Famous Biologist Richard Dawkins Banned from Facebook After Criticizing Male Participation in Women’s Boxing

2

Renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has found himself at the center of a heated controversy after his Facebook account was permanently deleted. The ban, which occurred earlier this month, appears to be linked to a series of posts Dawkins made regarding the inclusion of athletes with male chromosomes in women’s boxing at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Dawkins, a long-time advocate for science and free speech, voiced strong opinions that have ignited a broader debate about the limits of acceptable discourse on social media platforms.

Dawkins’s Facebook ban came shortly after he posted his thoughts on a controversial bout in the women's boxing competition between Italian boxer Angela Carini and Algerian boxer Imane Khelif. Khelif, who had previously been disqualified from other competitions due to failing gender eligibility tests, competed against Carini in a match that ended with Carini quitting just 46 seconds into the fight. Dawkins expressed concern that athletes like Khelif, who he described as "genetically male," should not be allowed to compete against biological women due to the inherent physical advantages associated with male chromosomes.

The removal of Dawkins's Facebook account sparked outrage among his supporters, many of whom view the action as a clear example of censorship. Dawkins himself took to X (formerly known as Twitter) to express his disbelief, noting that no official reason was provided by Facebook for the deletion of his account. “My entire Facebook account has been deleted, seemingly (no reason given) because I posted that genetically male boxers such as Imane Khelif should not fight women in the Olympics. Of course, my opinion is open to civilized argument. But outright censorship?” Dawkins tweeted​.

The incident has raised significant concerns about the suppression of free speech on social media platforms, particularly when it comes to discussing sensitive or politically charged topics. Critics of Facebook's decision argue that the platform, which was once heralded as a bastion of free expression, has increasingly silenced voices that challenge mainstream narratives. This case, they argue, is emblematic of a broader trend where dissenting opinions on issues related to gender and sex are met with harsh penalties rather than open debate.

Supporters of Dawkins, including many prominent figures in the scientific and academic communities, have rallied to his defense. They argue that Dawkins’s comments, while controversial, are grounded in scientific reasoning and should be protected under the principle of free speech. The biologist has long been a polarizing figure due to his outspoken atheism and his willingness to challenge societal norms, but his followers believe that banning him for expressing his views crosses a dangerous line​.

The controversy surrounding Dawkins’s ban also sheds light on the ongoing debate over the participation of transgender and intersex athletes in competitive sports. The issue has become increasingly contentious as more athletes who do not fit traditional definitions of male and female seek to compete in gendered categories. Proponents of inclusion argue that these athletes should be allowed to compete in the category that aligns with their gender identity, while opponents, like Dawkins, argue that biological differences give some athletes an unfair advantage​.

As the debate rages on, Facebook’s decision to ban one of the most prominent voices in the scientific community has only fueled further controversy. While the platform has not provided a detailed explanation for its actions, the incident has sparked a broader discussion about the role of social media companies in regulating speech and the potential dangers of overreach. For now, Dawkins remains without his Facebook account, but the conversation he started shows no signs of slowing down.

The banning of Richard Dawkins from Facebook is more than just the silencing of a controversial figure; it represents a critical moment in the ongoing battle over free speech and the control of discourse in the digital age.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

2 COMMENTS

  2. Remarkably, and despite the crudity and lack of sophistication in his language, “Joe”, my predecessor in commentary, has gotten it exactly right. This IS ‘sick”, and the UK is “sick”, as are, increasingly, those other members of the Commonwealth, Australia and New Zealand and, particularly, Canada, The nations which pioneered human rights, which brought meaningful democracy and freedom back to the world, which stood against dogma and authoritarianism for centuries, have now become the very standard of intellectual repression, which champion repression of thought and expression, not on the basis that it is wrong, but that it might actually be right,”in the wrong way” or on the wrong topic, or merely to the consternation of the wrong people. An imminent biologist is banned by some functionary in the employ of that despicable lout, Mark Zuckerberg, because he dared to utter a scientific truth with which the unnamed functionary apparently disagreed. Unlike the people who might have been moved to challenge Dawkins on his position, this unknown functionary doesn’t have to argue or defend his/her/xir’s position, having been endowed by his/her/xir’s position at Facebook with the power of silencing any opinion he/she/xir doesn’t like. It took a council of Pharisees and a Roman Proconsul to shut Jesus up. All it takes to silence Dawkins is a DEI hire with a gender studies degree, And once again, Joe is right. These people need to FK OFF. Well said, Joe. Well said.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here