Richard Dawkins quits atheism foundation for backing transgender ‘religion’
Richard Dawkins quits atheism foundation for backing transgender ‘religion’
Scientist accuses US group of caving in to ‘hysterical squeals’ of cancel culture
Ridiculous.
I get the notion that biological sex is one thing, but gender is another thing entirely. They're still conflating the two.
And even in saying that, biological sex is not a binary because we know intersex individuals exist—people born with ambiguous sex organs, sex organs that don't match chromosomal makeup, or even chromosomal makeups beyond the typical XX/XY. For all of the claims of "scientific reality," the figures named in this article seem to do a very good job of cherry picking facts while ignoring the actual, less convenient reality of science.
"It's basic biology, XX or XY, man or woman!"
"OK, but have you ever looked into intermediate or advanced biology?"
Dawkins is such a disappointing person. He has all the knowledge required to not only understand but also advocate for trans people but instead is defending the Anglican church, "light pedophelia", and gender essentialism. He wrote a couple of books with some good parts but honestly, he is a sad old man and should be forgotten. Science moves forward one funeral at a time.
Long ago I saw him speak at a local gathering of humanists and even despite believing that atheism was a morally superior path and that religion was a harmful plague on humanity, still came away completely repulsed by him. He just seemed like an egotistical jerk with not very complex thoughts on society. I believe he was almost entirely focused on Islam rather than the more proximally harmful Christianity. It's not at all surprising to me that he ended up where he is.
light pedophelia
"That can't be true!"
Looks it up : "Dear spaghetti monster, what did I just read".
Basic biology he says? I’m just gonna leave this here
Calling sex a true binary is strange for a talented biologist, intersex people definitely exist.
Transgenderism is a bit different though. Personally I think gender is a repressive, outdated social norm, and I disagree with transgenderism precisely because it reinforces this obsolete notion. Anyone should feel free to dress, act, and identify however they please, including but not limited to any body modifications they wish. But "switching" your identity to align with another set of stereotypical expressions only reinforces those stereotypes.
I can't even see the point in "fitting in", because those who care about how you express yourself aren't going to accept you as transgender anyway, and the people who are going to accept you aren't going to care if your expression matches the stereotypes they're used to.
I dunno if that's his objection because paywall, but I can certainly understand opposition to transgenderism that isn't actually intolerant of transgender people themselves.
I can't even see the point in "fitting in", because those who care about how you express yourself aren't going to accept you as transgender anyway, and the people who are going to accept you aren't going to care if your expression matches the stereotypes they're used to.
This is so important to understand, innerstand, overstand and outerstand.
I don't think there is such a thing as "transgenderism", as it is not an ideology. It is a human trait, such as this person is transgender, or that one is cisgender.
There is another issue I take with this approach. You seem to think that transgender people (in the positional sense you employ above) acquire the societal customs surrounding the sexes (like skirts and make-up or ways of talking and walking) and equate it with "being that sex".
This is not accurate though. There have been studies who show that trans people are no more stereotypical feminine or masculine than their cisgender peers. Cis people are all over the place with respect to gendered societal norms, and the same is true for trans people. (And of course non-binary trans people challenge the norms even further.)
To better understand what gender identity is, consider the horrific assignment of gender performed on intersex people. When infants have ambiguous sex organs, a doctor decides, often on his own visual inspection about the future ability of the organ to penetrate, whether to mold it into a penis or a vagina, and not even tells the parents, so they think they've got a cis boy or girl the whole time. Over the years it has turned out that these people feel uneasy and when seek answers they discover they should have been another gender all along. So it is something in their brain that tells them "I am not the correct gender". The same thing happens to transgender people. This is what it makes a protected trait.
Also, the provided definition of "acquiring the societal custom of the opposite sex thus becoming the other sex" does not account for dysphoria, a feeling of unease to the primary reproductive organs or secondary sex features (like body hair, breasts, muscular structure and the like). And it is very shallow from a sociological perspective as to how deeply ingrained are these customs to the identities of cis and trans people alike.
The starting point here is usually to notice how asking about a baby's gender is the first question asked, and everything is shaped from there (baby room coloring and selection of toys, the content of compliments, and conditioning their plans for the future).
People never complain about cis women "always" being such stereotypical dolls and cis men being such insufferable chuds. They only complain for specific trans people that are performing at the extremes, and the only reason is that people don't see trans people's gender are equally genuine.
This article may have some direct relevance to you: https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/so-you-found-out-youre-agender-because-you-don-t-understand-trans-people-886fdee6f178
And that's what gender critical means.
I personally smell either some kompromat-style blackmailing situation (remember him defending trans people in the past, as well as having a much lighter stance on being "culturally christian"), or money in behind the scenes.
Something about doors and arses.
He lost all credibility and relevance when he piled into the bigotry clown car. Atheism doesn’t have saints.
Richard Dawkins is his own religion.
Man thinks everything he says is infallible.
And unfortunately (and ironically) for too long some of his followers have acted like he is god.
Strong atheism is, in fact, a religious belief: claims of the non-existence of gods are no more falsifiable than claims of the existence of them, so in order to "know" there is no god one must have faith.
In other words, if religion is the faith-based belief in N gods, where N = many for religions like Hinduism and N = 1 for religions like Christianity, strong atheism is simply the religion where N = 0.
Meanwhile, scientific skepticism/disbelief in god(s) due to lack of positive evidence is more like agnosticism/weak atheism.
Edit: see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Edit 2: I genuinely don't understand what the downvoters are so upset about. Could some of you please reply to explain?
How is it any different than claiming with near certainty that leprechauns aren’t real?
I’m nearly 100% certain leprechauns aren’t real. Is my disbelief in leprechauns a religious belief? I similarly don’t believe in the Greek or Roman or Egyptian gods. Is that a religious belief, too?
The Christian god is a positive claim, and my near 100% certainty it’s not real is not a ‘belief’ unless you’re operating from a baseline that assumes it’s true, which is not how anything works. Strong atheism is a strong unwillingness to believe anything for which there isn’t evidence. That’s the opposite of faith – faith being the belief in things without evidence.
There are some semantics at play, reflected in your link. Many atheists take the label to mean simply: absence of belief. That is: atheists require evidence before making a claim. As such, those that "believe" in nonexistence wind up falling into another category: anti-theists. There's hubris involved in making the leap to belief, so I wager many just want to illuminate the distinction.
Strong atheism is, in fact, a religious belief: claims of the non-existence of gods are no more falsifiable than claims of the existence of them, so in order to “know” there is no god one must have faith.
Um... Show evidence that a god exists. Poof, you have falsified the claim that no god exists. Pretty easy, actually.
So I mostly agree with you, except the understanding that most gods must not be real is axiomatically true, based on the beliefs of those religions. Almost every religion claims they believe in the one true god(s), so either all the other aren't real or theirs is wrong and not real. That leaves mostly only one pantheon remaining at most, with maybe a few other that aren't exclusive.
Its not a belief that most religions most be wrong, and odds are whatever religion any particular person believes is wrong based on how many competing religions have existed.
This is separate to a statement on a god though, only religions. There is no way to make a reasonable argument on the existence (or lack thereof) of a god. You can rule out particular beliefs, but never the concept itself.
Richard "Culturally Christian" Dawkins can go meme himself out of the meme pool.
I get, given how right wing, nasty, anti women and anti LGBTQ+ the American church is, why you would want to put Richard Dawkins, who is so nasty and anti trans (probably among other things) into the same bucket, but he's British, not American, and famously very firmly anti-religion.
He has always been a dick, whatever he was trying to convince people of, and it's no surprise he continues to be a dick in his old age. It doesn't mean he's a Christian. He's really, really, really not.
Some context for you: https://skepchick.org/2024/04/richard-dawkins-cultural-christian-or-supremacist-bigot/
Surplus extra-topical context: https://religiondispatches.org/norway-massacre-suspect-anders-behring-breivik-hitler-the-jerusalem-post-editorial/ (you can find his manifesto online)
Dawkin's quote:
Prof Dawkins described publishing Grant’s “silly and unscientific” article as a “minor error of judgment”, but that the decision to remove Prof Coyne’s rebuttal was “an act of unseemly panic”.
He continued: “Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own advisory board. A board which I now leave with regret.”
He was/is upset about pulling an article and that's why he resigned.
And the person whose article was pulled also has a point:
That is a censorious behavior I cannot abide,” he wrote in an email. “I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex, and I do not understand why you would consider that ‘distressing’ and also an attempt to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, which I would never do.”
“The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (‘a woman is whoever she says she is’), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.”
Both of their issues was the article elaborating Coyne's position was yanked.
This is a pedantic miscommunication issue, which is pretty much their point.
Instead of discussing the issue and coming to an understanding, discussion is immediately shut down.
That's why they're resigning and it's valid.
It's valid to get mad at the article being removed and not discussed. But I have to say, that argument calling "gender ideology" a religion and its justification reads exactly as a right-wing anti-woke argument calling science a religion. Or the way I like to translate it, "everything I don't like is X" syndrome. Be it woke, religion, or anything else. It's a blatant display of rigid thinking. Just because someone didn't intent to hurt doesn't mean their actions can't hurt, and that's a big part of critical feminist theory (of which they might not entirely understand much about). Our actions and words have material and social consequences that extend beyond our intentions. Maybe try to understand why they were injurious instead of throwing a performative tantrum.
The problem here i think is “we remove this article because people got upset” this behaviour is basically the same as “we remove this article because (religious) people got upset”
People in the comment seems to have issue with the person or the article, but that not the problem. The person can be the worst, and the article could be written by chatgpt, but at the end should not be taken down unless it violate the website or publishing terms and condition if any.
Since some people are getting a paywall I'll post the article text here:
Richard Dawkins has resigned from an atheism foundation over its “imposition” of a “new religion” of transgenderism.
Prof Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and atheist, stepped down from the board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) on Saturday after it censored an article supporting the belief that gender is biological.
Prof Dawkins accused the group of caving to the “hysterical squeals” of cancel culture after it deleted the article from its website, saying it was a “mistake” to have published it.
His resignation followed that of two other scientists, Jerry Coyne and Steven Pinker, who accused the foundation of imposing an ideology with the “dogma, blasphemy, and heretics” of a religion.
The scientists’ resignations come after FFRF’s Freethought Now! website published a piece last month by Kat Grant, entitled “What is a Woman?”, which argued that “any attempt to define womanhood on biological terms is inadequate” and that “a woman is whoever she says she is”.
In response to the piece, Prof Coyne, a fellow board member and biologist, wrote an article last week called “Biology is not Bigotry”, in which he defended “the biological definition of ‘woman’ based on gamete type” – or reproductive cells.
However, FFRF later pulled the article after a backlash and released a lengthy statement apologising for the “distress” it had caused.
“Despite our best efforts to champion reason and equality, mistakes can happen, and this incident is a reminder of the importance of constant reflection and growth,” co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote.
“Publishing this post was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values and principles. We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.”
‘Quasi-religious’ ideology
Following the atheist foundation’s decision to unpublish his article, Prof Coyne accused the group of peddling a “quasi-religious” ideology.
“That is a censorious behavior I cannot abide,” he wrote in an email. “I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex, and I do not understand why you would consider that ‘distressing’ and also an attempt to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, which I would never do.”
“The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (‘a woman is whoever she says she is’), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.”
Prof Pinker, the US-Canadian psychologist, announced his resignation from the board by lamenting that the FFRF was “no longer a defender of freedom from religion but the imposer of a new religion, complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics”.
Prof Dawkins described publishing Grant’s “silly and unscientific” article as a “minor error of judgment”, but that the decision to remove Prof Coyne’s rebuttal was “an act of unseemly panic”.
He continued: “Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own advisory board. A board which I now leave with regret.”
Grant is a non-binary author and fellow at the FFRF, focusing on state versus Church issues that specifically impact the LGBTQ-plus community.
In their November article, Grant argued a woman cannot be defined as someone with a vagina, uterus or the ability to conceive, as this would exclude intersex people, women who have hysterectomies and those who have gone through menopause.
Grant claimed using biology to define female identity is “inadequate” and alleged that the views of groups who have fought against gender ideology “disregard both medical science and lived experience”.
‘New definition of woman’
In his response to Grant’s article, Prof Coyne accused the author of attempting “to force ideology onto nature” in order to “concoct a new definition of ‘woman’”.
“Why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot? Feelings don’t create reality,” he wrote. “Instead, in biology ‘sex’ is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells.
“It is not ‘transphobic’ to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology. One should never have to choose between scientific reality and trans rights.”
Founded in 1976, the FFRF is a US non-profit that promotes the separation of church and state.
Ms Laurie Gaylor, the FFRF president, said: “We have had the greatest respect for Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, and are grateful that they sat on our honorary board for so many years.
“We do not feel that support for LGBTQ rights against the religious backlash in the United States is mission creep. This growing difference of opinion probably made such a parting inevitable.”
So he is complaining about the quasi religious zealotry that permeates the ideology as, he himself is anti religion, and resigned of the place because it is now peddling to what is basically a new religion
Makes total sense actually
But there's nothing religious or dogmatic about what the FFRF did. Dawkins is just framing it that way because it's how he became popular.
He's just an asshole who constantly acts like an asshole, and people are done with his shit, so he's having a little fit on his way out the door.
If anyone is acting "religiously" here, it's Dawkins, who constantly lies and misrepresents medical science because it doesn't match up the beliefs he grew up with.
I agree. And censorship is not the way. I'd only criticize that it goes both ways, as he seems to disregard the hypotheses that support transgender views with equal dogmatism or lack of rigor.
People giving a biological stance against transgender women don’t even make sense because there are many supporting pieces of biological evidence which show that gender exists on a spectrum.
Indeed, a woman is whoever says they’re a woman, and it’s very likely that their choice is biologically driven. I know some people might not like a comment like this because it’s “trans med”, and I get the impulse to shoot down comments like this out of fear of being exclusionary, but if you really think about it this doesn’t exclude any known or unknown gender or identity.
He's right, but religion is pretty natural for humans. Any kind of divorce between religion and core ideals of the society lasts only as long as the cultural movement behind that divorce doesn't create its own religion. Because the majority of humans are not independent thinking and not rational, even if they are part of a crowd united by stated belief in independent thinking and rationalism.
That's why ideologies can be divided into "creating a resilient structure of society, because apes will be apes" and "fixing the apes to be better humans", and the latter kind always fails. Interestingly enough, this division is orthogonal both to right\left and to libertarian\authoritarian categories.
My point was - a person may identify as whatever they want, but they were, in the vast majority of cases, born clearly a man or clearly a woman.
I don't think he's against that identity. But to reject reality of nature because of self-identification and to try to impose that upon popular scientific discourses is a religion indeed, just sort of a protest against religious mainstream, not much different from East Roman iconoclasm or Jewish hassidic movements.
Or Christianity itself the way it conquered the old religions in the east Mediterranean, especially Egypt. Egyptian ancient religion from that age was very complex and well-canonized, and with apparently most people just as full of it as today of Christianity. While early Christianity in Egypt was a compact, simple and beautiful set of abstract beliefs ; in some sense Christianity of that time was less magical and allegorical than old religions, but at the same time claimed that its smaller miracles were true.
Well, I guess the trash took itself out.
Whenever I see some educated individual trying to make some sort of 'credible' stance against trans rights I just see an overgrown child.
These are grown adults who are angry that the simplistic worldview that they were taught as children doesn't hold up to reality.
It was challenged by the mere existence of people who are different than themselves and they don't want to confront the possibility that they were wrong(the people they care about were also wrong), so they the blame trans people for evoking those emotions instead of doing some introspection.
I first wanted to ask why the atheism foundation supports any religion at all... then I read the article, then I saw the ' '... what an asshat.
Do you really think that's all there is to it? Don't you think your worldview is a bit too simplistic? The one that gets the last word isn't always that one who is right you know.
“Why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot? Feelings don’t create reality,” he wrote. “Instead, in biology ‘sex’ is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells. “It is not ‘transphobic’ to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology. One should never have to choose between scientific reality and trans rights.”
As a fellow psychologist, I must regretfully state that this is the stupidest thing ever written by a psychologist. Our entire science is built upon the notion that feelings indeed create and modify (social) reality*. Sex is not gender, and he fumbled the most basic differentiation of concepts.
Heteronormative gender roles, on the other hand, are categorically a form of ideology and to defend them in place of basic human decency is a disgrace, good riddance to both asshats, I say. Specially with such a tenous biological argument that any good biologist can tell you is patently false. Gametes are not binary, there are hundred of thousands of intersex individuals for which this narrow definition doesn't apply.
Grant is absolutely right, but I don't expect the mentally weak asshole who invented the word "meme" to ever understand social sciences. His book is a pathetic pseudo scientific intrusion in a field he doesn't understand in the slightest.
*: some philosophers would even argue that there's no reality but social reality and both are one and the same.
Dawkins isn't a psychologist afaict. I had to check.
He isn't which is why I called him intrusist there at the end for writing a book about psychology and neurology which he doesn't understand. But the quote is from Coyne, another biologist who wrote the reply and was supported by Pinker, who is a psychologist and should've known better. None of these people know what they're talking about and are acting in this whole thing from passion instead of reason and evidence. Which is ironic, I believe.
mentally weak asshole who invented the word “meme”
He coined the word to mean a thought or idea that spreads through a population. Internet memes are completely unrelated to his usage. It's not like he created the first insanity wolf meme or something.
Yes, and it is the most useless concept ever committed to text. It's ironic it was coopted by internet culture and then ridiculed and reduced to absurdity.
He just tried to poorly rebrand the concepts of cultural imagery, and social constructs but with less evidence. It's akin to me going "I propose the term garggle, it is water that flows down by gravity following the contours of the solid ground". It's like, yeah, we call it water and when it does that we call it a river, you would know if you opened a book about it anytime in the past century. You could summarize that book as "better read a book on sociology, it's more useful".
This conflates material reality and ideology, though. Not to say a cultural or social reality isn't real in its own way, just that it is preceded by objective, material reality. I think the arguments tend to boil down to people prioritising one or the other and then refusing to budge.
I'm pretty laid back about it but draw the line at people attempting to assert there is no such thing as material conditions. I'm not explicitly "Marxist" but definitely Marxian in the sense that I think all theories need to be anchored in material reality in the first instance. So gender categories exist, but are part of the superstructure.
The moment humans had enough brain power to form and ideologies, they stated influencing material reality. Ideology as a concept therefore also precedes part of material reality.
In other words: The idea of gender expression has influenced human selection, therefore it's part of our current gene pool, just like sexuality. (Because gender is what sexual attraction can have preference for, not karyotype)
some philosophers would even argue that there's no reality but social reality and both are one and the same.
Some politicians would argue that social reality is oppressive and must be replaced with social unreality - http://soulism.net/
I am reminded of Willian Jennings Bryan, who in his old age advocated for the eight-hour work day, a minimum wage, the right of unions to strike, women's suffrage, and then Alcohol Prohibition and of course Anti-Evolution.
Even the most progressive will turn to "I am old and don't like new ideas!" as they age.
I'm seeing that in some of my older friends. Some of them can be manually taught new ideas, but it gets tiring. Well, they still vote for the most progressive option on any ballot, so I'm not bothering with it anymore.
I'm getting older and get weird looks when I tell people I refuse to install apps that can be websites and if a company is going to force me to use their app I am simply not spending money there.
Returning my Norelco shaver and Beats headphones I received for Christmas this year because I don't need an app for headphones and sure as fuck do not need an app for my shaver!
Reading that article and this comment thread just makes me want to endlessly reiterate the point that if you don't intimately understand the difference between gender and sex then you aren't qualified to claim scientific opinion on either.
Defining terms is absolutely crucial to any kind of meaningful debate including science. Cultural anthropologists find the idea of social gender and biological sex being the same concept to be genuinely laughable. Whether or not you dogmatically think they ought to be the same or not, they are historically obviously not and if you mix and match which you are talking about in an argument then your argument will not be productive or make sense.
Even according to Dawkins definition of sex, there are only two, which is scientifically inaccurate. He's a fucking esteemed biologist and should know the difference between binary and bimodal.
Richard "cultural christian" Dawkins.
Dawkins is a zionist
Dawkins schtick was pretending he was not racist but hated Islam. Turns out the man is simply racist.
Same with Sam Harris.
Can we have a transgender religion though? Not to encompass the trans rights movement but to support it. Make memes religious art and Blåhaj a figure of worship. Girls'/boys' nights, enby sleepovers etc. could be classified as gender-affirming rituals. Use constitutional protection of religious expression to support free gender expression. Medication and procedures would of course be sacred too. Members would be required to maintain a support network for all trans folk (including non-members).
the last thing we need is another religion. All that's required in this case is basic human decency, which religions have been appallingly bad at delivering.
It would not be a religion in a traditional sense, just a way to wrap existing ideas to exploit the legal protection of religion. The "rituals" are whatever members would be inclined to do anyway and fits the spirit.
Anyway, you're probably right that it would be a bad idea in the long term. Every major religion has been abused by people from within or outside and I can't think of effective safeguards for this one.
Seriously, I thought there was already an agreement on how to approach this. Sex is the biological identification. Gender is the social identification. Sexuality describes the relation towards other sexes and genders. Neither take is really is disagreeing with the other, but rather than refer to proper identification and the differences between gender, sex, and sexuality, all they are doing is raising drama and playing hot potato with the terms that already cover this.
Yes, sex had a biological objective determinant (except for outlying cases). Yes, gender is subjective to ideology. However someone wants to identify themselves should be defined by their gender, yet things like how they get treated at the hospital is going to be determined by their biological sex. "Experts" (usually the self-appointed kind) unwilling to make any compromise at the risk of putting their big massively throbbing authority at risk, more at eleven.
Article requires sign up which Im not willing to do.
Also didn’t receive a GDPR compliant prompt.
He's 83 and can't handle the changing world, he can go spend his last years alone like every old asshole does.
It's valid to get mad at the article being removed and not discussed. But I have to say, that argument calling "gender ideology" a religion and its justification reads exactly as a right-wing anti-woke argument calling science a religion. Or the way I like to translate it, "everything I don't like is X" syndrome. Be it woke, religion, or anything else. It's a blatant display of rigid thinking. Just because someone didn't intent to hurt doesn't mean their actions can't hurt, and that's a big part of critical feminist theory (of which they might not entirely understand much about). Our actions and words have material and social consequences that extend beyond our intentions. Maybe try to understand why they were injurious instead of throwing a performative tantrum.
Edit: this comment is a reply to another comment and somehow got duplicated by lemmy as both a reply to OP and the comment. My apologies.
This makes the South Park arc even funnier. Maybe that's why he's sore.
Islamophobic/racist fraud is also homophobic? I'm shocked. \s
Yeah turns out Dick is true to his name and just goes with whatever philosophy lets him argue with people more. Pretty standard for a lot of r/atheism types.
Great. Another one of those Gurus doing dumb shit.
Steven Pinker also resigned for the same reason. I had picked up one of his books at an airport. The man is insufferable.
I read like 2 chapters of rationality and had to stop after 2 chapters. It read like one of those pick mes in school who were smart enough to string together a smart sounding sentence but super insecure about themselves so played up this intellectual persona as much as they could.
"Boo! Hiss! Protect the citadel!"
-United Atheist Alliance
(I'm mocking dogmatic pop sci types, not attempting to denigrate trans rights or identities)
Richard Dawkins, the only man with the balls to say what nobody else is thinking.
Cringe as usual, I never liked the guy. A pretentious old windbag imo.
Why would he call it a religion? Is it just bitterness over getting disagreed with?
I can probably help you understand, but the article does a better job...
My opinion of anti-theists in general is that they're like "fat hate", just basic bigots who think they found a loophole. In anti-theist spaces for example, Islamophobia isn't tolerated, it's enforced.
Dawkins was always a public bigot. It's no wonder he talks just like American conservative Christian, he's been in bed with them for years.