grimwerk: I suspect that though the analogy is sound, he may object to the Islam-Nazism comparison swimming below the surface. (Just by virtue of proximity, really.) I do think that it is possible to make such an analogy without implications, even exactly as stated. At the same time, I can imagine Dawkins intending more here than a pure analogy.

Just a guess.

KasperHviid: The true essense of that tweet is a comparision of muslims with nazies,

KasperHviid: Yep, that's it. The true essense of that tweet is a comparision of muslims with nazies, which is what I criticized.

KasperHviid: Yep, that's it. The true essense of that tweet is a comparision of muslims with nazies, which is what I criticized. But I gather that both WBGhiro and tinyE was already fully aware of this. I don't buy into the idea that analysing this simple tweet is beyound their mental skill level.

Dunno what they hope to archive by feigning ignorance.

dudalb: Irony is Dawkins has become as bigoted and obnoxious as the "religionist" he hates.

Ghostbreed: Before I begin, let me point out that I am in no way, shape or form a religious person. I was raised by atheist parents and they decided to let us children chose what we wanted when we were old enough to understand.

Now that we got that out of the way, I still think Richard Dawkins is a fucking idiot.

But sitting in a chair and bitching with people who are religious, trying to make them look like idiots and trying to take away what they believe, that's just an asshole thing to do.

Gnostic: Why open minded Buddhist are usually uneducated? Is that a German thing?

TStael: Does not your own (arguably unfair) down-reAnd p tell you?

I remember the era when there would be a pro-Jesus member here - whom would have tried to win me over to (I think catholic) orthodoxy - when I nonetheless read gospels because I admire Jesus. Whomever He is. (with a capital, because I admire Jesus, that is).

And I miss this fellow fora member - however blasphemous I might be in his/her eyes.

But he/she would not be here, really, now? And that is a pity, I find.

More than Dawkins whom has the opinions he is entitled to.

The point being: I know Dawkins is smart and interesting, and maybe not wrong - but I miss my Jesus-loving fora member more than I am bothered about Dawkins.

Pity it should be so.

Ghostbreed: Uhm, okay...

Shadowstalker16: Lets recap. Gender is another term for sexual orientation. Sex is the physical characteristics(of the genitals) of a person's body.

So if someone wants to classify persons based on reproductive roles, and and they see transsexual persons as as incapable of it (which is true), then how is that person ''transphobic'' is he /she is only speaking the truth?

Shadowstalker16: Lets recap. Gender is another term for sexual orientation. Sex is the physical characteristics(of the genitals) of a person's body.

Gender dysphoria or transgenderism / transsexualism comes about when a baby in the womb receives unbalanced level of sex hormones to his / her brain and body. So the brain may receive testosterone and the body, estrogen. This will lead to a feeling of a person being trapped in the wrong body, a la gender dysphoria. Basis IS biological. Effect is lifelong.

Hermaphrodites / intersex people are born with whatever body and sex but are chromosomally not XX or XY. They are a third sex (3rd sex, not gender). Basis is biological. Effect is lifelong.

Homosexuality is not a less-aggravated form of transgenderism. The person feels comfortable in their body and feel like normal persons of their sex who are just attracted to the members with their own sexual features. People can very rarely shift from homo to straight, although it is very rare, it does happen. Basis is probably biological because trying to force someone to change their orientation has never worked. But natural change back to straightness is also possible so it may be biological but its necessarily needn't be from birth itself. The basis on which straight person changing into a homo(if it can really happen) is doubtful though, since as before, changing someone's orientation forcefully never worked other than when it happened automatically as a result of ''straightening out'', and I haven't read anything on the opposite happening.

So a M-F transsexual undergoes castration and (estrogen)hormone therapy to make her body match her brain. But this person cannot have a full set of female sex organs transplanted into them, and are hence incapable of direct reproduction.

An F-M transsexual undergoes (testosterone)hormone therapy but may retain female reproductive organs. Again, to make the body as similar to the brain as possible. They are incapable of male reproductive functions.

So if someone wants to classify persons based on reproductive roles, and and they see transsexual persons as as incapable of it (which is true), then how is that person ''transphobic'' is he /she is only speaking the truth?

dtgreene: The way to think of it, as I have read elsewhere, is that sexual orientation is who you want to go to bed *with*, while gender identity is who you want to go to bed *as*.