eurocentric guys are in agreement. I was not even expecting it,idiot. They hate the same folks, races and cultures. So, no matter if they show us they agree or not. They already misrepresented islam and christianity.
He hasn't been so civil about people when not face to face though. He's very quick to misrepresent the views of others and demonise people with whom he disagrees. He's just too much of a coward to say it in front of them. He's a pure and simple ideologue.
Couldn't agree more
Oh, shut up.........! Boot licking brown nose....
@@blue24563 Just like everybody. Human behaviour.
“I do not have enough data to answer that question” is so refreshing.
You don't see thats its the same as avoiding issues like the 'no debate' stance from ( for example ) the white fragility activists ?
Seeing Dawkins, I am reminded of how much I miss Christopher Hitchens.
Hitch was one of a kind. I'm sure right wing pseudo intellectuals like Jordan Peterson would have been languishing in total obscurity if Christopher had lived another 10 years. He would have annihilated Peterson and his moronic conjectures
@@jupitermoongauge4055 omg I would kill to see Hitchens and Peterson on the same stage. Peterson's pontificating and gish-galloping wouldn't have lasted long.
Yes indeed to all.
Peterson isn’t fit to clean Hitchens’ boots.
YESSSSS!!! and his hitch-slaps!!! 😁👍
I was worried at first he wasn't in the mood to talk, but you did a great job at getting the conversation started.
Dawkins knows his silly metaphysical lying game is close to over.
Dawkins continues to speak this direct LIE concerning TRUTH. New Atheism does NOT use any scientific methods , they use METAPHYSICS & specifically those in the style of Hegel. That approach with its splitting is binaries suits the invention of thought crime design like white fragility.
New Atheist from its inception was the first wave of WOKE. It was founded to create and design thought crimes & Dawkins could not give a damn about 'The Truth' New atheism has been an exponent of post truth all along new atheist is a thought crime designing project that unleashed the ideas that now plague our lives.
New atheism is Hegelist Metaphysics - see here what A.C. Grayling gets up to : ( QUOTES)
Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates:
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group. - Unquote .
So to focus on this :
''(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;'' - ( Unquote )
In other words the new atheist argument is Metaphysical same as the god argument & no scientific method is involved.
Thank you for this interview with Richard Dawkins.
Except of course when he equated the increased number of people who feel comfortable to express their dysphoria as an "epidemic of measles". Evokes the language used toward gay people and black people in certain bygone eras (and today among the far right)
@@empiricalskeptic I mean right where he said an "epidemic of measles".
@@empiricalskepticwhat’s your point? He respects one single woman? But no one else? Address the actual comment by @accesscrimea, not some distraction effort.
@@sineadmurtagh943 Exactly, Dawkins "respecting" one single woman, but discrediting all the trans people with EQUALLY VALID situations and experiences is no consolation.
This is the same thing the rightwing bigots would do with gay people. They'd pick one and say "we don't hate this one! We aren't hateful!" all while legislating against them and spreading hate.
It's the same situation playing out against trans folks.
@@accesscrimeawhy are you writing the same response for all positive comments? People can like the interview without adhering to your sensibilities. Dawkins isn’t anti-lgbtq by any means.
Richard Dawkins, I'm going to miss that voice in the hopefully distant future. So calming, intelligent and reasonable. The man is a legend.
Hell live on through the atheism alliance. Him and Mrs. Garrison well be pounding monkey holes for a long time coming
Yes.
I mean even when I disagree with his view from time to time, I can understand where he’s coming from as he appears to think about it closely before responding. I can respect that.
The man is also f’ing brilliant, so that helps.
Well, we don't know if we are going to die before him. Nothing is certain.
@@kirapoodle That's a fair point. Richard Dawkins is 82 with chronic high blood pressure and has been warned by his doctors to avoid controversies. Do you see that as possible in this crazy controversy filled world? And then there was Richard Leakey, Paul Farmer, Luc Montagnier, Beatrice Mintz, Beryl Benacerraf, Donald Pinkel, Robert F. Curl Jr., Ben Roy Mottelson, Arthur D. Riggs, Sophie Freud, Kamoya Kimeu and many other scientists who died just in 2022! Death is a part of life. I was devastated when Christopher Hitchens died. That man was a fantastic representative of the truth in my eyes. Dam those cigarettes and alcohol. Oh, and if we die before Dawkins, all our problems and concern evaporate with consciousness. Have a great day!.
A living legend to be sure. I admit to feeling sad at the thought he’ll one day not be with us.
82 y.o. and still going strong, what a legend!
Looking good for his age. 👍
Hardly
@@frelonvert6064 he looks better then some ppl here in America that are in there 60s
why do you know that information, nerd.
@@bloodstone1992A healthy lifestyle and confidence in medical science goes a long way. I doubt Dawkins was popping Ivermectic while bloviating about preserving his "free-dumbs."
I've definitely had some pretty major disagreements with Richard Dawkins over the years, but finding his debates with creationists on early TH-cam started me down the road to questioning what I had been taught as a child and lead me down the road to where I am now, and I'll always have respect for him for that because I know I'm not the only one.
Yes, exactly this. I'm not thrilled with a number of views he's espoused over the years, but he did set me down a path of learning and exploration that changed my life. For that alone he'll always hold a special place for me.
Nobody’s perfect. He would be the first to admit that. He is more honest than many though.
@@bretwilliams249out of curiosity. What are some of his views that you have disagreement with?
What on earth could his views be that you disapprove of?
They're likely referring to his views on social topics like transgender. I'm most bothered by comments he's made that undermine sexual harm towards children. Like when he essentially insinuated people needed to toughen up because he was molested by an adult and turned out fine. Not sure if you're familiar with this? He broached this sentiment more than once in interviews. Look up 'mild pedophilia' with his name and I am sure you'll see them...
Indeed nobody is perfect, and I agree with much of what Dawkins says on a number of topics.
Wow! The Richard Dawkins himself on your show! Incredible!❤
You do realize that dawkins did ZERO of the work he took credit for... He did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to contribute to paleontology, genome research, biological classification etc... While his predecessors (like Darwin) did all the work... All he did was read and regurgitate. As a "professor" he adopted the strategy of insulting people, when they posited questions that he couldn't answer... He's on record responding to students with, "that's a stupid question that doesn't deserve an answer..." I'd say any idiot can behave that way!!!
What a pathetic getfans style hype.
@@cameroncameron2826 lol
You just had your five-second attention. Now regress to your inconsequential life.
Mr Dawkins confronted many lunatics over the years. I can only thank him for his contributions to educating & enlightening me but standing firm in the reality of the world.
th-cam.com/users/shortsZtndH3mHPR4?feature=share
The first lunatics he confronted were those who would follow his tragic marxist political agenda.
Dawkins continues to speak this direct LIE concerning TRUTH. New Atheism does NOT use any scientific methods , they use METAPHYSICS & specifically those in the style of Hegel. That approach with its splitting is binaries suits the invention of thought crime design like white fragility.
New Atheist from its inception was the first wave of WOKE. It was founded to create and design thought crimes & Dawkins could not give a damn about 'The Truth' New atheism has been an exponent of post truth all along new atheist is a thought crime designing project that unleashed the ideas that now plague our lives.
New atheism is Hegelist Metaphysics - see here what A.C. Grayling gets up to : ( QUOTES)
Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates:
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group. - Unquote .
So to focus on this :
''(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;'' - ( Unquote )
In other words the new atheist argument is Metaphysical same as the god argument & no scientific method is involved.
Love that you are speaking to such a distinguished biologist. He is in a level of intelligence that is rare in our debates in the US today.
Too bad that he's a complete idiot in most subjects not related to biology.
Respect for Dawkins, I liked his 'The God Delusion' book. He really needs to trim those eyebrows tho.
I betting now that you’ve heard his views on trans people and how he’s against medical intervention on children that you might review your thoughts on him
@@dorianshadesofgrayyou need a new hobby
@@dorianshadesofgray You clearly are an example of what he means by a trans activist deliberately causing trouble for no good reason. I'm against gender change operations in children. Any sane person should be.
It's official david, you've made it.!! Dawkins is a great get. He's one of my all-time favorites (after christopher Hitchens )
As a Canadian I can tell you no one is planning to make "they' legal nor is it an issue here. J Peterson I fear makes up issues that aren't real.
I mean you're just factually wrong, and that wasn't even Peterson's claim.
As a Canadian, who isn't a fan of Jordan Peterson, that wasn"t his concern
He argued that the bill would classify the failure to use preferred pronouns of transgender people as hate speech, which would be a legitimate concern. However, most legal experts think not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for the Criminal Code offence of promoting hatred.
Peterson was better as a self-improvement and good habit promoting professor. Now he's gone off the rails and the weird deep end of religious nutcases
@jamesshepherd9390 Peterson's claims about Bill C-16 were widely and publicly debunked by a host of legal experts years ago. I wasn't even close. It was flat out lies and he never corrected himself when confronted by the facts which makes it not an honest mistake but makes him a liar and bad faith actor.
@@Avatinfernus he's one of those people who is not always right ,but is never wrong.
A deGrasse Tyson -Peterson debate would rapidly descend into an ego contest.
It's amazing that you had someone like Dr. Dawkins and covered so much ground in just half an hour. Kudos to the host. You were very well prepared.
I like Dawkins because he has a sort of obliviousness to the trending narrative and answers things as he honestly sees them
This interviewer is the exact opposite of Russel Brand.
*Professor Dawkins
I'm very impressed by how neutral and understanding David managed to come across. Not often you hear a progressive being this receptive to alternative opinions.
@@maxkho00 I think he just realized how silly he would look to disagree with one of the greatest living biologists about whether sex is binary.
Like these new interviews you are doing with big time personalities like Dawkins and O’Donnell.
I will admit that it was interesting to see Rosie O'Donnell behaving like a civilized human being for the first time that I can recall.
@@warlockpaladin2261 When you have friends, family, neighbors and your publicist tell you to act that way for decades...eventually it clicks :D
@@zacharyshort384I still remember how she won herself the dubious achievement of being the first host on The View to get booted off the show entirely... but at least she has matured since then, so better late than never. 😅
I have admired Richard Dawkins for a while, so this interview was a treat. Thank you
Except when he equated the increased number of people who feel comfortable to express their dysphoria as an "epidemic of measles". Evokes the language used toward gay people and black people in certain bygone eras (and today among the far right)
@accesscrimea I don't agree with every thing he says either.
@@accesscrimeae's a career biologist and famous atheist writer, I wouldn't expect him to know about the latest, or any, lgbt issues, or where to get that info. His take seems kinda wild
@@moezandy9367 Which is fine of course, but I do take genuine umbrage with his frankly disgusting wording above and beyond any simple disagreement. Let's attribute it to a bout of ageitius!
@@accesscrimea Yeah, that one was hurtful to hear. Like, OK, I get maybe suggesting "punching TERFs in the face" isn't going to garner anyone's sympathy, and that the language we have for describing things sometimes is (speaking strictly from a language perspective) not the clearest it could be.
That said, trans people asking to be treated like people and then being up against all of the targeted bulling from TERFs and LGB groups AND anti-lgbtq+ groups here - expecting no reaction at all is asking for far too much.
I'm confused, how can one recognize the existence of intersex people but also still continue to say that sex is binary? For most people, yes, you fall into one category or the other, but it is also a FACT that some people are not born in a way that fits into either category. If binary implies there can only be a 1 and a 0, the mere FACT that a variation can occur where a number is neither 1 or 0 would indicate it not being binary.
You are not confused. Dawkins' statement is irrational and down right transphobic.
This is the contradiction that had me scratching my head. He says that sex is one of the last true binaries that exist in biology as if it needs to be that way.
Just because humans can lose their fingers doesn't mean the statement 'humans have 10 fingers' is wrong.
@@ZoeBarber Intersex has nothing to do with losing fingers. I suggest you look up the meaning of intersex as it is just a way some people are born.
@@NyandyTheCat do you not understand the parallel?
I am a transgender female. I have studied biology, chemistry, physics, and more at the university level. I agree that sex is binary. I have never been offended being called male or female in any situation and tell those that feel they have offended me to not be. I express myself as female but I was born a male and so that's that. Also something to consider is 1.7% of the population is intersex while only 0.7% are transgender. So if intersex is a negligible percentage and so not necessary to discuss than certainly transgender discussions are blown way out of proportion, simply becoming a political issue which is not an actual issue.
That's actually a very common myth spread throughout the internet. The true rate of intersex is closer to 0.018%. Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
Why do you feel the way you do? Genuine question. Why do you struggle with your identity?
@@Simon53188 I don't struggle..I think that is what I was trying to say. Maybe others struggle over my identity? What makes you think I struggle?
I commend you, but you express yourself as feminine, not as female, being female refers to biological sex.
@@iuliaionelapetcu1411 This being an example of others struggling with my identity. If you really want to dictionary this idea then let's remember that being female is able to produce eggs that can be fertilized by a male and so any "female" that can't do this is no longer a female. Let us now begin the rage that is the internet.
David, that was an excellent interview with Professor Dawkins.
Good interview. I think David could have pushed him a little harder on the last question though, that being; "Are the trans community the new societal scapegoats that gays once were?" Dawkins deflected like a politician on that point.
He didn’t deflect, Pakman repeatedly asked him his views on American culture war issues to which Dawkins had explained he only follows a little from a distance (he’s British). And he pointed to local reports in the UK on the matter
@@pathologicaldoubtthe abuse and scapegoating of transgender people is just as awful in the UK as in America.
Unfortunately for a man of great intellect he shows none of it in relation to the subject at hand.
The LGB group he refers to is a hate group established with American right wing money in order to attack trans rights and they have done so as only the evangelical fundamentalists in the US can.
They are exactly the same as the GAG lunatics over there. The Gays Against Groomers that are now falling apart after the shock that DeSantis is coming after them now he’s already destroyed trans rights in Florida.
This is well known in the UK. It takes some effort on the part of a person of intelligence to remain ignorant of it.
Effort, or an intellect that is no longer what it once was.
@@pathologicaldoubt That's a deflection- it's not as if the same arguments aren't pushed in the UK media.
@@mrmr446 sadly i'd argue that the UK is nowhere near as bad as the US in terms of trans rights
@@ilect1690 didn't say it was but I very much doubt he is unaware of the media campaign the host alluded to, there haven't been the same results as the US but the claims about transfolk are widely known.
As an avid people watcher and fan of Richard Dawkins since I was a boy ( He used to do the BBC Christmas lectures way back in the 80's 90's) I enjoyed that thoroughly.
He warmed to David because to begin with his expression said "Let's get this over with" I imagine he was quite surprised to get intelligent questions and thoughts from an American.
Amazing..... 🙂
I'd be shocked if Dawkins had interacted with so few Americans that he'd be surprised that a professional American broadcaster from Massachusetts is intelligent.
@@gigameter I think you prove my point.
@@mobsiesixsixsix9785 Tf you talking about? What point? Massachusetts has a better education system than Britain.
@@gigameter You just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it's a great comfort for you. But the UK is still the best place in the world to get an education. As I said. You prove my point for me. Being stupid is obviously important to you.
@@gigameter "What point" Oh dear. Seems you can't even manage basic comprehension.
I love Dawkins. Reading “The God Delusion” changed my life, and I will ever be grateful for that.
The "God Delusion" is just an anti-Abrahamic religions narrative with scientific arguments against patriarchal totalitarian omnipotent God. I agree with Dawkins, all Abrahamic gods are inhumanely oppressive and hinders the human development of societal culture because of its sickening perception toward people's lives.
Once you realise new atheism only helped crush christianity in order to helped install a separate abrahamic religion you won't feel the same. Hopefully by that time you see they were in fact a thought crime modelling lab whose designs cancelled everyones free speech as well.
Yeah...There's no God delusion whatsoever. God placed evidence if you know where to look. "professing to be wise, they became fools". Richard Dawkins was one of the most idiotic people ever given a chance to speak.
@@TheConstitutionalOathkeeper Congratulations......you just reinforced every claim that Dawkins has ever made about people like you. Quick to judge, quick to anger, and slow to understand - just like the god you worship.
I spent years studying the origins of the bible, and where the ideas in it came from. I spent years debating people like yourself about the existence of god - and your crappy one-liner platitudes such as - "You just have to know where to look!"
Know where to look......
Where? The bible? Already tried that - turns out that it's man-made fiction. Outer space? Already tried that. Nothing has come fourth that has presented itself as a god for all to see. My mind? Already tried that. Turns out it was nothing more than years of indoctrination and brainwashing.
So what do you have left but to make ignorant slags against a world-renown scientist and educator? You have nothing in your arsenal. I have debated the likes of you more times than I can count, and you people always get sent home with your tail between your legs, because you don't have any good arguments for your beliefs that cannot be backed by any historical or scientific evidence. So don't even try, you're wasting your time.
This will be my only reply, so with that being said - good day.
'The God Delusion' is a great book. I enjoyed it.
Love Richard, what a legend.
I love Professor Dawkins. One of the Four Horsemen. I can listen to him talk all day long. Brilliant and humble man.
The Four Horsemen: The Conversation That Sparked an Atheist Revolution (book, 2019)
by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett
Foreword by Stephen Fry
A review by Steven Poole in the Guardian: “The Four Horsemen review - whatever happened to ‘New Atheism’?”
I have a lot of respect for Dawkins. Only recently started watching him now. I watch him all the time.
Scrooge -Dawkins - What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!
@@afsar_gunner5271the third time I've read this pathetic comment... you've really got nothing of substance to say it seems.
Can you not tell the difference between attacking an idea and attacking people. YOU are attacking Dawkins... Ad Hominem... because you don't like the ideas he has espoused. Dawkins has never advocated attacking people for what they believe, he attacks that demonstrable falsity of the belief.
Unlike religions that prescribe murdering people for believing something different.
@@afsar_gunner5271 The trouble is that Dawkins applies quite a narrow definition of religion, he only sees it as religion when it opposes science. So when he talks about Christianity, he already excludes about half of the christians who are catholic, at least those following the formal dogma of the catholic church concerning science. His whole 'atheistic fanatasism' seems to narrow down on keeping religious dogma's out of the science classes, though alas he is only explicit about this when specifically asked, thereby alienating many religious people who share that goal and would have otherwise been his ally.
Dr. Dawkins is as articulate as always. This was a most welcome surprise, David, thank you.
So you believe in half-breed ape men? Millions of years never happened to even begin to support that fairy tale.
Millions of years never happened.
"It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried."
"It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals."
"How many years are we talking about? 10 million between trilobite tracks and trilobite fossils; 35 million between amphibian tracks and amphibian fossils; and 10 million between dinosaur tracks and dinosaur fossils. That is a curious pattern indeed."
As an Australian who has followed Dawkins & Christopher Hutchins for years & years ...I think it was a terrible interview.. Dawkins was completely unprepared for David's "USA only related questions"
@@cherylmccloud8709 his information regarding UK events was grossly lacking too. He has made reference to the same easily checked misinformation in multiple interviews.
Scrooge -Dawkins has written books based on lies - just to make money What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!
@@afsar_gunner5271So 'The Selfish Gene' was an anti-Christian grift? 'The Extended Phenotype' was just to insult innocent religious people?
I think you might be confusing innocence with ignorance and projecting malice... a man who has studied evolutionary biology has every right to publish books explaining how there is no evidence demonstrating Yaweh made Adam from clay, or Eve from a rib. And in particular if you're in the US, you should respect the Contituionally guaranteed freedom of speech that he was exercising.
Massive feather in your cap, David. Thoughtful, entertaining and educational interview. Bravo.
This was a very interesting interview. Dawkins is a very serious person. Always sincere, never dramatic or exaggerated.
Are you kidding me????? There are MILES of film recorded where dawkins has engaged in moot and pointless debates about theism, atheism, and agnosticism... The dude is the quintessential mental masturbator... What's worse is that he is the ANTITHESIS of "dispassionate" as you describe him, he's on record ranting like a child and insulting people for disagreeing with him, or presenting contrasting points of view. The sum of his whole life has been an emotional trip of railing against organized religion from an obtuse and completely unscientific belief set that "time" is the factor that explains how all evolutionary processes came to be without intelligent design!!! That's his answer... "given enough time, a pile of turds will eventually grow a brain and solve the conundrum of fusion ignition." LOL!!! Seriously... You have no clue what an ass this man has made of himself!!! "Never dramatic" LOL!!! Jesus Kryst, the man goes on stage to debate Deepak Chopra and starts screaming @ people that religion should be abolished!!! He's even threatened by AGNOSTICISM for pete's sake!!!!
I can’t say I would agree with that. The man’s a zealot
@@jimohara This comment was like hearing a magatard say that, "trump loves america"... Absurd!!
@@jimoharaCan you expoand on that or is it just vapid ranting.
@@jimoharai don't think you know what the word zealot means
Bravo David for this high-quality interview and exchange with such an esteemed and intelligent academic like Mr. Dawkins. I could listen to him all day. His replies are always considerate and thoughtful and notice how forthright he is when he doesn’t know and readily admits he doesn’t have the expertise to reply.
Just a great interview! Thank you.
Except when it comes to his unsupported assertions about gender.
@@porkramen Your claim is that his "assertion is unsupported", but what he spoke to as a biologist is the relative biological truths and he is one of the foremost people in the world to speak on the matter and his claims are fully backed by the data.
@@forex_shark6042 no they aren't, champ
@@porkramen And Banning books
@@forex_shark6042Lots of biologists disagree with him on this issue. He is presenting his opinion, not the scientific consensus.
Dawkins is a legend! So great to see him on this show. Always intelligent, sincere and insightful; he is the culmination of what makes the human race great.
Yet he was SO WRONG on COVID!!!!!!!!!! And then not knowing about book banning in America---for an intellectual, he appears to be quite ignorant.
Looks like an offended garden gnome to me.
@@rrickarr I'm not familiar with what he said on Covid, but why should a British biologist know about book banning in the States? It's irrelevant to us
@@PhilosophicalTramp-lu2mi because its merica bro there are no other news like merica news.
@@rrickarr Where was he SO WRONG? I believe he explained it quite clearly.
Professor Dawkins is a champion for rationality and the rigorous scientific method.
Richard Dawkins, a brilliant man! 👏🏽
Brilliant on some fronts for sure, but a massive disappointment the second he opens his mouth about trans issues.
@@w0ody16
How is he a massive disappointment on "trans issues" exactly?
@@getme2morenow565 Everything he said in the last 8 minutes was misinforming people.
95% of what he said prior was on point. That's why it's quite disappointing to see. I even own one of his books.
@@w0ody16
So you would not agree with gis statement to the effect that sex," is one of the few binary things we have..everything else is a continium "?
What else would a biologist think ?
@@phillipsugwas I would clarify that if we are talking about just sex, not gender, the two are quite different.
Then I'd remind Dawkins as an esteemed biologist who should know this that there are intersex people.
This alone shows that it's not binary and is what's known as bimodal distribution. He should know better which is why this is all quite disappointing.
People like Richard Dawkins are very important for the world in which we live. He provides nuance and a clear head in his approach to issues that are prone to evoke emotions and extremism. Thank you David Pakman for this interview, I hope more will follow.
Dawkins continues to speak this direct LIE concerning TRUTH. New Atheism does NOT use any scientific methods , they use METAPHYSICS & specifically those in the style of Hegel. That approach with its splitting is binaries suits the invention of thought crime design like white fragility.
New Atheist from its inception was the first wave of WOKE. It was founded to create and design thought crimes & Dawkins could not give a damn about 'The Truth' New atheism has been an exponent of post truth all along new atheist is a thought crime designing project that unleashed the ideas that now plague our lives.
New atheism is Hegelist Metaphysics - see here what A.C. Grayling gets up to : ( QUOTES)
Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates:
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group. - Unquote .
So to focus on this :
''(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;'' - ( Unquote )
In other words the new atheist argument is Metaphysical same as the god argument & no scientific method is involved.
A lot of old people, even old intellectuals, seem to have weird ideas about trans people and "trans activists." What is the difference between supporting gay people and trans people? Because trans people also deal with body changes? Are these same people against plastic surgery or is this just reserved for people who are dealing with gender dysmorphia. As soon as I here someone say that being trans is a "trend" I tend to tune out. Clearly they don't really know what they are talking about.
And proceed to inform us of a friend of his that he supported that went through those exact things!
@@dandawson1982 I was shocked that Dawkins wasn't able to recognize his own warped perspective here. It's obvious that he reserves respect and validation for specific individuals like his friend, but shows a generalized disdain for what he understands as the trans movement.
@@Wonzling0815 I don't think that is what he is saying here. Warped? Shocked? He has a right to disagree (he said he would respect a person's presentation in life - just doesn't feel it should be a law that he has to follow). I understand your feelings on it but disdain is not the appropriate word. He has concerns about some aspects. It doesn't mean he tunes it out or poo-poos it. He states that he is fine that someone was helped by surgery, and I cannot discount his feelings on it being a trend. If you're of a certain age, you have seen a lot of things, including a time when every other person, it seemed, suddenly was bisexual. The same is true here. I mean, how many men now are guilty of sexual assault all of a sudden after #metoo. I am a woman and I do not choose to believe that every single man is a lecherous sexually deviant criminal. But I cannot go a day without every other celebrity, athlete being accused of it. I know that a lot of things went silent for forever, but it cannot be ALL men. Of course the converse thinking is perhaps more are reporting things and being more open publicly about things. But there does suddenly seem to be a ton of people that say they are trans. Are we keeping everyone quiet and now half the world is trans? There was a kid in school who was validated, because of a movement, to say he identified as a tree.
@@jbjacobs9514 I can clearly see why Dawkins' words would meet your approval. You seem to be quite content with your firm perspective, too, good for you.
I agree that it seems to be a generational thing where they are “ok” with a certain level of trans persecution. Dawkins can’t see that trans people are being scapegoated/persecuted by the right? He thinks it’s a war between gay and trans??! I dunno. Maybe he’s a little out of touch on that issue. He’s falling back on some shit that Jordan Peterson was whining about in 2016
Thank you for this insightful interview, David. It's much appreciated.
Dawkins is one of my heroes. Much respect! Two of my favorite guys in this great interview. Thank you David 💙
I thought he wasted his time debating with Biblical Creationists.
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 as if RD is some challenge. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Be quiet
@@FactStorm no. It's fun and easy crushing RD.
@@2fast2block Or so you think..you haven't crushed anyone and cannot. You have been posting the same copy-and-paste straw man for years..and everyone has debunked you, yet you remain incessant in your religious delusions. What a retard..
Thanks David. One of the most civil interviews I've seen in ages. I'm a lifelong atheist and I've been a great admirer of Mr. Dawkins for years. I guess he articulated my thoughts on religion.
It was only civil because he was only looking for agreement and validation. He intentionally avoided any area of disagreement because he knew he would have no argument against Dawkins.
@@blue24563 , it's called building report.. He did a great job of gaining Dawkins trust by starting with what he knows they agree on and then move into the disagreements at the end..
There's no point in arguing against him on something he's not even willing to discuss in good faith.. I'm not sure he's even willing to discuss it with fellow biologists, many of which disagrees with Dawkins on sex and gender..
The Blind Watch Maker and The Selfish Gene helped free my mind from religion back in my college days. Thank you Mr. Richard Dawkins.
The selfish gene is brilliant!
Religion &religious beliefs are nought but ideology with no basis in historical fact
The bible wasn't written until around 400 hundred years after the supposed occurrences depicted in the new testament, it was also written by power hungry patriarchal monks intent on controlling society
Scrooge -Dawkins - What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!
@@afsar_gunner5271have you read The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker?
Atracking ideas is not attacking people. Unlike religions that prescribe murdering people for holding different beliefs.
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
The Renowned Richard Dawkins Resting Scowl ☹️😄
It almost seemed that Richard misunderstood the final question. It would have been interesting to hear a followup. It almost seemed as though he thought you were asking about the gay community using the transgender community as a scapegoat. If you arrange another interview I think it would interesting to confirm whether that was a misunderstanding or, how it literally came across, just a wild diversion from your question.
That's how it seemed to me too.
I think a lot of these oldsters are just out of touch and are opining on things they don't have much education on. Dawkins kinda said as much when he was talking about the cultural shifts towards liberalism over centuries and decades.
For example, my grandma is pushing 100 I don't expect her to keep up on culturally appropriate language and attitudes. It's just too much of a lift for her when her ideas have been set for longer than I've been alive.
It seemed to me he deflected from politicians scapegoating trans people to some gay activists bullying trans people. Did anyone pay attention to the trans inclusivity of the Pride celebrations two weeks ago?
I’m pretty sure David won’t be inviting Richard Dawkins on again
Dawkins gave Dave's disingenuous leftist orthodoxy the smackdown. The trans and LGB are not getting along in Britain and Richard clearly isn't very sympathetic toward the T. He is an evolutionary biologist. From the top rope
@@michvroom8784 Dawkins is a smart guy. I think the political discussions around this subject in the UK are different, and that the way things are in the U.S. is not easy to keep up with for anyone if they're not actively paying a lot of attention to U.S. politics. I also suspect that Dawkins is in a bit of a "bubble" in terms of the people he's getting information from about these subjects out of the U.S. I really wish that Dawkins could have taken the time, before the interview itself, to have a long private discussion with David Pakman. I think David could have really helped him understand the contemporary American political landscape and debates much better around these issues.
I absolutely love seeing this video! Richard Dawkins is one-in-a-million he is truly a world treasure and if I saw somebody else comment he genuinely makes me miss having the legendary Christopher Hitchens! Both excellent and truly exemplary men! Thanks David!😊
David could have pushed him further on accepting gender and sex as seperate.
@@joshuataylor3550 He could have indeed, and Richard Dawkins would probably have pushed back a little harder.
@@mourlyvold64pushing back is pretty gay
@@joshuataylor3550You mean "gender" as in sex stereotypes, or "gender" as in "gender identity" =sex-stereotyped soul woo-woo..?
@@mourlyvold64Dawkins could push back harder, but he would still been wrong. He is welcome to his opinion, but he should present it as such, rather than as "settled" scientific fact. This is where Dawkins is sadly disingenuous.
He is so soft spoken and that makes him a great advocate against organized religion. Thanks for this interview David.
Any religion period
@@digbycrankshaft7572 Agreed.
You obviously haven't seen him in his former arrogant self.
Great interview, David! I've followed Dawkins' career for a long time now. His old debates helped me escape the grasp of religion.
Yes. Him and Julia Sweeney.
Jesus can help you be saved forever from sin. Not religion but Him
@@Bravkata You're on the wrong channel bud.
Why? He doesnt have particularly great arguments aside from silly hypothesis he thinks counter religion
Hallayulea !
Recently I had my issues with Richard Dawkins because of my concerns with his views about trans people. This interview has changed my mind a bit. By listening to him during this interview, it seems his view on transgender people is not derogatory. He obviously is not for children seeking gender affirming care but seems to think that adult may make those decisions for themselves. He did mention that he thinks the current situation around transgender people seems to be a fade of late. I’m don’t agree with that assessment but he is certainly for human rights. This was a good interview and I appreciate hearing what RD had to say and how David handled this interview. Great job David!
His opinions on the state of gender-affirming care for minors are based on false information and can be dismissed. He's not authoritative in the subject.
RD seems to think the activist community just woke up one day with random malice in their heart. Those people are such a tiny minority of the millions of trans people. And when it's those people he's laser focusing on in every discussion, it seems like he has bad intentions toward that community.
Studies show that trans people who find gender affirming care when young (before/during puberty) have better mental health on average. For example, those treated 14-15 are happier than those treated 16-17, who in turn are happier than those treated 18+. This isn't remotely surprising: would you want to stand out your whole life because you're visibly trans or simply pass as a member of the general populace? And that's not even mentioning the dysphoria you'll be saddled with the rest of your life.
So yes, there is indeed a conflict. Either we believe trans people, letting them get the treatment they need at the proper age and blend into society, or literally remove their bodily autonomy to permanent effect and put them at the mercy of random far-right lunatics who spot them in public and think they're groomers or something.
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423
www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/
I respect a lot of Dawkins' biological work (research into evolution, etc.), as well as his anti-theism, but, on trans issues, he's dead wrong. In this interview, he basically says "women can't have penises" and that misgendering is fine. Also that biological sex in humans is binary - it's not.
At some point, I would've named him among my intellectual heroes, but this makes me sad.
@@timberwoofhe didnt claim to be authorative on the subject. He gave his opinion
He has bought into anti-trans (and in particular TERF) rhetoric. He claimed sex is a binary in one sentence and in the next admitted (grudgingly) that intersex people exist, which is proof positive that sex is NOT a binary. He also cited imaginary situations of children being injected with hormones and receiving cross-sex surgery, which is also not true. And claimed a largely imaginary divide between the rest of the queer community and "trans activists" by citing a literal hate group that supports trans conversion therapy. I don't consider any of that proof that he is "certainly for human rights."
Love seeing Richard Dawkins in good health and mood. Greetings from Brazil.
I love Ruchard Dawkins. I am happy to see he is well ❤
One of the pros that sets Mr. Pakman apart from his contemporaries, is the inflection in his speech. He accentuates as well as paints a picture with his use of figurative language. The listener is carried away in careful hands. He chooses his words so surgically that his video's transcripts can be documented verbatim.
@samildanach I am perplexed by your tone. I AM NOT " NATIVE" OR A YOUNG PERSON WHO HAS UNEDUCATED PARENTS. MY FATHER IS AN LOGISTICS ENGINEER FROM LOCKEED MARTIN AND MY MOTHER IS AN REGISTERED NURSE.
I USED A THESAURUS FROM THE 5TH GRADE
I AM NOT ONLY AN HOMECOMING QUEEN, CHEERLEADER BUT A DEBATE AND PERSUASIVE SPEECH AWARD WINNER. I EARNED MY MBA AND LAW DEGREE AS WELL.
MY COMMENT IS NOT BASED FROM AN IMMIGRANT PERSPECTIVE
@@samildanach CONDESCENDING COMMENT FROM A FRAGILE WHITE PERSON
@@Nicole-bj4dvyou, uh... you okay, mate?
@@_.violyse._ Not A MATE!
@@Nicole-bj4dv everyone's a mate to me, dear.
Fantastic interview. Thank You, David Pakman.
Great to see the brilliant Professor Richard Dawkins!
Richard Dawkins was very important for my personal Journey in dealing with religious Members of my Family. I certainly don't agree with all of his viewpoints, but I think its a great effort of David to proof, that you can have a reasonable and friendly discussion about these topics without falling into hostile conflict that just keeps dividing us.
You should introduce your religious family members to communist interpretations of Christianity
But what if hostile conflict is called for? Dawkins blithely stated that sex is a binary (it's not and he even admitted to the existence of intersex people which is absolute proof of no binary), cited imaginary cases of children being injected with hormones and getting surgeries, and espoused that gay people are against the "trans activists" by mentioning the LGB Alliance as some sort of validation for this. An organization which has been described as an anti-trans hate group that wants trans conversion therapy to remain legal and for all trans related medical care for youth (such as puberty blockers) to be banned, among other anti-trans positions.
I'd say that spouting anti-trans rhetoric calls for hostile response and David was soft balling it. Which means either David was intimidated by his guest or his previously stated views on trans issues was pandering.
Super disappointing to see David fold in this way. We know he has the chops to do better. He didn't. Dawkins may have been a giant at one time but now he has bought into anti-trans BS and he needs to be called out in a serious way. Dawkins himself described the necessity of publicly fighting rhetoric when it relates to serious issues. His concern was anti-vax misinformation. But it holds for his own arguments when they are erroneous and dangerous.
His books
his tv shows
His debates
his teaching as well.
is outstanding.
Yet many of the comments here are so disrespectful to Sir Dawkins. They have no idea what they're talking about of course.
1:15 You're got to love Richard Dawkins reminding David that the USA's domestic news stories aren't headline material around the world.
I think some people in the US would be genuinely shocked to learn that news in other countries isn't just about what America did today.
@@blackenedsprite8542 True. Well, I suppose if you're raised to believe that you're living in "the shining city on the hill" that all of the barbarians fumbling around in the darkness of the rest of the world look toward with either awe and reverence or envy and hatred, and nothing in between, then the last thing you expect is indifference.
How performing sexual reassignment surgery on a child is even a debatable topic, is just wild
Its Satanism. All of these people are Satanists, Kabbalists and Zionists. Anyone who is brought on TV to speak or is made popular on the internet or his books get published, is fake.
Many Democrat voters aren't huge fans of that for sure. Although many voters of both parties aren't huge fans of what voters of the opposing party do/teach their kids already and have to live with it. Should parents be allowed to perform genital mutilation on their kids (circumcision)? Should parents be allowed to teach their kids that their gay neighbors are evil and not to be trusted and will burn in hell for all eternity?
Yeah, it probably should be decided by medical professionals rather than politicians or general public
@@IvanBaturaChannel no such decision should be made by ANYBODY aside from making the decision, and ONLY if the person making it has a fully developed brain.
@@IvanBaturaChannel Why? There's not a medical reason for doing it in the first place.
I clicked on this video with tears in my eyes. Thanks for bringing on such a wonderful guest
U cried before u watched it ?
@K1chad it's a bit of a meme that David plays off sometimes, a sort of 'Trump Bingo' staple.
Are you a big strong man, sir?
Richard Dawkins! Such a legend! Look up to him a lot!
He's a total fraud.
Millions of years never happened.
"It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried."
"It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals."
"How many years are we talking about? 10 million between trilobite tracks and trilobite fossils; 35 million between amphibian tracks and amphibian fossils; and 10 million between dinosaur tracks and dinosaur fossils. That is a curious pattern indeed."
Why?
@@arnedomibecause he attacks the rich and powerful goddamn churches.
Scrooge -Dawkins - What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!
@@afsar_gunner5271 They’re not innocent. They’re trying to force their religion onto people who aren’t as goddamn stupid as they are, and that’s unacceptable. Cope harder, dear.
Thank you for this interview. Big fan of Richard Dawkins.
It was great to see Richard Dawkins interviewed on your show. I have nothing but great respect for him.
Damn good job here David. Richard Dawkins is an absolute legend and your thoughtful, nuanced questions elicited excellent responses. As always with Dawkins, it would’ve been best to speak for 2-3 hours or more, but you only had your 30ish minutes. Applause to you for great prep, thoughtful questions and overall just great discussion. Hopefully you can have him back on to discuss these same issues and maybe more about Islam in the face of what has reared its ugly head since Oct 7th.
I've always been a big fan of Dawkins but his unscientific use of J Peterson's pointless pronoun protest as example is too much .
The Canadian statute re: pronouns has no such proscription or any punishment for not following what are clearly stated guidelines and suggestions, not requirements of employment (kudos to David for trying to point this out). Dawkins should know this. And why would he align himself, intellectually, with Peterson at all??
Further, his apparent lack of ability to grasp any distinction between sexual difference and gender is kind of frustrating, not to mention a useful tool for the anti-trans right.
Finally, Dawkins brings up an incredibly rare attack by a trans person on a "straight" person, utterly blind to the millennia of abuse, attacks, rapes and general violence against LGBT+ people. That's hardly a scientifically informed position to take.
Regardless, excellent interview as usual by DP.
I was a young Dawkins debate watcher on "old TH-cam" so I really appreciate this interview as a paying member! A lot has changed both with the world and my politics and nuance in my world view so it's interesting to hear from him again - especially after I had disagreements with him over trans comments I came across.
I gotta watch that film and more of his books now that they're brought to my attention! I do own a hard copy of The God Delusion. 🙂
I have shared similar appreciation for Dawkins over the years and similar concerns about some of his trans comments.
@@davidadams2395 I feel like the trans stance he had was a somewhat reactionary one. And I feel like he'll have some future concerns about letting himself get drawn into this cultural debate down the line. "Oops! Shouldn't have been the 'Actually' guy right there.."
@@davidadams2395 It is largely just an extension of being critical about all religions - Dawkins doesn't pick favourites. I feel I understand Dawkin's position on Trans ideology because I share a similar one, and share similar logic with most other points Dawkins makes.
The case here is essentially that religion shouldn't be pushed upon anyone. If I don't want to call a Christian priest 'Father', I do not have to. I also do not need to pray, I do not need to forgo something at lent, I do not need to follow the Christian commandments or decisions. Same goes for Islam. Same goes for Hinduism. Same goes for Trans.
Policies should not be made based on religion, laws should not enforce people to obey religious prescripts.
Richard is a man who doesn’t need to use any excessive words to make his point. Refreshing!
If I am informed correctly, the books that Ron DeSantis censored were books that displayed gay (or any other) sexuality to 6-year old children. That to me seemed the right thing to do. You have to be accurate when you talk about these things.
That's why lowlife lying loser Pakman couldn't name a single book when Dawkins asked. Neither can any of the people licking Pakmans nuts in these comments.
So, ban the bibles too.
Thank you David for bringing some of the best content ever. This man is interesting I will look for more of his interviews.
Richard is a legend, along with his old friend Christopher Hitchens.
Please do👍
A Richard Dawkins documentary that I watched back in 2011 or 2012 is what lead me to fully embrace atheism. I will be forever grateful to him for that and for leading me to some other great atheist thinkers like Christopher Hitchens.
Was that the one with the diviners?
@@GregorBarclay I don't remember, it was more than a decade ago and I haven't looked it up again recently.
Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, Brinelious.
Loved the video, David. You’re interviewing is top notch and I respect the both of your for taking these issues seriously and giving reasonable responses.
Scrooge -Dawkins has written books based on lies- just to make money What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!
Yes. David Packman is at the top of his game. David is very intelligent and fair minded.
Dawkins is truly a treasure, the man along with Hitchens literally changed my life and deprogramed me into a better person. This is your best interview get ever David. What an honor to speak with him.
It's such a pleasure listening to intelligent, reasonable people speak.
It's becoming more and more difficult to find.
What a great score getting an interview with Dawkins; and you didn't waste the opportunity. Nicely done David.
I really enjoyed that. Thank you for interviewing him.
What an incredible conversation you and Richard (FREAKING!!) Dawkins!🎉🎉 I truly enjoyed listening to you ask him exactly the questions I didn't know I needed answered!!
Simple elegance! Dawkins' work, as is Carl Sagan's, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Robert Ingersoll, pure enlightenment and timeless.
Great interview, Dave. Killing it per usual
Great convo. Tough at times. Great job, David. Surprised that Dawkins didn't acknowledge the hate trans people recieve but did call out the minority of people calling out cis women as terfs. I'm not denying it but it's definitely not as bad as what the trans community is going through.
Thank you, however am sure most rational folk are ONLY calling out cis women who actually are TER"F"s", the rest have been mislead/ misinformed by multi pronged, multi-million dollar misinformation campaigns, hate groups and anti trans think tanks supported by the wealthy/ privileged and their large media platforms.
The powers that be have framed "the issues" as trans women against cis women" there will always be bad faith people and criminals from every race, sex and gender identity
I love my Cis-sisters although we do not have exactly the same experiences of womanhood, they understand why (especially the queer ones) that many issues trans girls/ women face are similar to the double standards, violence, oppression/hypocrisy against them from the ruling misogynistic and sexist patriarchy, excluding of course the reproductive hypocrisy why strong, no submissive women have always been feared and hated by such men.
David conducted that interview so well. Loved it.
Thank you for bringing Richard Dawkins on to your show!
I love this man. Thank you for bringing Dawkins on the program, David.
Scrooge -Dawkins - What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!
@@afsar_gunner52714th time I've read this cut and paste nonsense...
One of the great thinkers of our time.
Richard never plays ball in an interview. I like him. A long time ago he lectured near the university I attended and I skipped lectures to go and listen to him speak. In the Q&A or debate afterwards he was gently ferocious.
Brilliant! Thank you very much, I always love to hear from Richard Dawkins!
this is awesome. ill watch anything with richard dawkins. what a guy
An old sour puss scared of change in the English language like many others, Jordan Peterson is fragile and mentally ill yet he has the nerve to pathologize and disrespect all trans folk for living out in the open as their true selves and wants to drive them back into the shadows.
The world is a better place with Richard Dawkins ❤
- without
there, i fixed it for you.
So happy you had Dawkins on!!
Well done. There isn’t a time where I won’t stop and listen to what that man has to say. You did a great interview David!
Hello David, given this interview with Richard Dawkins I wonder if you’ve heard of the symphonic rock band Nightwish out of Finland. They have an album called Endless Forms Most Beautiful which they took from Richard Dawkins and an absolutely beautiful epic song called The Greatest Show On Earth which is about evolution and Richard Dawkins narrates parts of it. When they played Wembley Arena about 5, 6 years ago Richard Dawkins came on stage at the end of that song to narrate to massive applause. If you haven’t heard it yet please give it a listen, it’s very powerful.
The greatest show on earth is also the title of one of his books, I believe a title lifted from Darwin's writing
Pakman has been hitting it outta the park with these recent interviews! 👏 👏
Best interview ever! Richard Dawkins is a legend!
We too often forget that Psychology is an extension of science and scientific related understanding of how we should conduct ourselves in a healthy and moralistic manner to benefit ourselves and others. And I find that there is far more moral integrity and empathy for others found among those that study in those fields than those that preach in churches.
The official christian denomination (The Church of England) in the UK is anglican, not catholic. It is a different.*
It was a big surprise to see someone like Richard Dawkins on your show! I liked it!
I agreed with most he said, with the exception of his view on the transgender approach.
I feel he has not thought a lot about it yet to come to a more nuanced conclusion/opinion. There is this fact that the not so distant past was not so socially open to people who fall out of the "norm" of sexuality. Now that this is being fought for more openly, many recognize more and feel more boldend to live their life as who they experience they are. Concerning children, there is not sudden decision to start hormones or churgery whatsoever. There is a whole process to go through.
I just think he did not give it a lot of thought or explored it well enough yet.
He was completly right. Sex is not a spectrum. Period. No amount of ideology and delusions can change that fact. In fact, there isn´t even any evidence that would justify the separation of gender and sex. And if some people can´t accept facts, then there is nothing we can do. But we are not obliged to take part in their delusions. I have no problem calling a trans woman she, but I will never think of that person as a woman. A woman is an adult female. Notthing else. And trans women belong into men´s sports and certainly have no place in women´s spaces. They can have their own if they like. And Dawkins did explore a lot more than some uneducated activist have. I hear americans aren´t even taught basic biology in some schools anymore becuase of this stupid gender hysteria.
@@andrejluneznik9254 That is the whole "new" thing we have to explore further, isn't it?
It is true that biology presents two sexes and intersex. Although the latter is rather small in occurance, it is important to aknowledge their existence.
What it does not address is the sexual preference and genderdysphoria. Those two are not determined by the sex, but nevertheless are part of the human species. That is also a fact. It does not pose any downside to economics, just socially there still seems to be big challenges and the backlash they get just does not make sense to me, because we are talking about a fraction of the population.
You know it's okay to call it genderdysphoria instead of delusion all the time. I feel one is more respectful than the other, don't you think?
"I have no problem calling a trans woman she, but I will never think of that person as a woman." Same.
And I do not think there is any trans person who would ever deny the sex they are born with. It could be me, but you seem to only focus mtf, but not ftm.
"certainly have no place in women´s spaces."
Do you mean like restrooms? Where people just go to head the call of nature... I'm a dude and I would go into the ladies restroom (if there is place) if the male one is too occupied. A toilet is a god darn toilet. The seperation of restrooms is a luxury thing. Concerning open dressingrooms... It depends how this person looks like and behaves tbh. The media (with all do respect) usually show the worst looking ones to fit a narrative. You'd be surprised how many transwomen there are where you wouldn't even be able to tell, even if they stared you in the face. (yup, I know a few)
Wether transwomen belong in men sports or not, I find more difficult to answer. Imo they should not be in neither, just because of the implications of the body, unless if these trans have not been through their normal hormoneyears during puberty and got rid of the testes (with mtf) and are on HRT, there really is not much of an issue imo. The occurance of transpeople in sports is also rather small. Know there are enough women who are naturally build like men... But there's no issue there?
Did you know there are tests done before you can participate in tournaments?
Testimonies by transwomen done that due to the HRT they feel weaker in the muscles and do not have the force like they used to have, even before these transathletes got into the media.
I think this sport thing is being blown up out of proportions.
Well, the USA and education is a nightmare in =>certain
Dr. Dawkins is a living legend.
Words of thoughtful reason from a seasoned, insightful, and original intelligence.
So much respect for Richard Dawkins
Love Dawkins!!!
A pleasure to watch them both. It seems to me that David tends to forget he's talking to a real scientist. Mr. Dawkins cannot comment on whether something has changed over the last 20 years if he does not have the data to show it. You'll need to press a scientist hard for him to comment on what he 'feels' about a subject, and he'll always prefer not to. I love that.
Pity Dawkins is such a transphobic bigot if what you claim is true. He has no scientific basis for his prejudice.
Yes, Richard Dawkins is a clear thinker, but David you are remarkably clear, in every interview you bring the discussion back to where your point and the interviees point can best be understood. That is art
\
\
28:37 Don't be pedantic, David. Just because a law doesn't say "jail" or "prison" in the bill, the mere fact that it's in the bill that it's mandatory to use the pronouns and other gender terminology means jail is ultimately a possible outcome. For example, if it's a fine/ticket you have to pay, well, what happens if you don't pay that fine/ticket out of protest? That's right, jail.
I'm heartened to see Dawkins takes the exact view I do on the trans movement. I couldn't agree with him more on that.
Thank you.Richards smile when he said, we're honest, was uplifting.
🙄
David you did a fantastic job with this interview, great questions!!!
Thanks!
I have the sense Dawkins really should have been given a list of topics in advance because he showed far too little knowledge on a number of topics regarding American culture and policy to form an opinion. He should definitely have been more riled up about the book banning and general silencing of free thought in American, particularly the law regarding teachers providing certain literature being held feloniously liable, DeSantis taking over school boards and compelling teachers to register their books and school media centers to be emptied out, the end of AP African American, Studies, etc. That said, these are no Dawkins' areas of study or expertise so his voice here is of little consequence.
On the other hand, his views on transgenderism and his blindness to many different sexual dimorphisms and aberrations of endocrine function, cellular mosaicisms, etc, should give him a broader view of the issue than he seems to hold. As to his objections on linguistic ground, get over it. When's the last time he's called someone "thee" or "thou"? Language, including pronoun usage, evolves, often rapidly, but his hangups with it obfuscate the point. I feel he's also really straw-manning the issues about LGB vs. T issues. Does he really suppose the greatest discrimination against LGB people comes from T activists? Really??? Is he totally ignoring the broad coalition these groups generally form which, to be clear, is undermined more by TERFs than trans activists.
And as to gender affirming care, it is on the table no where in the country to provide sex reassignment surgery to minors. In most places, the most dramatic treatment being discussed for children under 16 is puberty blockers. Can we be done with the red herrings in this discussion? And sure, sure, Dick, transgenderisms is memetically spreading, but I think it's interesting that he names a trans woman he respects and uses her preferred pronouns with no hangups, even though she likely has a "Y" chromosome (not that that's a bad thing!).
Kinda circles back around to who we want to give a platform to and who deserves to be met in debate on a level playing field...
Agree 100%, Dawkins was not at all up to date in half the questions David asked. But being an atheist doesn't make one progressive either. Dawkins was definitely ill-informed and downright incorrect several times. Not a great interview. David weakly corrected him on one front. JP basically lied and grew famous over lies about what would happen if he didn't use desired pronouns. Dawkins should know better. JP is not a good model for anything.
I used to defend Dawkins but his increasingly outdated views and knowledge became too much. Even his biological knowledge of sex it simplistic, about GCSE level. Not good enough.
I believe he referred to the LGB Alliance, which is actually a group promoting trans hate. He's bought into this nonsense of trans activists being aggressors, when it's actually the anti-trans movement, backed by the UK government and the majority of the UK press, that are promoting transphobia.
@@JD-fx1np Agree. Dawkins is responsible for some brilliant writing, but he clearly has trouble seeing over his own ego, and didn't he get kinda soft-cancelled for some misconduct a few years ago? I love this channel but this video was definitely a fumble.
@@ianissimo He may not be even so un-media savvy, just...think of the digesting of media people who watch this channel, for example, on average on TH-cam, do, then think of how much actual media Dawkins' will ordinarily consume: not as much as even the average viewer of this show. So maybe this is why David is the person to give Dawkins somewhat of a needed take, that will pull him in a better direction. Some good points, here, though.
Dawkins is a legend for his past work, but in his own words he has not kept up to speed on or been concerned by the latest developments in the US.
He was ready to point out that morality is constantly shifting and that he sees as being generally progressive. I am flummoxed by his idea that language should not. It comes across as logically inconsistent. English seems to be a most variable and constantly shifting language by nature. One might consider that to be one of many causal factors for its uptake globally.
I am almost certain that one can point to several instances where changes in the common use of the English language has preempted (rather than followed) the bigger 'societal' changes. I have heard that argument made by historians and english language experts. I would be keen for anybody to send links if they have them available to hand.