When I wrote yesterday about my critique of Kat Grant’s “What is a woman?” piece, a critique published on the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s (FFRF) website, I had no idea that what I wrote was being removed by the FFRF at that moment! I’m not going into a long exegesis here, as I’ll have more to say about this affair elsewhere. But here are the relevant links:
“What is a woman?“: The original FFRF post on Freethought Today! by Kat Grant, an intern with the FFRF. (Article is archived here.)
“Biology is not bigotry“: My response to Grant’s piece on Freethought Today!. The link is an archived one because the original post is gone. You can also find it archived here. Also, because a reader suggested that archived pieces could be removed, I’ve added a transcript of my final published piece below the fold of this article.
When some readers pointed out yesterday that “Biology is not bigotry” was no longer online, I had no idea what happened, and assumed they had relocated the post. I was unable to believe that they would actually remove my post, especially because FFRF co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor had given me permission to write it and approved the final published version.
I emailed Annie Laurie inquiring what had happened to my piece. I never got a response—or rather, they didn’t have the human decency to write me back personally. They still have not done so, and now they shouldn’t bother. Instead, they sent out the following notice to all FFRF members (it’s also archived here):
Note first that when they refer to my piece, they mention neither who wrote the piece or what it was about. If I’m to be cancelled for what I wrote, dammit, I want my NAME and TOPIC mentioned!
Several things are clear, including a point I’ve made before: the FFRF has a remarkable ability to place any kind of antiwoke ideology under the rubric of “Christian nationalism.” That’s why I wrote in my now-expunged piece, “As a liberal atheist, I am about as far from Christian nationalism as one can get!” And of course I support LGBTQIA+ rights, save in those few cases where those rights conflict with the rights of other groups, as in sports participation. I doubt that even the FFRF would think that women should be boxing, professionally or in the Olympics, against men or biological men who identify as women. So in terms of “LGBTQIA-plus rights,” I’m pretty much on the same plane as the FFRF, even though they imply I’m not.
But it’s the last six paragraphs of the FFRF’s post where they explain why they took down my piece. It is because it caused “distress” and “did not reflect [the FFRF’s] values or principles.” I’m not sure what values or principles my piece failed to reflect. Does the FFRF think that sex is really a spectrum, that there are more than two sexes in humans, or that the most useful definition of biological sex doesn’t involve gamete size? I don’t know, nor do they say.
As for my words causing “distress,” well, I’m sorry if people feel distress when I explicate the biological definition of sex or estimate how few people fail to adhere to the sex binary. But this is all material not for censorship but for back-and-forth discussion, especially on a site called “Freethought Now!” (Should it be called “Freeethought Not!” instead?)
And that is what disappoints me most: not just the “mission creep” instantiated by the FFRF’s incursion into partisan politics or dubious ideology, but the fact that they will not allow free and civil discussion about an article that they published, an article that concludes by saying, “A woman is whoever she says she is.” If that is not a statement ripe for discussion, then what is? It is only fear that would make an organization take down a rational discussion of such a contentious statement. I don’t know what the FFRF is afraid of, but I am just a biologist defending my turf, and am not by any means bent on hurting LGBTAIA+ people.
I’m distressed that it’s come to this, as I’ve always been a big supporter of the FFRF and its historical mission, which is, I suppose, why they made me an honorary director and gave me the Emperor Has No Clothes Award. And I will always support their activities that genuinely try to keep church and state separate. But when they start censoring my words because, though biologically justifiable, they are ideologically unpalatable, that is just too much. All I can say now is that this is not the end of this kerfuffle, and that I stand by what I wrote before.
How sad it is that one of the nation’s premier organizations promoting “freethought” won’t permit that kind of thought on their website, but instead quashes what they see as “wrongthink.”
Click “continue reading” to see a transcript my original published piece.
Disclaimer: FFRF Honorary Board Member Jerry A. Coyne requested that this column be written as a guest blog. The views in this column are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Biology is not bigotry
By Jerry A. Coyne
In the Freethought Now article “What is a woman?”, author Kat Grant struggles at length to define the word, rejecting one definition after another as flawed or incomplete. Grant finally settles on a definition based on self-identity: “A woman is whoever she says she is.” This of course is a tautology, and still leaves open the question of what a woman really is. And the remarkable redefinition of a term with a long biological history can be seen only as an attempt to force ideology onto nature. Because some nonbinary people — or men who identify as women (“transwomen”) — feel that their identity is not adequately recognized by biology, they choose to impose ideology onto biology and concoct a new definition of “woman.”
Further, there are plenty of problems with the claim that self-identification maps directly onto empirical reality. You are not always fat if you feel fat (the problem with anorexia), not a horse if you feel you’re a horse (a class of people called “therians” psychologically identify as animals), and do not become Asian simply become you feel Asian (the issue of “transracialism”). But sex, Grant tells us, is different: It is the one biological feature of humans that can be changed solely by psychology.
But why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot? Feelings don’t create reality. Instead, in biology “sex” is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells (“gametes”). Males have small, mobile gametes (sperm in animals and pollen in plants); females have large, immobile gametes (ova in plants and eggs in animals). In all animals and vascular plants there are exactly two sexes and no more. Though a fair number of plants and a few species of animals combine both functions in a single individual (“hermaphrodites”), these are not a third sex because they produce the typical two gametes.
It’s important to recognize that, although this gametic idea is called a “definition” of sex, it is really a generalization — and thus a concept — based on a vast number of observations of diverse organisms. We know that, except for a few algae and fungi, all multicellular organisms and vertebrates, including us, adhere to this generalization. It is, then, nearly universal.
Besides its universality, the gametic concept has utility, for it is the distinction between gamete types that explains evolutionary phenomena like sexual selection. Differential investment in reproduction accounts for the many differences, both physical and behavioral, between males and females. No other concept of sex has such universality and utility. Attempts to define sex by combining various traits associated with gamete type, like chromosomes, genitalia, hormones, body hair and so on, lead to messy and confusing multivariate models that lack both the universality and explanatory power of the gametic concept.
Yes, there is a tiny fraction of exceptions, including intersex individuals, who defy classification (estimates range between 1/5,600 and 1/20,000). These exceptions to the gametic view are surely interesting, but do not undermine the generality of the sex binary. Nowhere else in biology would deviations this rare undermine a fundamental concept. To illustrate, as many as 1 in 300 people are born with some form of polydactyly — without the normal number of ten fingers. Nevertheless, nobody talks about a “spectrum of digit number.” (It’s important to recognize that only a very few nonbinary and transgender people are “intersex,” for nearly all are biologically male or female.)
In biology, then, a woman can be simply defined in four words: “An adult human female.”
Dismissal of trait-based concepts of sex leads to serious errors and misconceptions. I mention only a few. The biological concept of a woman does not, as Grant argues, depend on whether she can actually produce eggs. Nobody is claiming that postmenopausal females, or those who are sterile or had hysterectomies, are not “women,” for they were born with the reproductive apparatus that evolved to produce eggs. As for chromosomes, having two X chromosomes gives you a very high probability of being a woman, but a rearrangement of genetic information can decouple chromosome constitution from the gametic apparatus.
But the biggest error Grant makes is the repeated conflation of sex, a biological feature, with gender, the sex role one assumes in society. To all intents and purposes, sex is binary, but gender is more spectrum-like, though it still has two camel’s-hump modes around “male” and “female.” While most people enact gender roles associated with their biological sex (those camel humps), an appreciable number of people mix both roles or even reject male and female roles altogether. Grant says that “I play with gender expression” in “ways that vary throughout the day.” Fine, but this does not mean that Grant changes sex from hour to hour.
Under the biological concept of sex, then, it is impossible for humans to change sex — to be truly “transsexual” — for mammals cannot change their means of producing gametes. A more appropriate term is “transgender,” or, for transwomen, “men who identify as women.”
But even here Grant misleads the reader. They argue, for example, that “Transgender people are no more likely to be sexual predators than other individuals.” Yet the facts support the opposite of this claim, at least for transgender women. A cross-comparison of statistics from the U.K. Ministry of Justice and the U.K. Census shows that while almost 20 percent of male prisoners and a maximum of 3 percent of female prisoners have committed sex offenses, at least 41 percent of trans-identifying prisoners were convicted of these crimes. Transgender, then, appear to be twice as likely as natal males and at least 14 times as likely as natal females to be sex offenders. While these data are imperfect because they’re based only on those who are caught, or on some who declare their female gender only after conviction, they suggest that transgender women are far more sexually predatory than biological women and somewhat more predatory than biological men. There are suggestions of similar trends in Scotland, New Zealand, and Australia.
Biological sex affects who and what we are. Let’s look at the contentious area of sports participation. Here’s a summary of the current regulatory situation (from a link that Grant gives):
“For the Paris 2024 Olympics, the new guidelines require transgender women to have completed their transition before the age of 12 to be eligible to compete in the women’s category. This rule is intended to prevent any perceived unfair advantages that might arise from undergoing male puberty.”
“In addition, at least 10 Olympic sports have restricted the participation of transgender athletes. These include sports like athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby, rowing, and boxing.”
Completing transition before 12 is virtually unknown (26 American states ban childhood transition), and the International Olympic Committee has now asked each sport to devise its own rules. Further, the presence of “regulation” does not make the problem go away, for many regulations are insufficient to protect female athletes from male athletic advantage. According to a United Nations report on violence against women, “By 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals [to transgender women] in 29 different sports.”
I close with two points. The first is to insist that 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. Transgender people should surely enjoy all the moral and legal rights of everyone else. But moral and legal rights do not extend to areas in which the “indelible stamp” of sex results in compromising the legal and moral rights of others. Transgender women, for example, should not compete athletically against biological women; should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters; or, if convicted of a crime, should not be placed in a women’s prison.
Finally, speaking as a member of the FFRF’s honorary board, I worry that the organization’s incursion into gender activism takes it far outside its historically twofold mission: educating the public about nontheism and keeping religion out of government and social policies. Tendentious arguments about the definition of sex are not part of either mission. Although some aspects of gender activism have assumed the worst aspects of religion (dogma, heresy, excommunication, etc.), sex and gender have little to do with theism or the First Amendment. I sincerely hope that the FFRF does not insist on adopting a “progressive” political stance, rationalizing it as part of its battle against “Christian Nationalism.” As a liberal atheist, I am about as far from Christian nationalism as one can get!
Issues of sex and gender cannot and should not be forced into that Procrustean bed. Mission creep has begun to erode other once-respected organizations like the ACLU and SPLC, and I would be distressed if this happened to the FFRF.
Jerry A. Coyne is emeritus professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago.
Hey Jerry.
I have an idea of how it might be made to work. Ask “in what context?”
Biological, social, LGBTQ+ and so on. I always respect biology but would always respect a trans-woman and call her as such, just in return acknowledge their biology.
All BS in the end though.
Why would you respect someone who acts out a delusion 24/7. Would you call someone who insists they’re Napoleon the emperor of France?
I would not automatically call someone who is trans as acting out a delusion. You know when somebody is not the emperor of France, but yes, some people feel that they were born in a body of the wrong sex. How can you tell when they are deluded?
A delusion is a belief that clashes with reality.
It is not possible for anyone to be “born in the wrong sex body” – any more than it is possible for them to be “born on the wrong planet”.
Thus the trans person’s beliefs are a delusion.
Empirically, all one can say is that they WISH they were of the opposite sex.
But that’s different from “having a wrong sex body”
Hey, uh, actually it turns out that I’m Michael Sisley. Can you please respect me, and stop using my name? Acknowledge my biology, but I identify as you now.
Blame our parents.
Dialectical subversion – hiding the evidence.
Promotion of ideological purity – the sacred science
Generally those ideas are from:
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism — A Study of “Brainwashing” in China
Robert J. Lifton
W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., New York
1961
Forgot to note :
“Christian Nationalism” is entirely a psy-op designed by Andrew Seidel. As such, it is a component of dialectical political warfare.
“entirely”?
Come on.
Seidel began it AFAIK.
Stephen Wolfe wrote a book too.
It’s entirely a psyop – a dialectical trap.
But writing a book about, or coining a label for, some phenomena is not the same as ‘beginning’ the phenomena described.
I admit I often fail to grok what you’re talking about, so forgive me, but you seem to be suggesting that the phenomena described as ‘Christian Nationalism’ were invented from whole cloth by Seidel and Wolff.
“Christian Nationalism” has been building for decades. See the movie, “Bad Faith” or read the book, “PREPARING FOR WAR: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism—and What Comes Next.”
“.. building for decades.”
Sounds terrifying. The master plan will unfold any day now.
So much for the “don’t feel targeted” nonsense.
I’m dismayed that Annie Laurie and Dan didn’t immediately call you to talk about this. And simply ignore your direct email?
To quote Hitchens, “You see how far the termites have spread and how long and well they’ve dined.”
“A termite knocked on wood.
On tasting it she found it good.
And that is why your cousin Mae
Fell through the parlour floor today.”
Yet again they prioritise a tiny % of men over the 53% on the planet, who are actual living, breathing women.
I can’t believe how hard the sceptic movement has fallen for this crap. I really thought they were better than that.
How “marginalized” are trans people if they get everything they want and no one is allowed to question them? They’re in charge, or close to it!
Exactly. As @peace_icecream said on twitter…
“When Rolls Royce-prints-your flag on their cars, you know you’re not the oppressed minority you claim to be.”
TRAs are the same patriarchy that has always oppressed women, it’s just that now they wear heels.
Men have worn heels before. They are the same old patriarch.
I heard somewhere someone state “These people are trying to convince women that trans’women’ are a new type of women rather than an old kind of man.’
+1
Extremely sad to see this. I read Dan Barkers first book 30 years ago and it had a huge impact on me (growing up with a pentecostal mother). As others sad, they are just to scared of some of their own staff. Shamefull behavior to not even respond to Jerry
It continues to shame us all as a species, to the extent we care about what is unavoidably, verifiably true, that some number are so devoted to conflating the noble and worthwhile cause of defending the persecuted with the ignoble and cultish cause of maligning science and reason. Nothing, no minority or majority cause, no historical injustice of whatever magnitude, and no progressive goal of whatever moral valence, justifies such a complete uncoupling from quantifiable reality.
I’m sorry you’re dealing with this Jerry. Thank you for holding the line on science. As Sagan said, it’s the candle in the dark, the most precious think we have. The world is demon haunted still.
It’s worth reiterating that an opinion which I think can be fairly summed up by it’s summary, final sentence – “A woman is who she says she is” – is perfectly justifiable for the FFRF to publish; but somehow an opposing opinion must be removed? That somehow an opposing opinion cannot be tolerated?! One might be able to argue that an opposing opinion to the ideal of liberal tolerance should not be published (we should not tolerate anti-tolerance) – but that gets applied to “A woman is who she says she is”?!
On further reflection, it’s not the quality or importance of or logic inherent in the statement itself that is why opposition must be quashed. It’s the damage to the tribe that holds such beliefs that is what generates the censorship. Any opposition to any plank in the platform of the dispossessed or oppressed or minoritized people must be countered or, in this case, censored.
It is also grounded in what Pinker said in “The Blank Slate:” “Gender feminism [says that] humans possess a single social motive – power – and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised,” and “human interactions arise not from . . . individuals . . . but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups.” That is, tribalism.
I thought to borrow their definition to make a new phrase: “Women’s spaces are whatever they say they are.”
You should repost your piece here, in case it disappears from the archived sites.
Yeah, I wouldn’t bet on that. They sound like they are all in. Apparently, skepticism is passé, which should tell you all you need to know.
Okay, I’ve put it below the fold on the post above. Thank you for the suggestion. It’s permanent now.
That’s just what “full legal and civil rights for trans people” just is. Once you say, “No discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression”, you can’t keep men out of the women’s boxing ring. If you try, you will lose the resulting discrimination suit because you excluded a woman based on her transgendered identity.
Sports organizations have the right to set rules for who can participate in a competition on any basis they deem appropriate.
Generally, no they don’t. For example (in most jurisdictions) they could not say “no blacks” or “no Muslims”.
I don’t think they do, Phil, but it depends. If the state says discrimination by gender identity is illegal, it is illegal discrimination for sporting organizations to tell “transwomen” they can’t compete with other women, just as if they excluded black athletes from competing with white athletes. If the state says only women can play women’s sport, and defines “women” in biological terms, then the organization can exclude men. There are cases scattered around the Union where trans activists are suing sporting organizations for trying to do exactly that. It will come down to whether the relevant legislation is deemed to enshrine self-ID or if it makes a distinction between sex and gender and protects only the former. If the law is to guarantee “full legal and civil rights to trans people”, as many seem to favour, it will have to guarantee self-ID in sport and everywhere. That is what the activists want.
We have several instances in Canada where men play women’s sport, even rugby. These amateur organizations are afraid first of losing their federal funding and official sanction for international competition — almost all voluntary organizations in Canada rely on government money because we aren’t very good at self-pay volunteering — and second of having to defend discrimination complaints at human rights tribunals which would bankrupt these shoestring non-profit organizations. Sporting organizations have stripped female competitors of their licenses to compete in sanctioned events for speaking out against self-ID. This do this to avoid being accused of fostering transphobia in their organizations. The irony here is that even if the international governing body excludes men from women’s competition, the Canadian body will allow them to compete in Canada, even though the (male) winner won’t be able to go abroad to compete for a world championship. Inclusivity rules.
That surely depends on how the relevant laws are written. For example, they could reply: “we’re not discriminating on gender identity, we’re discriminating on biological sex” (where the latter may well be legally acceptable). Whether the judge rules in their favour would, again, depend on the detail of the laws’ wording.
Yep, which is why certain jurisdictions (my state, for example) have the laws written that sex = gender identity. So, yeah, you can’t tell a man to stay out of women’s spaces. We have literal serial killers of women housed in their prisons now. Great stuff.
+1, nor would I
“Freethought Not”…Has a nice ring to it.
As for the “Emperor Has No Clothes Award,” seems rather ironic that they now think that clothes make the sex, as well as the gender. Perhaps certain Olympic sports should return to the supposed Greek way of competing without clothing. Might help determine who should or shouldn’t be competing in the women’s events.
Don’t hold your breath for it. If I remember correctly, in Canada a certain trans bully had the habit of successfully suing female beauticians for refusing to do Brazilian wax on “her” scrotum.
“The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled against a transgender woman who brought 15 discrimination complaints after she was refused wax services at more than a dozen beauty salons.”
“She” does not look female to me.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5330807
This was very upsetting, but not surprising given that the FFRF has now been compromised. As in all other areas (the Humanities, STEM, many scientific societies, the Unitarian church, and so on), organizations that once concerned themselves for different things – diverse and unrelated things – now spend considerable time and energy concerned with the same few things: That our institution is racist (never mind that it is not), that merit and curiosity is White, and of course that sex is a spectrum. They always converge to the same narrow topics.
I consider the topics of racism, sex, and gender to be very important. I want everyone to get along and have fair chances. But why must an organization that is about this thing waaaay over here now must focus on this other thing waaaay over there? And stfu if you say they have abandoned what they used to be about!
https://newdiscourses.com/2021/04/the-woke-goal-everything-serves-theory/
”
The immediate goal of the Woke agenda is to turn everything into a Woke organ. That’s it. This is more alarming than it may sound, however. You may be Catholic or Protestant, a scientist or a doctor, a rockclimber or a musician, but if the Woke agenda proceeds far enough, you will in time find yourself being a Woke person professing Wokeness in Catholic or Protestant language, or through science and medicine, or in rockclimbing and music. That is, the Woke agenda is to flatten all the variety out of life and make every aspect of life do one thing and one thing only: serve Theory.
”
Lindsay tends to ramble in his podcasts, but he makes the main points from 4:30 to 11:00.
This seems like another way of saying that it’s a religion
More like a cancer, I think, or a parasitic wasp which turns its victim into a wasp generator. But Lindsay does call it a cult.
I believe Lindsay has an audio presentation that describes academic wokeness as a virus because he references woke academics using exactly that metaphor and terminology to describe their own dogma!
Wait until the people pushing prayer in schools adopt the terminology the FFRF uses. They could say that even talking about banning prayer and bibles in schools causes harm to Christians and is literally erasing them. It is literally violence, etc.
I wonder if FFRF will go the way of Atheism+?
The same logic could be used to shut down opposition to health care reform [I’m in favor of Medicare-for-all] because any opposing opinion could quite rationally be seen as having the effect of killing people who would not be able to gain health care through some reform.
Nothing that matters could have any opposition to it discussed in the open because doing so would have an effect that matters.
Yes, and the censorious way in which the Left is demanding that everyone obey their commandments undoubtedly helped get Trump elected.
If I had a daughter at school, I’d definitely prefer forced prayers to forced presence of boys in the girls’ restrooms and changing rooms.
And if there must be compelled speech, I’d prefer it to acknowledge an imaginary being with a rich history and culture behind itself, rather than to be a pledge of loyalty to certain groups of fellow humans.
One is just a longer road to the same end. That’s the bottom-line problem. Forced prayer in school is the road, for “your daughter”, to kowtowing to male dominance and her own second-class citizenship. Likewise forced presence of boys in the girls restrooms. The only difference between the culture of the imaginary being and the culture of imaginary gender-permutation is length of time of their existence. They’re both patriarchy.
Your response was perfect. What a shame FFRF has capitulated to the confused kids on this issue, and what a shame they don’t teach them to listen to the “other side”.
Yes, someone wrote a poem a year ago about wanting to be called Sequoia, and identify as a redwood tree, but made another choice. Where will this pursuit of self end???
That author must have been schizophrenic…Sequoia and Redwood are two different species. Or are species identities non-binary now?
They have become what they are supposedly fighting, a religious dogma. They deny science and don’t want to debate. They don’t like their thoughts to be challenged. It’s sad to see guys like Dillahunty denying scientific facts.
“They have become what they are supposedly fighting, a religious dogma.” –
Thank you, Rafael, perfectly phrased.
Hear hear.
Exactly.
FFRF vs Professor Coyne; that reminds me of a title on my bookshelf, Faith vs Fact.
Nailed it!
100%
Thumbs up!
https://x.com/Evolutionistrue/status/1872669463008657868 🧬
https://x.com/Evolutionistrue/status/1873018487293301093 🧬
It’s such a shame. ☹️
I wish people would just accept the “facts of biology.” 👦👧
In the long run, I wonder where FFRF is headed? Won’t their effort to keep church and state separated be diluted by refusing to acknowledge simple biological facts.
It certainly interferes with their central mission, to provide support for those questioning religion. If they demand that you accept their dogma, that will probably deter a lot of people struggling with doubt.
Somewhere you said that just as having a problem with Islam doesn’t necessarily make you Islamophobic, disagreeing on this definition of sex doesn’t make you transphobic… I thought that was an excellent point to make to atheists, but still it bounced off them.
I am not a member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. But is there a way I can write to them and say their treatment of you is cruel, un-scientific, mindless, Orwellian, and reactionary?
Yes, the emails of the co-presidents are publicly displayed on the FFRF site, and are here: https://secular.org/organization/freedom-from-religion-foundation/
I would recommend using Annie Laurie’s and Dan’s addresses over the “contact email” to ensure that the people at the top know what you think. But that’s up to you, of course.
FFRF staff tell me that Annie Laurie doesn’t read any email unless one of the admin assistants forwards them to her. She’ll simply ignore you.
Maybe if the admin gets dozens of responses to this topic, it will become impossible to ignore.
I don’t think so. In my experience, the woke, especially woke atheists never back down. They double down. And now, even if they eventually realize they’re wrong, they tend to employ the sunk-cost fallacy. FFRF looks terrible whatever they do.
When I read that response yesterday, I saw red and didn’t comment. But when I read it again today, in a calmer mood, I can only comment that the entire letter is a non sequitur. Your piece was biology, not an attack on LGBTQIA-plus rights. If they had not been explicit about the fact that they were responding to your letter, I would never have connected one with the other. The FFRF response is borderline bizarre, and seems to have been written in fear of some calamity.
Yes, but in the minds of Progressives the assertion of biology is an attack. They view humans as tabula rasa. The solutions assume the complete malleability of humans. To suggest that there are limits is unacceptable to them.
If they think that humans are immune from biology, they should launch themselves into space without a spacesuit and see what happens.
Obviously, I can’t know what happened behind the scenes. But what usually happens in these matters is that the rank and file starts screaming, “Reeeeeeee!” The higher-ups consider leadership to mean getting slightly out ahead of where their followers are going anyway. Thus, that is a calamity, and they promptly reverse field.
FTR, “LGB” has been co-opted, over the years, by “LGBTQIA-plus”, much to the chagrin of many on the “L” side. For instance, are you aware of the tenet that “if a lesbian refuses to sleep with or date a transwoman”, then she is automatically considered “exclusionary”; as in “a TERF” (mentioned in Kat Grant’s post)? Just wanted to make it known that “LGBTQIA-plus” rights are not as monolithically encompassing as you might assume. Many lesbians are vehemently opposed to “transwomen” in women’s spaces, sports and social environment.
Astoundingly stupid of FFRF. They’ve just lost a member.
Me too.
This is appalling. I’ve written to the editor, and I suggest others do the same:
“I am aghast and deeply disappointed to learn that you unpublished Jerry Coyne’s piece on the biology of sex. If you refuse to publish the truth on such matters, what is your purpose? Either you are principled and committed to truth, or you are not—and it now seems the latter applies. This decision has severely damaged your credibility and lost my respect. For an organization claiming to address contentious issues, integrity and courage are paramount. In one cowardly act, you’ve shown a serious lack of both. I am appalled and disgusted.”
Thanks for the outline — this is just what I will say to them. They’ve lost all credibility with me. The difference between males and females is so fundamental, and SO consequential, especially for females. I’m just appalled.
+1
Really sad what has happened. As you know, Jerry, I had my own interaction with Annie Laurie a couple of years ago on this same issue, and found her response to me on the topic polite, but also naïve and poorly reasoned and not focused on the actual questions I had asked of her. I’ve been a member of FFRF for many years. But trans ideology ruins everything it touches, and now it’s taken down FFRF. I’m done with them (and will be asking for my money back — a substantial donation that was just sent in two weeks ago — but I doubt I’ll get a response of any kind this time).
But asking for your money back is absolutely the best way to get their attention.
Can you stop payment on the check? Or contest the credit card charge?
I sent Annie Laurie and Dan a physical letter via US mail explaining to them why I removed FFRF from my estate plans and will never renew my nearly 30-year membership. Annie Laurie never replied. Dan emailed me saying “Thank you for your letter and being a FFRF member.” That’s it. That’s all he said.
Thank you Jerry, for continuing to stand firm on the importance of clear, evidence-based discussions, even when they provoke controversy. Your piece highlights a crucial aspect of scientific inquiry: the pursuit of truth, regardless of prevailing ideological pressures.
It’s disappointing that the FFRF removed your article, as open dialogue is essential for progress.
Please keep up the good work—your thoughtful approach to challenging topics is greatly valued by many of us.
Simply outrageous. I’m so sorry you’ve had to experience this Jerry. The sheer cowardice of it all beggers belief.
For many years I have been a disciple of yours as well as a member of FFRF. As of now, I am only a disciple of yours.
As a Life Member of FFRF and a personal friend of Annie Laurie and Dan, it saddens me immensely to say this, but they blew it. I’m no biologist, but Jerry Coyne certainly seems to make his case. Even if he doesn’t, though, the proper response is to cite other biologists who disagree with him, not shut him out. Jerry would find better, more congenial and respectful attention from Robyn Blumner and the Center for Inquiry. If Dan or Annie Laurie read this: please make this right. At least apologize to Coyne and, better, post what he writes and invite debate, not fearfulness.
As a biological woman, I was actually offended by the article (what is a woman.)
I felt your counter article was excellent, scientifically correct and on point. The fact that they find it distressing and took it down disturbs me even more. As a biological woman I feel I have fought and I am still fighting against society with my fellow women for equality in certain areas. Especially for women in countries like Afghanistan and Iran. Growing up as a woman many times you wish you were a man because it is sometimes just easier being a man in certain situations. No I don’t know what it must be like to be trans and to feel you are in the wrong body wearing the wrong skin to who you are inside. And of course trans people should get all the same rights as people everywhere but not at the price of taking them from woman and especially by redefining who we are. Please don’t take our woman hood away from us.
It seems as if the prevailing thought is that if a group has been discriminated against – that includes trans folk – then balancing their needs/rights against others’ needs/rights is off the table, even if the needs/rights of others are not grounded in bigotry (white supremecists in the 50s “needing” or feeling uncomfortable with African-Americans at lunch counters was grounded in bigotry). But who could doubt that women themselves have suffered at the hands of misogyny?
Misogynists.
Remember that gender ideology is a men’s rights ideology.
As a biological woman I completely agree. These issues are very misogynistic IMHO.
As a biological man, I completely agree with you.
Again and again, I can only shake my head in dismay at the madness that has taken root in the minds of people who describe themselves as “liberal”, “progressive” or “left-wing”.
Freedom From Reality Foundation.
👍
+1
Oooof. That smarts.
So what progressive groups still believe in freedom of speech and diversity of ideas to learn the truth of reality? I never would have guessed FfRF would eventually be destroyed be the woke virus.
WOW!!! It’s absolutely unbelievable that your text has fallen victim to woke cancel culture within this organization. The Freedom from Religion Foundation has turned into a Freedom from Freedom of Speech Foundation.
One never frees oneself from religion. They merely give it a new name and replace it with another set of orthodoxies; a new set of rules and principles from which none may stray. THE T in LGBTQ is one such religion.
Gender ideology is just one of the tenets of the new Woke religion.
A typo Jerry? Presumably you meant “… place any kind of opposition to progressive ideology under the rubric of “Christian nationalism.” ” ?
Oops. Thanks! Gotta fix that!
One of the things about the transgender topic which has really stood out to me is the huge emphasis its advocates place on victimhood. While that may be a major component of all the areas of critical social justice, when it comes to the transgender it’s turned up to 11.
Trans people are the most marginalized, the most oppressed, the most vulnerable, the most fragile, sensitive, and easily offended. Suicide is seen as a likely and not unreasonable reaction to gender dysphoria. Meltdowns over misgendering are understandable. There is apparently no pain so great, no sense of alienation so cutting, as other people thinking you’re one sex when in your mind you’re not that sex. It removes your humanity and prevents you from functioning.
I’ve never seen anything like it. FFRF’s overreaction then was sadly predictable. Trans folx are Supervictims and that makes Jerry a Supervillain. We see the cape and the noble defense of Secular Reason. They’re blinded by tears first, then rage.
This is such a crucial point. Transgender people’s claims of being marginalized, of being persecuted, of being genocided, of being on the verge of suicide, etc, are the most effective tool they have in their toolbox when cowing people into submission.
Quite, Muffy Mead. It seems to me that is all they have, and they come across – those men who find they feel like a woman this day, at least – as spoilt brats having hysterical tantrums at times; at others, turning all their rage into violent threats – from their anonymity. JK Rowling can testify to that.
And this Kat Grant person, waffling on astonishingly on her Substack blog “Transing Boundaries” (see Publilius at no.36) about zones and wanting full and open debates (huh?), seems to be playing an “Oh, poor me” big time but laying about with threats, direct and implied. It reminded me somewhat of the writings of the Duke of Wellington whom I met at my sister-in-law’s schizophrenic ward when we were visiting her. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so damned serious.
This is the end result of American culture valorizing victimhood and engaging in the oppression olympics. People without power are also without responsibility, and a powerless victim is the ultimate in virtue. And it turns out that such virtue can be weaponized and used bludgeon anyone who disagrees with the most extreme representatives of the victim group. To wield those weapons is to have gained power while denying responsibility. The extremists regard themselves as so morally pure that no one aside from themselves has the right to criticize them. And so matters go out of control.
I followed the pingback links to B&W, and was rather surprised. Ophelia seems to have changed. Quite sensible, unlike those who remain at FTB.
Again… institutions can decrep, they can decline. Time Magazine, Pan Am, the BBC, the UK maybe (by my casual observations).
Seems FFRF has declined also. Unfortunate – I used to admire them.
D.A.
NYC
It bears repeating; appalling action by FFRF. Shameful. Cowardly. A self-inflicted (mortal?) wound. It undermines their raison d’etre; unless they take action immediately to undo this idiocy, they will be seen as actively opposed to the truth. And science. That will do them no good.
I stand with you, Jerry. It’s painful to see intelligent people collapsing biology and ethics. Whatever biology says about the number of sexes tells us nothing about how we should relate or act towards those who identify as a different sex from the one they were born with. One of the saddest parts of the whole thing is that those who insist that biology must conform with ideology are, ultimately, undermining their own cause and alienating their fellow citizens. You don’t have to look far to see how that’s already playing out.
The FFRF seems to be rejecting scientific truth in favor of the delusional belief that biological sex in mammals is on a spectrum.
It has the look and smell of a religious belief.
But if I want a religious belief, I’d choose a traditional one, such as the one my ancestors had, with its rich baggage of temples, art, music, literature etc., rather than the abominations of the far left that have nothing to offer except biology denialism and male intruders in my supposed safe spaces.
Couldn’t agree more. Christianity produced western civilization, not a bad track record…
Archimedes, Homerus, Plato and Sophocles beg to differ, among many others.
The greek philosophical tradition of the Socrates-Plato-Aristotle-Neoplatonists lineage independently came to the conclusion of the existence of God. That’s why Christianity is the merging of this tradition with judeo-christian revelation. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are two of the most important thinkers in that regard.
The Christian belief of humanity being made in the image of God, led to concepts of the sacred and intrinsic value of all human beings, which led to the concept of human rights. Christians believe that God has revealed himself to all of humanity, not just to Jews, which led to universalism. and thus to universal human rights. The Christian belief in the separation of church and state (from Jesus himself) led to the possibility of secularism and atheism. Jesus’ attitude towards women and marginalized people led to the concepts of hospitals, caring for the sick and the poor, social justice, etc. The Christian value of reason (see the importance of the Platonic/Aristotelian philosphy mentioned above) led to the creation of universities in medieval Europe. The Christian belief in a world created by an intelligence led to the conviction that nature was an intelligible and beautiful creation worth investigating, which led to the birth of modern science. Christian view on monogamous marriage was unknown in ancient Rome. I could go on.
The unimaginably violent, cruel and unequal world of ancient Greece and Rome was a world completely foreign to the values we take for granted and that we inherited from Christianity. Tom Holland’s Dominion is probably the best recent book explaining this historical fact. We shouldn’t underestimate how radical a departure Christianity was in terms of its conception of the world and of human nature and its place in it, as compared to what was the norm in ancient Greece and Rome.
The proposition that human sex is not binary implies a belief in a metabiological -indeed metaphysical- sex or collection of sexes. It is therefore, in essence, a religious belief promoted by an organization devoted to erradicate religious beliefs; Bravo!
Trans activists seem to believe that we oppress them simply by disagreeing with their metaphysical understanding of themselves. I don’t get it.
To make a comparison, I also disagree with religious people about their metaphysical understanding of their selves. I don’t believe in a “soul” as some kind of supernatural natural entity that God breathed into us and that exists independently of the physical and chemical state of the brain and nervous system. I don’t claim to understand how matter gives rise to consciousness (the ghost in the machine). But I rather assume that our consciousness is an epiphenomenon on the physical state of the brain, not the product of a supernatural soul.
Religious people mostly don’t use the same rhetoric about such disagreements as the trans fanatics. Religious people don’t accuse me of “denying their lived experience as ensouled beings”, or of “trying to erase their existence as ensouled beings”, or of “advocating genocide” by disagreeing that they have souls.
Oh great, now you’ve given the Templeton Foundation another line of attack on science. 😉
But it is the truth, and apparently the majority of US voters agree.
It doesn’t take a biologist to know what a woman is, nor does it take a philosopher to understand when advocacy has trumped analysis, anecdote and assertion replaced evidence.
Another case of an organization caring less about what they are for and more about whom they are against.
The Friendly Atheist has written a long hit piece on Dr. Coyne. “[Coyne’s] blog is now mostly a cesspool of blockquotes from his favorite conservative writers.”
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/atheist-group-faces-backlash-after
Kat Grant has responded as well: https://transingboundaries.substack.com/p/i-am-not-interested-in-making-bigots
Strikes me as designed by dialectic.
•establish true opponent
->Create deliberate conflict
->elicit expected responses
->blame conflict on true opponent’s thought
•advance Leftist objectives above the wreckage
In a phrase:
Your target’s reaction is your real action
Wow – not a particularly friendly atheist! His claim that sex is not binary makes one question the rest of his opinions. That probably explains why he totally missed the fundamental point of Jerry’s essay.
I left a comment there. His favored authorities to cite are Fuentes and Novella. The most basic facts of reproductive biology are labeled “right-wing talking points”. It’s a weird mirror-world.
My thought exactly, Douglas. With friends like that, who needs enemies! His claim that sex is not binary – wow! Such power of authority and deep, grounded knowledge! Pfft! No argument to back it up in his article to refute Jerry’s well argued piece but I clicked on the link on a second reading and that leads to Mr Agustin Fuentes’s contention that “Ova don’t make a woman, and sperm don’t make a man”. Again, such intellectual power – NOT!
Kat Grant has now written:
How very generous and open minded.
Curiously, he seems to identify as a “transgender person of faith.” Either not an atheist, or unexpectedly candid about the pillars of transgender identification (or something else.)
That sounds like the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Luke 15:
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
Reading Kat Grant’s plan for forging a new way forward, I’m reminded of the military maxim not to interrupt your opponent when he’s in the middle of making a mistake.
Yep, I was going to point out the same thing.
Describing oneself “as a transgender person of faith who values diversity of thought and pluralism and free expression” is not just ironic in this context, but what does a person of faith has to do with freedom from religion?
(then proceeds to speaking of various zones from comfort to learning, and with an utter lack of self reflection attributes to WEITs commenters the attitude of “becom[ing] defensive of the beliefs that are being challenged”)
Also attacks Richard Dawkins, another “transphobe.”
A quote about Jerry:
His blog is now mostly a cesspool of blockquotes from his favorite conservative writers. A deep dive through his “sex and gender” posts will rid you of any respect you may have had for him. (Coyne gave a similar anti-trans talk at the Center For Inquiry’s CSICon in October. Dr. Steven Novella, who spoke at the same event, rebutted it here.)
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/atheist-group-faces-backlash-after
Also PZ weighed in:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2024/12/28/why-should-i-trust-an-organization-that-honors-the-worst-among-us/
“…20 percent of male prisoners and a maximum of 3 percent of female prisoners have committed sex offenses, at least 41 percent of trans-identifying prisoners were convicted of these crimes. Transgender, then, appear to be twice as likely as natal males and at least 14 times as likely as natal females to be sex offenders.”
That last sentence appears to be making a statement about the general population. The next sentence clarifies that by saying the percentages are “imperfect because they’re based only on those who are caught.” However, the problem with the math is worse than imperfection. It is completely wrong to say that since the percentage of transgender prisoners who were convicted of sex offenses is twice as high as male prisoners who were convicted of sex offenses, then those percentages are matched in the the general population. It could be true that a general population male is still much more likely to commit a sex offense than a general population transgender person. The numbers in the prisoner population just tell you the likelihood that at transgender criminal was a sex offender, not the likelihood that a transgender person is a sex offender. To compare that last likelihood you need the percentage of trans people over all, and the likelihood that a transgender person goes to jail for any offense at all, and Bayes’ theorem to put it all together. Or you could just compare the total fractions of transgender sex offenders to male sex offenders out of the total population—not out of the prison populations.
“it could be true that a general population male is still much more likely to commit a sex offense than a general population transgender person” but then you should explain why one of the general populations is caught more frequently than the other. You are correct that a better calculation should be done on the numbers of the general population, but the problem is there isn’t reliable data on that. England and Wales census made a little mess with that. If you try to do that calculation anyway, you end up with lower number but the ordering (transwomen, male, female) doesn’t change.
Ultimately though, none of this details matter so much because there is a bigger problem: what counts as “trans”. As I already argued in the first blog post here:
about “transwomen” inmates. “Transgender (…) appear to be twice as likely as natal males and at least 14 times as likely as natal females to be sex offenders”. I’d say this is NOT the correct conclusion from the data. And since it doesn’t hurt to be charitable, I think we can concede another intepretation: (convicted) sex offenders are more likely to identify as trans. I think it’s worth pointing out because these allows one to steelman a position against self-ID: the trans activists would reply “ah, but those are DISINGENUOUS identification, they are not ‘true trans’”. To which we can in turn reply: (what is a “true” trans?) how do you propose to objectively distinguish those who are faking it before they offend? The only possible conclusion is that self-ID policies are dangerous garbage.
“What is a true trans?” is indeed an important question, but askable only before you have enshrined self-ID in human-rights law. (Spoiler alert: if you ask this question, you won’t enshrine self-ID.) Once you have enshrined self-ID, you can’t ask it because a true trans is whatever a trans-claimer says he is. If you dispute his claim he will take you to the Human Rights Commission at your expense, and win. Checkmate.
Drat. Sorry for the excessive bolding. Meant to be only one word.
O’Brien: How many types of gametes, Prof. Coyne?
It may be that FFRF had already painted itself into a corner and found that it seemed to have no choice but to “double down” on this thinking.
It really seems counter-productive to what I thought was the main point of FFRF.
Someone told me about your response to my earlier comment. Thanks, I want to think about it and say something that is both thoughtful and powerful. I am anything but a Trump supporter, but these people are completely off the wall. Stay strong.
This debate saddens me. The action of the FFRF seems to be based on some weird theory that skeptics should not be allowed to disagree. Or that skeptics are so sensitive that they cannot emotionally deal with disagreement. Due to some combination of these beliefs they felt the need to protect their readers from….what? Rational disagreement?
They might as well dismiss the entire history of philosophy from the Greeks and ancient Asian thinkers to today’s debates about what is real in the subatomic realm. Given that reason rarely convinces unreasonable people, it seems to me that cutting off personal financial support of the group is an appropriate response. Obviously, not the only one, but an easy one for people with limited free time. And there are plenty of alternative skeptical organizations that are worth supporting.
Unfortunately, when you say “I doubt that even the FFRF would think that women should be boxing, professionally or in the Olympics, against men or biological men who identify as women.” I think you are being grossly naive. All trans issues are The-Only-True-Way-To-Think issues. So they would not publish anything that contradicted any of the cardinal points in the Radical Transgender Catechism – under penalty of having to deeply apologize and atone for offending and harming the most vulnerable population on the planet (you know who): Orthodoxy or Death (Cancellation/Shunning). For FFRF to pretend that this is a secular movement is a deeply flawed blind spot that, in time, they will live to regret.
+1
“I think you are being grossly naive.”
How about the least bit naive, if naive at all? Maybe he’s trying to be hopefully optimistic and is charitably inclined to give the FFRF principals what reasonable benefit of the doubt possibly may be had. (I’d like to know how inclined Annie Laurie is to get in the boxing ring with a male opponent.) To appropriate an ad of the last few years, I figure PCC(E) knows a thing or two because he’s seen a thing or two.
I disagree. Sure, but what they believe might be very different from what they allow to be printed – and that is what counts. The ideologues will simply not permit any deviation from orthodoxy, and if FFRF did know this before they published Coyne’s article, they certainly understand that now.
Well, screw ’em, Jerry. You don’t need them and they don’t want you. They backed the wrong horse here, as the trans nonsense is winding down, and deservedly so.
Re winding down, maybe. Even obviously bad ideas (in hindsight) have surprising staying power once they’ve captured enough social institutions. Consider Soviet Socialism, “whole language” reading instruction, neoliberal economics; and add your own examples.
The irony is obvious when the site titles itself “Free Thought Now”
IMO, the most generous guess of what happened here is that FFRF fears losing donations. After all they initially allowed the argument, rejecting it only after it was denounced with adjectives and declarations lacking genuine counterargument content, presumably by people who donate to FFRF.
‘Trans’ is the highest god. You have sinned against god. You are guilty of the crime of blasphemy. Having your post removed is a comparatively mild punishment. Seth Moulton (D-MA) was called a ‘Nazi’ by a local head of the Democratic party for daring to suggest that he didn’t want his daughters to be run over.
Wokism invades everything.
I wonder if a few thousand, or hundred thousand people disengaged from FFRF, they would take notice.
Seems more, lately that people are dancing on eggshells but nobody wants to break any.
Don’t waiver from the truth and the facts, Jerry.
Biological truths are not FFRF’s prefered truths… frightened LBGTQ+ staff and members are to be protected from biotruths and they’re (my guess) being heard loud and clear to drown out, umm, drown IN, the sludge of ideology.
Natural selection has taken millions of years to this date building a biological reproductive system by differential gene survival.
FFRF in a blink of an eye wish it to be ideology and feelings to transcend biology and forthwith, be the truth. Alarmingly dumb and hopefully by now not comfortable.
Big ups to Jerry on not taking this lying down.
Dear Prof.Coyne:
Long time reader, first time poster. I left a comment under FFRF’s post titled “Freedom From Religion Foundation supports LGBTQIA-plus rights” (sic). I’m not sure it got published.
In the meanwhile, Kat Grant, who seems to be a lesbian / bisexual young woman who has no sex dysphoria (though she claims being uncomfortable with her periods counts) and has undergone no clinical transition, has launched a whole substack seeking to profit from the fleeting attention you gave her. It’s probably the most important thing that’s ever happened to her, and she even claims you have been going “after her work” for the last two and a half years. And she is a chuch-goer. It cannot get more unbelievable than this.
In any event, this is the comment I left under that FFRF’s post:
“Dear FFRF:
As someone who was observed male at birth, but suffered from sex dysphoria – i.e. having a neurological map of your sexed body that corresponds not to the sex you were observed at birth, but the opposite one – I was more offended by the post that motivated prof. Jerry Coyne’s response than whatever Coyne had to say.
The initial post addresses supposed concerns of people who need healthcare because of their sexual dysphoric condition, and is written by someone who, while having no sex dysphoria, having undergone no sex transition (which would be, of course not needed nor would be in the interest of the author’s health and well-being), claims to have the same, or a similar, life experience, by the means of immaterial beliefs. Which, even if there was nothing wrong with the post itself, is extraordinarily offensive.
Being bi/homosexual and/or not conventionally feminine is absolutely not the same as sex dysphoria. These are life experiences which have nothing in common, either innately or socially. The author is, thankfully, far less disprivileged than the people who do have sex dysphoria.
The author author argues that anyone who simply wants, rather than needs, a clinical transition should get one (“gender affirming care”); that procedures which don’t change your sexual characteristics are the same as those which do; conflates disorders of sexual development with sex dysphoria; is so essentialist as to conflate masculinity/femininity, or heterosexuality/homosexuality, with sex.
That author has no more life experience in common with sex-dysphoric people than prof. Jerry Coyne does, but still not only proclaims to, the author also claims to be an “expert” on the subject.
The author hasn’t recognised religion is man-made (being a religionist), isn’t an internationally recognised scientist,
and isn’t a member of FFRF’s honorary board; Prof. Jerry Coyne does / is.
I would also assert that said author is more “lgbt-phobic” than Coyne is.
Yet you deleted Coyne’s post with no notice, but the harmful post by that author still stands.
You’re not being pro-lgbt, pro-science, nor advancing freedom from immaterial beliefs.”
The FFRF has been removing some comments from its post but I have only heard about that.
Dear prof. C,
Might’ve been just problems with WordPress, I’m not sure.
I’m also not too sure on what I’d call myself at any rate.
I’m only sure I’d sleep soundly if you occupied half of a deserted island I’d suddenly find myself in. We might disagree (or not) on some small things (I do prefer dogs over cats to a small degree, have you tried Great Danes?), but I would be honoured to listen to your vast knowledge and wisdom. I would very firmly shut up and listen in awe.
I’d be very much yikes and where is the sun if I found myself on the same deserted island as Kat Grant.
I’m horrified by all of this. You deserve so much better than this craven, disgusting response. I’m so sorry :/
I don’t know if Kat is gay or not. But I do know she has talked in FFRF YouTube videos about taking testosterone.
Kat Grant’s article is still up, although it doesn’t appear to allow comments.
If FFRF wanted to get themselves out of the mess they’ve created, they could remove that article as well and stick to their core focus.
PCC(E), Pinker, and everyone else who actually cares about freethought should resign from the FFRF honorary board,
Yes, PCCE. You and all the other Honorary Board members should publicly and loudly resign from FFRF over this idiocy.
Do we know what the FFRF’s position is on transgender athletes is women’s sport or transgender women acting as rape counselors? They noticeably don’t mention these in their letter.
Like most of the captured, FFRF probably hasn’t thought that far ahead.
They actually haven’t thought about reality at all.
Utterly disgraceful behaviour from the FFRF! They can say what they want, but I don’t think that they will easily persuade me that they aren’t bowing down before the secular altar of gender identity ideology.
Their timing is terrible, too – the age of “No Debate!” is over and the relevant science, medical evidence, and lawsuits concerning “gender-affirming healthcare” are going to be increasingly coming out, even in the liberal media, over the next few years.
How children and young people were allowed to be indoctrinated into the cult of trans, and how medical, legal, governmental, and media institutions were complicit in it, will be one of the biggest scandals of our times.
The FFRF just chose to join the losing side in a debate that they could have steered clear from. More fool them!
Regarding “bowing down before the secular altar of gender identity ideology”, I think it would be more accurate to recognize gender ideology as a religious cult posing as Secular Truth. Your referring to “bowing down before the . . . altar” shows that you understand that as well. It is time to debunk the secular pretense and call it out for what it is: a deeply authoritarian religious cult. Another indication that FFRF has lost its way.
As a 30-year member of FFRF, I find this to be terribly disappointing.
(One last comment, at the risk of going over the limit in Da Roolz.)
There are several other prominent scientists on FFRF’s Honorary Board (https://ffrf.org/about/staff-and-board/honorary-board/honorary-board/). Should PCC(e) decide to resign publicly, it would have even more impact if he didn’t do so alone.
In my effort to understand how FFRF made the leap from dealing with church/state issues to trans issues, I wondered if their entry into this arena was prompted by the fact that Christianity is generally opposed to trans people and surgical sex change in particular, so FFRF had to oppose Christianity on these issues since they will try legislatively and through the courts to limit the civil liberties of trans people and ban the surgical treatment for adults as well as children. As a result FFRF felt compelled to take a stand and suppress Jerry’s opinion, not based on a proper vetting of the issues, open inquiry, discussion, reason and science, but based on someone’s hurt feelings. There are occasions where Christians are right on an issue, in particular with respect to the surgical and pharmaceutical treatment of children, albeit for all the wrong reasons. As Sam Harris once said: “Faith, if is ever right about anything, is right by accident.” Christianity’s position on any issue should not lead to a knee jerk reaction to oppose it.
In any event, if the issue of the removal of article is not resolved to Jerry’s satisfaction, I will resign my membership in FFRF.
I find your explanation plausible (atheists actually being anti religion activists dumbly adopting the position that everything religious people say must be wrong).
But I’d like to point out I wouldn’t be so sure Christians in general cannot be trans activists.
Just an example: in the documentary “Are You Proud?” you can see Deacon Joy Everingham, Chaplain of Kent & Christ Church University, wearing a clerical collar with the trans flag colors (light blue, pink, white) declaring “TRANS PRIDE is different because it’s talking about GENDER (…) It’s quite challenging for LGB people because IF GENDER IS ON A SPECTRUM, THEN HOMOSEXUALITY DOESN’T REALLY EXISTS”.
This isn’t proof, but I’d say it’s suggestive of the possibility that christian, homophobic people are on board with trans precisely because gender identity ideology is an attack on LGB people.
You know what? I really need somebody to remind me of a respectable organization that hasn’t been severely compromised by the woke mind virus.
FFRF: infected
Harvard and all of Boston: infected
Science, JAMA, Nature, Scientific American: infected
NYT, Guardian, BBC: infected
Democratic Party: infected
Humanists: infected
Some of the Rationalist Old Guard are also infected and/or are in bed (literally or economically) with those who are infected, or would rather still play down the influence of the mind virus in comparison to anything backed by Trump.
I can’t name 10 scientists under 50 who aren’t infected.
I can name engineers in tech who aren’t. I can name businessmen. I can name scientists pushed out of academia and a few rare birds still there, like Geoffrey Miller (over 50). The courage and ingenuity on the Right is vastly more inspiring now than 90% of what the Left has to offer—or 90% of anything that comes to my mind now.
Somebody please remind me what’s not gone belly up with the Left, lest I spend the rest of the day listening to “Losing My Religion” whilst thinking about my erstwhile leftist bonafides.
The below is a long post, but I found it helpful in understanding why so many organizations and people are compromised.
https://musaalgharbi.substack.com/p/smart-people-are-especially-prone
Thanks. The discussion of cognitive biases in your linked post got me thinking about Motte-and-Bailey tactics. Instead of defending controversial claims, the tactic involves retreating to a safe, uncontroversial position that most people accept. This is exactly what the FFRF did here.
Grant proposed a striking Bailey: “A woman is whoever she says she is.”
Jerry countered with factual arguments grounded in biology.
The FFRF, instead of addressing Jerry’s points, retreated to the Motte: “LGBTQIA+ individuals deserve equal rights.”
To make matters worse, the FFRF didn’t even have the courtesy to engage Jerry directly, further entrenching themselves in the safety of their Motte.
Few people with a modicum of conscientiousness (which Jerry clearly has in spades) would argue against the Motte of equal rights for LGBTQIA+ individuals. But by avoiding Jerry’s refutation entirely, the FFRF sidestepped accountability for their original claim.
It’s also worth noting that Mottes are convenient places from which to dispense authoritarian declarations. In the safety of the Motte, the FFRF appears to occupy the higher moral ground by virtue of staking out an uncontroversial position.
But make no mistake—this is just tactical maneuvering. And frankly, it’s weaselly.
“A woman is whoever she says she is” qualifies as an example of what Daniel Dennett called a “deepity” – a true but (scientifically) trivial statement which can also be interpreted in a way which is extraordinary but false.
Like in a Motte and Bailey, those who offer deepities trade on the resemblance to grant credibility to the second. From what I’ve seen, the resemblance might also confuse them as they cycle back and forth.
True But Trivial:
A woman might have all sorts of interests, abilities, or physical attributes and still be a woman in her own right.
Extraordinary But False:
Those physical attributes could include being male.
Hah. I will be thinking about the intersection of Deepities and Baileys.
(I started thinking about Motte-and-Bailey tactics when conversing with an immigration lawyer, a friend who is highly infected with the woke mind virus. He defended Taylor Lorenz’s statement about feeling “joy” for Luigi Mangione’s killing of Brian Thompson. Implicit Bailey: “Vigilante killing is justified if the victim is deemed to be a bad person.” When I said that was morally repugnant, he responded with one hell of a Motte: “It’s normal to feel more empathy for some people over others.” Now that I think of it, that Motte is also a Deepity or at least an Honorary Deepity or Deepity Adjacent 🙂 )
Yes, Roz, it’s very weaselly. As far as I understand things, LGBTQIA+ people have rights as human beings, equal to the rights we all have. It’s just that the T’s, especially the blokes who want to wear dresses and make-up, do not, will not, can not accept that their demands for equal rights then over-ride the rights of actual women who have struggled for many, many years for those rights – and are still struggling I should think. More than weaselly, it’s downright cynical and selfish, and their self-pitying behaviour and statements are disgusting.
When Jerry’s piece appeared, I was impressed with how many FFRF Freethought Now readers in the comments were agreeing with him. I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that their numbers outweighed the condemnations. It’s probably safe, then, to say that the membership is divided.
Most of the other ASH (atheist, skeptic/humanist) organizations are likely to be divided as well. I’m willing to bet the same holds true for science and medicine. If nothing else, a large proportion probably recognizes that there’s a debate with both sides acting in good faith, regardless of which side is correct. They haven’t gone completely belly up.
Fortunately, both archived versions include members’ comments up to the snapshot time, and so preserve a valuable record of those sentiments.
Thanks. I hypothesize that among members of ASH organizations, those more willing to publicly support Jerry with their real names are a) above 50 and b) have less to lose financially. There is still so little incentive for anyone in science or medicine to speak up.
I’m a scientist in the Harvard ecosystem at one of the Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals. While I’ve observed fewer instances of wokeness there than I did as a postdoc at Harvard Chan, we were told by a medical leader that we’d be disowned if we supported RFK Jr. I have serious concerns about RFK Jr.’s ideas about vaccines, to say the least. But to know that if I happened to have had some sympathy in his direction I’d be disowned was chilling. And that about sums up what it is like to be in Boston in medicine and science.
I do think there is some hope if ASH members on the Left are more willing to engage those on the Right than protect their extremes.
You think it’s age that’s the defining feature? I admit to being over 70, if you need another data point.
I’m interested in knowing the opinions of FIRE and The Free Press about this matter.
I would describe the Democratic party as divided. On the one hand, Seth Moulton (D-MA), stated “I have two girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that”, conversely his campaign manager resigned. He was denounced by the Mayor of Salem and the Governor of Massachusetts. Indeed, he was called a Nazi by a Democratic leader. Steve Kerrigan, chair of the state Democratic Party, told the Globe that Moulton’s comments “do not represent the broad view of our party”. Note that a second House Democrat, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), told The New York Times that transgender girls, whom he called “biological boys,” should not be able to participate in female sports.
That is freaking nuts! No wonder Trump won so comfortably.
My sixth sense sent me over to P********a to check if this brouhaha was met with expected hyperbole.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2024/12/28/why-should-i-trust-an-organization-that-honors-the-worst-among-us/
Geez. They’re a piece of work over there, aren’t they.
This is nauseating. What continues to be remarkable is the virulence of the attacks by trans supporters. They act as if they have been personally assaulted and demonized, when there is nothing of the kind going on. And I’d wager that most of them aren’t even trans people themselves. This is just bizarre.
I had thought FFRF’s stance might precipitate the fracturing of the “nonbeliever” cause. I was wrong. The fracturing has already happened, and it is going to be costly. And all because of “trans” ideology… never in my wildest dreams.
I’ve been reading PZ since his early days. He fascinated me and was prolific and a good writer. As time has gone by he has slowly transformed into a wokester. I will continue to read him just as I will listen to my one Trumper son. On this issue I certainly am on Jerry’s side.
Publish something.
Then have second thoughts and add a disclaimer
Then have third thoughts and take the article down.
Then delete it from the archive.
Then refuse to engage with the author you’ve so comprehensively insulted.
Leaving aside all the other issues, this sequence of events just reeks of confused amateurism at the top of FFR. People so easily panicked and pulled from pillar to post should not be in charge of anything. Resignations surely in order?
It is remarkably unprofessional, I agree.
Kudos to Prof. Coyne for defending biology – and women!
As for FFRF, I think it deserves to go underwater.
Setting aside the scientific substance for a moment, I hope that FFRF has thought through the implications of the path they’ve chosen. Professor Coyne is not the only prominent atheist advocating sanity in regards to the new trans religion. At least one other FFRF Board member, Richard Dawkins, has very publicly done so. I haven’t read anything by Steven Pinker on this subject, but I strongly suspect he would be in this group as well.
Also, another of the “Four Horsemen”, Sam Harris, has made his views clear. Quoting from Sam’s recent post-election piece:
“Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.”
Unfortunately Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens are not around to weigh in, and more’s the pity. I’d love to see what Hitch would have to say about all this.
Does FFRF really want to antagonize such a lineup of prominent atheists only so they can appease the Kat Grants of the world? It’s absurd. I have repeatedly advocated that they step away from this foolishness, but if they’re willing to censor Jerry Coyne then obviously they will never acknowledge, much less heed, me. Apparently and inexplicably “trans” transcends everything else.
It’s a bitter, disgraceful irony that an organization that loudly prides itself on “freethought” has so utterly abandoned that principle in the name of (of all things) trans advocacy.
I’m glad to read that from Sam Harris. He has said that there are simply too few trans people for him to devote much attention to them or their issues, although he does worry a lot about young girls caught up in social contagion and something needs to be done to protect them from folly.
Nonetheless, he gets it right when says trans [people] are people and should have all the political rights of people. They should not have their voting rights or civil liberties denied because they are trans. I don’t think anyone in any Western country is proposing to do that, enslaving them and doing coerced medical experiments on them. So we’re good there.
Note though that this is not the same as giving them group-based civil rights on the basis that they belong to an oppressed group of trans-identified people deserving “equity.” There are only a few categories that individuals may not discriminate on, and these vary from place to place: a universal minimum is race, sex, creed, and national origin. (Disability is a bit different: employers and providers of public accommodation must reasonably accommodate the disabled employee or customer.) Getting your own group added to the list is a matter of political action. In many but not all jurisdictions, sexual orientation got added and then, without much thought, so did gender identity. This was a mistake, even if adding sexual orientation itself was not.
So if I read Sam Harris correctly, he has it right: civil liberties for all, but no civil rights specially protecting trans identities. This was the status quo ante 2000 or so.
Of Helen Joyce’s Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality , Daniel Dennett wrote:
“Helen Joyce shows how the best intentions can morph into bullying in this sane, humane book. The role we all play in letting people be who they want to be is a delicate balancing act, no place for self-righteous partisans.”
He would obviously have been with Jerry on this one.
“intersex” is an outdated and inaccurate term…might as well call people with Down Syndrome, “interhuman”
No, the term is not “outdated” and “inaccurate”, even if activists would have you believe it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
What really irks me is that to my mind Jerry and people like him are the true supporters of the LGBTQIA+ community. They recognize and accept them for what they are. Recognizing and accepting a fantasy version only serves to imply that the real version isn’t good enough.
If we re-define “woman” to be an umbrella term that encompasses natal woman and trans-women, the term now encompasses two distinct classes of individual. Unwillingness to acknowledge this makes the word “woman” a semantic facade that hides an underlying truth, coopts natal women’s identities, and implies that trans-women are not good enough in their own right.
To my mind this is counterproductive in every way. It ties LGBTQIA+ acceptance to a semantic house of cards. Truth will out and the house will fall. The only question is how much damage will be done before it does. To the non-woke crowd this is transparent nonsense. And as far as the religious right is concerned, it just entrenches their belief that progressives are unholy and/or insane.
It’s lose-lose all around: natal-women are losing their identity and safe spaces, our science and politics are being twisted, female athletes are being expected to compete against obviously stronger trans-women, the far right is digging their heels in ever deeper, and the LGBTQIA+ community is tying their societal support to semantic constructs and falsities that will eventually be exposed as such.
It would at least make some sense if there was an upside for the LGBTQIA+ community but I don’t even see that.
A group cannot purport to support the rights of women if they can’t even define “women”, consider “woman” to be an identity rather than a biological reality that’s easily testable, and will center the demands of males claiming to be women over the rights of women.
Over on the Friendly Atheist you can leave comments. People are pushing back against my comment that’s it’s unfair to women to permit biological males to compete in women’s sports.
They’re nutty.
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/atheist-group-faces-backlash-after/comments
I think you are wasting your time over there, Fr. Katze. All they are doing is shrieking at you. (I can’t leave a comment as I would not register for a site that embodies a lie in its domain name.)
No one’s mind will be changed, but I think it is still good for silent readers to know others agree with them, and they’re not alone.
Yep I’m done with them. I was accused of being a religious nut, a failed athlete and a MAGA voter. LOL.
I’ve been replying. Will look for yours.
Thanks. I won’t argue much, they appear irrational.
From The “Friendly” Atheist:
“If you don’t want religion dictating our laws, and you believe LGBTQ people deserve civil rights, then you understand why these are issues atheist activists ought to care about.
And yet some prominent figures in our loose movement have spent years arguing the opposite, allowing white evangelicals to control the debate on LGBTQ rights—and often taking their side.”
It’s unvarnished tribalism, no different from the fundamentalists who would denounce one of their members who either agreed with or had friendly relations with Jerry or any other atheist. When people are absorbed in this form of frenzy there is no point in having a discussion. Bless you for trying!
I was about to mention the Hehmant Mehta article but you’ve already done it. I don’t understand the guy. He’s pretty sound when it comes to straightforward news items, especially those involving religion creep into public spaces, but he’s really confused when it comes to anything requiring serious thought. He dismisses Jerry in the most egregious way, ignoring the fact that transgender issues are biologically based and that hence there are few people better qualified to offer a view. Perhaps the biggest mistake Mehta makes is failing to appreciate the binary nature of sex, and that all the variations happen further up the scale. I didn’t appreciate this prior to reading Jerry’s blog and Mehta disregards it without seeming to understand it. In fact I think this probably underscores the whole discussion on FA.
Incidentally I couldn’t agree more about sports and the right of transgender women to compete in the women’s category. Very often comments will refer to the low incidence of transgender people, and even lower incidence of transgender people looking to compete at a high level in any given sport. My reply is always ‘so what’, the incidence of people who are able to compete in the top echelons of any sport, having regard to the categories, is lower than the incidence of transgender people in the population, and allowing just one miscategorised competitor to take part could have an impact on the sport way in excess of ‘it’s just one person’ thinking. A person who has undergone puberty as a male will retain physical benefits that can never be reversed, and allowing such people to compete in the female category is both unfair and unsafe. Perhaps one answer might be to refer to the present sporting categories as ‘protected’ categories, but with the senior male being an ‘open’ category, in which by definition transgender women could compete.
Hemant Mehta went down the drain years ago. It first manifested when he started crying at anybody who dared to criticise Islam or Islamofascists, instead of focusing solely on some random (Christian) preacher in the middle of Nowhereville, USA.
Oh, and he appeared on Jeopardy, in case you didn’t know! He’s very eager to tell us all that…
Oh yes Rich, I first heard of Jeopardy via Friendly Atheist when he was at Patheos. I live in the UK and know next to nothing about it, though I gather it’s become something of ‘an institution’.
I do keep track of women’s sports, and just posted there. While trying to remember the team with 5 trans women on it who win every game.
Tried a quick search on Google, seems they never heard of such a thing and blocked a correct answer. So hooray for AI (Perplexity) which immediately found brought it up, and saved lots of time sorting through Reduxx posts, as they do manage to find lots od cases of men in women’s sports, prisons, locker rooms, wherever.
For those unfamiliar with the story, the team is the Flying Bats FC: https://archive.is/c97z6
Yes, Reduxx does excellent work reporting on this issue.
Thank you!
Religion is a group created cultural phenomenon that assigns certain beliefs, actions and powers to a “god”. It lives in a part of the human psyche that experiences a feeling that some issues, events, etc. are sacred and accepted on faith. And that the members of the group share in the group’s sacred beliefs. Pulling back the lens: the FFRF shares most of these characteristics with the exception that it is actively opposed to a belief in a god and to god believing oriented groups. It replaces god oriented beliefs with progressive ideologies and beliefs and those beliefs must be sacred to all members of the group. It’s like looking in a funhouse mirror. People are a hoot in a hat. But discerning about our own foibles and mind tricks, maybe not so much.
On Reddit, there is a subreddit called /r/atheism. A post on there took issue with Dr. Coyne’s article on FFRF.
I posted this:
“Dr. Coyne is not against trans people. Read what he says on his own website https://whyevolutionistrue.com/”
I just received a notice that I have been permanently banned from /r/atheism for this post.
Banned permanently? Wow I can’t believe how touchy they are.
It’s pile on time. As Doug said in thread #70 it’s “unvarnished tribalism”.
Reddit is a platform where fora dedicated to, for example, the corrective rape of (“cis”) lesbians is fine and well-protected as free speech which harms no one, but where suggesting — in any forum — that “being gay is about sexual orientation, not gender orientation” is certain to get piled on and reported, and likely deleted or banned.
Good for you! (And their reaction.)
Moderators on Reddit are notorious for being activists, and banning any opposing views from their own. They’re literal gatekeepers.
That’s why I tend to avoid Reddit.
This is my email to FFRF:
FFRF co-presidents:
I’m sure you have received a fair amount of correspondence on this topic, and I sympathize with the position you find yourself in, but I cannot support your decision to censor Dr. Coyne. His article was stating basic scientific facts in response to Cat Grant’s opinions, and did not engage in discriminatory or defamatory statements against the trans community.
Please allow me to remind you of your organization’s mission, which as I understand it is to provide support for those in doubt about their religious beliefs. You are, as your organization’s name states, helping them to escape the mental and emotional confines of their faith communities, and I commend you for that work.
Trans people certainly should be allowed to live their lives as they choose, and I treat those I know with respect, although, as Dr. Coyne states, that doesn’t necessarily allow their rights to supersede other groups’, particularly biological women’s rights in sports, medical care and counseling, and penitentiaries. Social justice requires the rights of all groups to be protected, but in cases where those rights conflict, there must be compromise.
But this topic is not relevant to your mission, and to require those seeking your support, as well as those who provide you with financial support, to accept certain ideological beliefs with which they might not completely agree, will simply drive some away.
I have donated to your cause in the past, and was considering doing so again with my year-end gifts, but the way that you silenced Dr. Coyne, and your stated justification for it, have caused me to reconsider.
So sad. How can they not see that they are an organization for atheists?
This reminds me of the green party, which started as an environmental movement, but later became just another left-wing hodgepodge.
This incident was posted in my local atheist group. What’s troubling is they include “freethinkers” in their title. I commented I thought it was wrong and that I agreed with you. I was immediately chastised by a trans person who called me a bigot and described my views as “precious.” Shortly thereafter I got a warning about harassment. I requested the admin screenshot any examples of harassment and sent him screenshots of the trans person crossing the line first. He agreed and also sent the trans person a warning. But it was interesting people complained about me, missing the log in the trans person’s eye.
What I’m curious about, Jerry, or Dr. Coyne if you prefer, is many positions on medical sites seem to disagree with you and I. How would you respond to some of these?
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-sex-and-gender/
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-sex-and-gender-which-are-not-the-same-thing-influence-our-health/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363#gender
Thanks for any reply.
Easy to happen if you don’t have just a single log, but an entire dam to contend with.
I took a quick look at your links. Physicians, much less people who write for medical magazines, are not biologists.
None of these correctly defines ‘sex/sexes’ as the terms are, and have always been, used in (reproductive) biology. They are all three entirely anthropocentric and more or less slanted by implicit ideology.
A little late on this but I had some digging to do.
I agree entirely with ChasCPeterson @12:31 above. Doctors are not biologists with any expertise in the biology of sexual development and differentiation. An exception might apply to those with fellowship training in the management of congenital anomalies and inborn errors of metabolism. This highly specialized branch of pediatrics is where disorders of human sexual development “live”. The field has nothing to say about the notion of a gendered soul that might be living in the “wrong” body, though. There is no “organic” — a term doctors use for diseases that we believe have their genesis in organic chemistry — basis for it and is just not something those pediatricians can have any special opinions about.
Medicine has become largely a vast tax- and insurance- funded mental-health and social-service industry with a customer-satisfaction focus. Fiduciary responsibilities are now largely sneered at as paternalism. The customer is always right and doctors must generally affirm whatever their patients/clients tell them, or else get in trouble with their professional self-regulators. There are islands of practice where diagnostic acumen, therapeutic diligence, and technical skill are decisive but the expansion of medicine since the 1960s has largely been into the social arts (technical miracles notwithstanding.) It is possible to train and practice in medicine today entirely in an office setting without ever having to have primary buck-stops-with-me responsibility for a critically ill patient. (And even if we’re an expert in critical illness or trauma surgery we still don’t necessarily know much about how sex is defined or determined. It’s just not what most of us do.)
The three articles you link to are mostly uninformed propaganda.
The first article, which mentions X and Y chromosomes, is remiss in not referring to gametes but it is true that chromosomes are the units of segregation during meiosis and reconstitution of the diploid state at fertilization. I can’t quibble too much with the author’s reassurance that what we learnt in high school is mostly true: a Y chromosome gives you male sex, only X’s make you female. But the rest of the article just launches on a psychiatrically driven tangent into the purely imaginary social construct of gender. This makes sense only in the context that much of medicine today consists of working in mental health social constructs, not organic diseases. Medical students have to learn about the conditions their patients will come in with. And this is it.
The third article can be dismissed entirely as evidence-free assertions about gender advocacy by a gender clinician who is neither an MD nor a biologist.
The second article has a bit more meat. The premise seems to be that what we used to call sex-role stereotypes have bearing on how we experience disease and respond to treatment. Doctors have always known that social determinants of health are important. Poor people get sick much more often than the well-off and chronically sick people can’t work as gainfully as the healthy, especially at manual labour. The article tries too hard, and fails, to make this about specifically gender as something distinct from personality traits and sex-typical social roles.
This is, I think, the 2016 Canadian study on survival after heart attack the article alluded to without citation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109715073556
I would suggest you read it to see what you think. The spoiler alert is that the article didn’t claim that patients self-identified as any particular gender (cis- or trans- their sex) which then affected their prognosis. Rather, the researchers measured what they, the researchers, believed were personality traits associated with typical male and female “gender roles.” They found that certain traits that were more stereotypically feminine, such as anxiety and nurturing, were associated with increased risk of recurrent heart attack in both men and women, compared to less stereotypically “feminine” patients of either sex. This study doesn’t provide any evidence for the claim that self-identification as gender non-conforming has any prognostic significance. There is no evidence that any of the patients in this study self-identified as anything other than their conception sex, regardless of how the researchers pigeon-holed them as masculine or feminine personality types.
Medical associations have been captured by the same activists as FFRF and shouldn’t be regarded as credible on this topic. (Vaccines, yes. But gender, no.) There is motivation here: a solid front that affirms the standard of care is necessary to protect physicians who are being sued for malpractice over treatment that alters sex characteristics. If everyone says, “Gender discordance is a real condition and this is what we all do to treat it”, it will be hard for plaintiffs to win damages.
Jerry, Thank you for continuing to speak truth to the masses. Your opinions are based on expertise derived from decades of field and bench work, and sharpened by decades of debate among other world experts.
Your credibility is earned, unlike most of the pundits. I feel incredibly fortunate to enjoy daily lessons in biology on this forum.
I also wrote to FFRF, for what it is worth.
I guess the FFRF no longer subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth. Subjectivism now rules their roost. It’s so sad.
“Transgender women, for example, . . . should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters. . .”
I have been authoritatively told that the above sentence from Jerry’s piece is the one that shocked FFRF into their lamentable act of censorship. For me, it shows that they are simply not thinking straight. I quote directly from a senior spokesman of FFRF:
“It’s like saying that because a higher percentage of blacks are arrested for violent crimes, they should never be counselors to vulnerable people.”
No it’s not. It’s not like that at all. Some women’s shelters try to reassure the victims of male violence by hiring only female staff. If there is any discrimination here, it is discrimination against MEN. Not specifically against trans women. Trans women may THINK they are women, but the important consideration is not what they think but what the women who seek shelter think.
+1
Exactly right. I can just imagine their response had Jerry defended the policies of most shelters to exclude men, including those calling themselves “transwomen”, as clients not just as staff. They would still be scraping themselves off the ceiling.
(In case it’s not obvious, the reason is that the staff at the door can’t be sure that the man in the doorcam isn’t some guy looking for his escaped wife or girlfriend. FFRF might say, as city councils do when rescinding the funding of shelters that stand firm, that transwomen are often victims of violence too. Indeed they are, but this is a problem of inter-male violence that is not the job of the women’s shelter system to fix.)
Ironically, the recalcitrant shelter I donate to (which is thriving without city money) is considerably to the left of FFRF on most social issues they comment on in their newsletters. This is a most peculiar stance for FFRF to take.
Yes, the restriction on who can be a counsellor on a women’s shelter is a restriction based on sex —gender identity is irrelevant here, and maybe everywhere—, and it’s a reasonable one. In every society there are lots of restrictions based on age, sex, nationality, etc. that are not prejudicial.
This is not the first time that FFRF has memory-holed an article. I noticed another instance 5 or 6 years ago when going through clippings I had saved from their newsletter. In 2008, they had printed a very revealing essay on Moroccan Muslims by Sarah Braasch, who had interned in their office after having spent the previous summer in Morocco working for a human rights organization. I thought it would be good to get an electronic copy of the article and recycle the paper, only to discover that it alone had been deleted from FFRF’s on-line archives of that issue. You may recall that Braasch was the target of a hate crime hoax while at Yale in 2018, after which she was thrown under the bus by Yale administration. FFRF had piled onto the cancellation heaped upon Braasch, who has never recovered to this day. I found the article on the Wayback Machine, fortunately, and stopped donating to FFRF.
FFRF has long been criticized for not publicly objecting to creeping sharia (so much for freedom from religion), and I wonder if this has been due to their excessive “progressivism”. It certainly can’t be due to limited resources if they’re able to spend time on trans stuff.
Few people seem to consider Morocco a haven for extremist (i.e, orthodox) Islam. Braasch’s essay is still very topical today as it shows how deep the fanatical hatred toward non-Muslims (not just Jews) runs. Worth a read:
http://web.archive.org/web/20180510160356/https://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/12711-moroccan-feminine-wiles
Get it while it’s still there. The Wayback Machine says that the dated link Jerry posted above is not.
I suspect that there have been many more instances of this behavior on the part of FFRF.
That was a very interesting read, thanks for mentioning it.
The people running FFRF are clearly more interested in activism than truth. They ask themselves “does this help or hurt our cause?” and respond accordingly. A perfect example of the soldier mindset.
FFRF went down the pan a while back. Perhaps they’re scared of being told off by PZ Meyers and his Horde.
Ophelia Benson has 3-4 articles on it, condemning the FFRF.
Just a pity it took herself getting cancelled to fully see the rot from the SJW/Woke/Regressives/Anti-Science (or whatever you want to call them) crowd.
I’m with you Jerry. It’s sad to see so many liberal, science based organizations turn into illiberal, dogmatic, orthodox organizations. The idea that things that are true must be covered up to avoid being used by the bad guys to cause harm is very sad and pathetic. The idea that equality of standing and opportunity is old and passe, and equity and reverse discrimination and cultural warfare “by any means necessary” are the tools of the righteous is truly scary. Humanitarian values and the ideals of a good society are dying. Thank you for standing up for humanitarian values.
So frustrating…I thought we were towards the end of this non sense. I really don’t understand the necessity of insisting biological facts are not facts because some people want to defy traditional gender roles or transition from one gender to another (which only makes sense if you believe men and women are discrete categories with biological realities.How do you know which hormones to take if women are simply defined by a feeling?). I find the arguments frustrating because they don’t suggest the people writing them actually believe what they are saying. Why does it matter to a gender non conformist or a person transitioning if sex is biologically defined and binary? I don’t understand what they are getting out of these claims, while the damage is enormous…these arguments have caused backlash and I believe it is an underlying reason why distrust in institutions around science and medicine is on the rise. It’s disappointing that formerly respectable organizations are still falling for the activist lines of arguments rather than relying on the science we accept about other organisms on the planet.
Somehow this week we both need to watch for more female birds because their biological reality makes it so their feathers are less colorful and also believe that female humans cannot be defined by biological reality.
Absolutely spot on. If biological sex is not a thing you have nothing to transition from and to.
True. And of course the very terms ‘trans’ and ‘cis’ strongly imply a binary choice.
So I too wonder why trans activists would insist on a sex spectrum. Perhaps they prefer the metaphor of sliding along a scale of sexness instead of switching discrete teams. Or it might be to try to include the explicitly nonbinary Q folks in their imaginary alphabet-soup coalition/ ‘community’.
Whatever the case, it seems poorly thought through.
I do not get those who wish to suppress opposing viewpoints. If an issue is contentious, then it’s through discussion of those points of disagreement that people are going to come to understand the issue better. Otherwise we get to a point where a particular view cannot be challenged because it’s violating a taboo.
The alternative is that there are certain views that people want elevated to be authoritative, and thus accepted without question or challenge, and that is exactly the sort of thinking that echoes religion.
To believe in the truth of a moral argument is to believe in the persuasiveness of that argument. Anything less is a concession that you aren’t arguing from a position of moral reason but a desire for moral authority.
I pretty much stopped donating to the many liberal organizations I used to fund because they all seem to have these close-minded politics and I don’t want to support that. Plus, we’ve now learned how these Groups are very counter productive to Democrats electorally.
For whatever this is worth, I sent a letter to Gaylor and Barker (using my real name and real email):
Dear Ms. Gaylor and Mr. Barker,
I’m not sure which disheartens me more: your treatment of Jerry Coyne or your indulgence in religious theatrics. By retracting Coyne’s rebuttal and issuing a public mea culpa embracing trans ideology, you modeled confession and repentance, signaling your virtue at his expense. You also prioritized subjective experience over objective reality—the very problem with religion itself. This undermines your mission to uphold the separation of church and state.
It is entirely possible to identify deeply with something without forcing others to affirm one’s feelings. For example, I feel a profound affinity for Israel and Jewish culture, though I am neither biologically nor religiously Jewish. Yet, I don’t insist others affirm me as Jewish.
This principle extends to gender identity. Those who feel they are another sex certainly exist. But their feelings don’t make them the other sex, any more than my love for the Jewish people makes me Israeli or Ashkenazi.
I’m not going to demand you publicly or ritually apologize again. But I do hope you see the mistakes and reach out to Profs. Coyne, Pinker, and Dawkins to get back on track. No response to me is needed.
Sincerely,
…
I wrote an email to Annie Laurie and Dan expressing my disappointment. I got a reply. First a short reply saying they would be writing a blog to explain. The second one was longer. The summary is they are doubling down; no change. Maybe others got the same/similar email.
From the response:
“It was a mistake to post his blog in the first place, which we regret. And not solely because of the unreasonable demand. The real problem with Jerry’s piece was not the science but when he transitioned to opinion and personal polemics. A rational dialogue should be conducted with respect. Personal biases that attack people because of their identity (not their actions) have no place in any scientific dialogue that we should have allowed on our blog.”
The above says that Jerry unreasonably demanded his article be posted. Here it was described as an ask which I find more believable. It also implies that it was disrespectful and an attack on people’s identity which seems unfair to me. I read no such attack or disrespect.
They claimed that “We are not a church, orthodoxy or ideology.” and that the accusations of mission creep are false. I don’t buy it.
I’m not sure what the study is called but many activists bring up one that supposedly scanned the brains of trans persons and concluded their brains had features of the opposite sex of which they identified. Any thoughts?
I wonder if female hormones can create subtle brain changes? They impact on many aspects of the physical body but my scientific understanding is not deep enough to know if they have the ability to impact the brain. ??
On top of the shameful censorship (for that is what it is), they lacked the guts to even communicate directly with Jerry.
What an embarrassment for the FFRF.