I know that I'm going to piss some people off by taking Richard Dawkins' side here; but, I'm used to pissing people off. Come at me.
Look, anybody who deals with serious moral philosophy knows that you are, at times, expected to suss out the actual reasoning behind the ethics of certain moral principles that many of us deem to be self-evident.
No, this doesn't mean that, "I was just asking a question." is always a valid way to dodge culpability. But, a question like, "Why is it wrong to eat babies?" is actually a valid intellectual exercise. We all know that it's horribly wrong; but, smart people often try to push moral values and moral thinking beyond the gut instinct and the gag reflex.
When it comes to a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the trans debate, there are a lot of people who are going so far as to say that we should be castrating prepubescent boys who say that they want to be girls. Biden's HHS secretary, a trans woman, wouldn't flatly condemn the practice of permanently physically altering young children.
Even more people just fall on to the argument that we should simply affirm whatever people identify as. If that's the stance that you're going to take, Dawkins' challenge concerning Rachel Dolezal is a more than valid challange to that particular mindset.
To my mind, this simply shows cowardice on the side of the American Humanist Association. It's easy to condemn and virtue signal. What's hard is making an argument. The right thing to do and the hard thing to do are usually the same thing.
