So how badly should Dr. Dawkins have been molested before he would, in your estimation, understand what it’s like?
Duh. To such a degree that he has been traumatised by it.
The fact that a proposition in an elevator has been conflated with sexual assault only serves to make the Skepchicks’ newfound hate campaign all that more bizarre.
That’s because you misunderstand the issue.
The original statement was that so doing was creepy and it shouldn’t be done; people asked why so; the response explained that it was because such circumstances were problematic due to the necessity for women to be aware of situations that could lead to sexual assault, as indicated by many real-life examples. This is clarification, not conflation.
What’s been forgotten throughout the angry discussion of this issue is that Dr. Dawkins was probably responding not to Ms. Watson’s video, but to PZ Myers’ blog post and the arguments raging in the comments.
Your speculation is wrong; RD responded to the comment-thread in Pharyngula were the above-mentioned chain of discourse was occurring; this is a post by PZ wherein he was addressing “naming names” and the elevator incident was but one simple example.
Further, unlike many of his opponents, Dr. Dawkins – after his first comment was widely panned – clarified his position, requested additional information, and acknowledged that he could be mistaken.
Have you read the thread in question, and the follow-up leading to RD’s third comment?
He made a hole, dug it deeper, querulously asked for clarification and was given it, whenceupon he did the smart thing and stopped digging.
I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, not backstabbing decrees such as Mindy’s “I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn.”
Why doesn’t Rebecca equally deserve the benefit of the doubt?
And why do you quote an extreme case from one side in this polarised issue without quoting the equivalent extreme from the other side?
(Obtuse contumaciousness such as yours is what led to that escalation in the first place!)