The fallout from the FFRF fracas, which I call the “KerFFRFle”, continues. There is plenty of negative commentary about me, some of it indeed hateful (one jerk commented that he was glad, when Steve, Richard, and I resigned from the FFRF’s honorary board, that the “trash took itself out”), but you can find that for yourself. Indeed, much of this pushback is characterized by name-calling and “old white men” tropes rather than scientific or even philosophical argumentation, and doesn’t deserve response. At any rate, this post gives examples of reputable people (and not all of them are “old white men” who feel that I (as well as Steve and Richard) made useful points that deserve to be debated. However, Turley’s piece below links to one harsh critique of what I wrote.
First, a piece from Ronald Lindsay, the editor of the Center for Inquiry‘s (CFI’s) magazine Free Inquiry and former president of the CFI. The CFI remains one organization that studiously avoids ideological capture, and I’d recommend that readers consider joining it. I’m one of the CFI’s Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s Fellows, and I highly doubt that I’ll ever have to resign! They’ve also reprinted my “Biology is Not Bigotry” piece, ensuring that it won’t disappear from the Internet. Besides being archived in two places, about four other sites have kindly reprinted it.
Click on all headlines to go to the pieces. I’ll give brief excerpt of each piece:
An excerpt:
FFRF’s removal of Coyne’s post was unwarranted and Barker and Gaylor’s curious apology shows they are no longer proponents of freethought, however much their organization may advocate for church-state separation. Being a freethinker implies a willingness to consider arguments that challenge one’s beliefs and to conform one’s beliefs to the evidence. Barker and Gaylor’s abrupt removal of Coyne’s post shows that for them the claim that sex is non-binary can never be challenged; it must be accepted as dogma.
And exactly which “values and principles” did Coyne’s essay violate? Coyne made no disparaging remarks about transgender individuals. To the contrary, as indicated, Coyne was at pains to point out he supports civil rights for transgender individuals, and presumably Barker and Gaylor do not take issue with that stance. No, what Barker and Gaylor apparently vehemently oppose—to the extent of censoring an essay and issuing an apology—is a science-based argument that sex is binary and cannot be changed at will. Furthermore, the harm they identify as caused by the essay is the “distress” felt by those reading it.
I hope I would not have to remind readers that one of the arguments used for centuries by religious institutions and advocates to justify censoring of religious criticism, including science-based criticism, is that it causes “distress” and violates cherished values. To have Barker and Gaylor echo religious censors goes beyond ironic; it is a travesty.
Next up, Robert Goodday. He actually wrote four related posts on the issue on his “Carolina Curmudgeon” Substack site, and added this note:
My own thoughts about the FFRF events, in 4 easy-to-read substack postings 🙂
Click the titles to go to his posts.
An excerpt:
Since then, events have occurred that have resulted in several of the leading members of the FFRF advisory board resigning from the organization. The problems really started when Jerry Coyne, an honorary FFRF board member, wrote an article critiquing Grant’s essay. Coyne had been told by the co-presidents of FFRF that his critique would be published online by the organization — and it was — but only for a very brief period of time. In a rather shameful act of disrespect and betrayal of their principles, after FFRF received one or more complaints about Coyne’s essay (complaints that apparently claimed that Coyne’s critique was causing unnamed trans individuals distress), FFRF removed Coyne’s article – without even have the courtesy to inform Coyne of what they were planning to do and without even replying when Coyne wrote to ask why his article had been taken down.
In my next posting, I’ll focus on an email interaction I had two years ago with Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the two co-presidents (along with Dan Barker) of FFRF. My third posting will critically analyze the original “What is a woman” essay. The fourth will comment on FFRF’s statement that the co-presidents posted to explain and justify removing Coyne’s article.
An excerpt:
Two years ago, Kat Grant, the individual who wrote the “What is a woman?” essay for FFRF, participated in a podcast interview that focused on a discussion of trans ideology. At that time, in response to what was said during that podcast, I wrote to the presidents of FFRF raising questions regarding some of the conclusions that I heard being espoused on that podcast. I was pleased to receive a reply that same day from Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the organization’s co-presidents. However — I was not impressed with the shallowness of the content of her reply, and so, not being the kind of person who shies away from continuing that kind of discussion, I wrote back to Gaylor to highlight questions I had raised that she had not addressed. Not surprisingly, I never received any acknowledgement of that second email. A copy of these emails is posted below.
You can read the emails at the link.
An excerpt:
Overall, I would give Kat Grant’s essay a “D” grade (but only because I’m feeling in a generous mood – having just finished consuming a large Starbucks coffee, so my mood is under the influence of a considerable amount of caffeine – and the essay does not contain spelling errors). The reason I could not bring myself to give the essay a higher grade is because it: (i) includes factual errors, (ii) involves sloppy reasoning, (iii) repeatedly engages in begging the question, (iv) includes discussions that are simply not relevant to the issue that is purportedly the focus of the essay, and (v) never actually does answer the question posed by the essay’s title.
. . . I’m actually going to start my critique by discussing the final sentence of the essay – which is the only sentence that involves any effort on Grant’s part to provide an answer to the question posed by the essay’s title. Of course, what I had anticipated would be Grant’s definition of a “woman” is the definition that lies at the heart of trans ideology; according to that view, a woman is anyone who feels or even just says that they are a woman (see, for example, psychiatrist Jack Turban’s discussion of male and female gender identity in a recent article in the NY Times). This is, in fact, the only definition of “woman” that COULD be compatible with trans ideology — because it is the only definition compatible with the oft-chanted trans ideology refrain that “trans women are women”.
The problem with this definition, though, is patently obvious; it involves perfectly circular reason, such that it provides exactly zero clarity about what it is that trans women who claim to be women are claiming that they are. Indeed, the trans ideology definition of “woman” may represent the platonic ideal of what circular reasoning entails.
An excerpt. The part in italics is from the FFRF’s statement on why they removed my piece:
FFRF and its new legislative arm, FFRF Action Fund, will do everything we can to defeat President-elect Trump’s draconian vow that the official policy of the U.S. government will be that “there are only two genders, male and female.” We are already gearing up to fight his promise to end the “transgender lunacy” on day one of his administration.
Wow. I had never realized that when I donated to FFRF, I was indirectly donating to another, much larger, organization: Human Rights Campaign. It’s not that I’m opposed to much of what HRC supports (although I certainly don’t support ALL of their efforts), but I had always thought that the mission of FFRF was different from that of HRC. I always thought that FFRF was an organization focused like a laser on the separation of church and state. If I wanted to donate to an organization (HRC) focused specifically on lesbian and gay and trans activism, I would have. If FFRF has so much money that it doesn’t need that $50K for its own specific efforts that focus directly on ITS specific mission – then I guess I’m a fool for having donated money to them so consistently over the years. My bad.
The larger point – and what I think is the most important issue that has been raised by this whole rather sordid set of events involving the FFRF – is that I think the FFRF should STAY IN ITS LANE. We need an organization to focus specifically on separation of church and state issues, and FFRF should have let other organizations focus on other issues – however worthwhile the efforts of those other organizations may be. When I first wrote to FFRF 20 months ago, this was exactly the issue I tried to raise with FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor. Sadly, it is apparent that FFRF is now becoming just another progressive ideology organization — and like other far left progressive organizations, FFRF is now worshipping at the altar of trans ideology.
An excerpt:
This past week, a drama has been unfolding at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). It seems that they published a piece by an intern (Kat Grant) on the definition of “woman” in their newsletter, Freethought Today. You can read the piece here if you like, but I’ll spoil it for you: Grant thinks a woman is whoever claims to be one. Thankfully, they invited the distinguished biologist Jerry Coyne for a rebuttal defending the biological definition, but then hastily took it down, calling it “an error of judgement” that does not reflect their values. Understandably outraged, Coyne resigned from the FFRF honorary board, as did Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker.
While they are saying goodbye to FFRF, I think it might be a good time for me to say goodbye to organized atheism altogether.
This is not, to be clear, a goodbye to atheism. Despite the reports of famous re-conversions of former-atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I cannot find God in my heart (or even a “God-shaped hole”). The switch has flipped; the myth has fully unraveled and been replaced by an understanding of the world that sits firm in my mind (far more comfortably than faith ever did). On this point, I don’t believe there is a way back for me. (I nearly wish I could manage some wiggle room here, if only so that I can understand what it is that my newly-religious friends are feeling and accepting. But no such luck.)
Still, I have become friendlier to the idea of religion as a social good as of the past few years, and now (more controversially), I even feel that there are intellectual benefits to faith too–or at least, to some forms of it. Much of this is informed by my experiences working within the atheist activism space, and by my resulting intellectual drift.
I would urge you to support Sarah’s work by considering a donation here.
Finally, from Jonathan Turley‘s website (he’s a legal scholar, writer, and professor at George Washington University Law School):
An excerpt:
The resignations from the FFRF raised some of the same points made by “old guard” figures who have left the ACLU over its own abandonment of neutrality and effort “to adhere to ‘progressive’ political or ideological positions.”
There is a worthy debate over transgender issues in science. Dr. Coyne was attempting to contribute to that debate. Yet, many prefer to work to silence others rather than respond to opposing views. Indeed, I was hoping that Kat Grant would come out to support Dr. Coyne in his effort to offer such a critique of her work.
Liberals have come out in support of the censorship, dismissing Coyne as someone who simply “rehashes the right-wing talking point” and “promot[es] this kind of hate.” (This commentator noted that his views were published on BlueSky, a site that has become a safe space for liberals who do not want to be triggered by opposing views).
The intolerance for opposing views is so great that the FFRF is willing to engage in atheist orthodoxy, which not long ago would have been viewed as a contradiction in terms. It is a disgraceful position for a group that once defended those banned or canceled for their views. It is a moment that reminds one of what Robert Oppenheimer said about physicists, but it is particularly poignant for these atheists who have joined a mob to silence: they “have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.”
There’s an “organized atheism”? When and where do they meet? I wanna check it out.
Just BTW, Dr. Coyne, I have never sensed “outrage” in any of your writings on this topic.
There has been organized atheism for a long time. Hard to believe someone interested in the topic would not know this.
Well, now you should believe it – I’m a living example.
Please enlighten me. What does organized atheism look like?
Seriously?
It looks like organizations…of atheists.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=atheist+organizations
The link you posted leads me to a webpage with the Google banner and nothing else. So I’m still the same ignoramus I was before your comment.
How about this question: what does it mean to “leave organized atheism”? Does one get moved to the “None” category in polls of religious affiliations? Oh wait. Is the “None” category of Non-believers in polls of atheists?
Anyway, thanks to Mr. Keller and Mr. Peterson for their gracious replies. I am so much better informed now.
I was snarky when I didn’t have to be. For that I apologize.
As for the link, you just have to wait for it.
I think — Organized Atheism:
FFRF, American Atheists, Atheist Alliance of America, Atheist Alliance International, Council for Secular Humanism/Center For Inquiry, Secular Students Alliance — and dozens of local branches and groups.
Many skeptic groups have a majority of atheists as members.
And perhaps we can include all the atheist (or atheist + something else) websites and blogs, along with the people who comment.
“Organized atheism” isn’t contrasted with anything called “disorganized atheism,” but with individual atheists who may be well read in the topic, but haven’t connected to a wider community of other atheists.
Comment by Greg Mayer
While there may be much overlap between skeptic and atheist organizations in membership, the skeptic “community” (CFI, Skeptics Society, etc.) has had prominent leaders who are not atheists (e.g., Martin Gardner). One could argue whether Gardner is being coherent in his beliefs (i.e. argue that a skeptical position entails atheism), but skepticism and atheism are not, as social structures, co-extensive.
GCM
The FFRF is one example, CFI is another. There have been many conventions and gatherings with names like Reason Rally, Skepticon, TAM, plus (probably) many smaller events in the past.
The people who work in the organisations, donors, and (semi-) professional writers and speakers, as well as their supporters, attendees etc once met each other routinely at these and other events, so that counts as some sort of organisation or movement. People know each other for years or even decades, and thus various opinion leaders emerged, including Ron Lindsay or Sarah Haider.
The “movement” of sorts was disrupted first in 2011 when “social justice blogging” became fashionable. Blogs and then the press reported sexist or sexual misconduct around notable people in the US scene. Meanwhile, this niche tumblr “social justice” ideology became dominant in secular and then liberal circles in the USA, where it became known as “wokeness”. This has alienated most of the international cooperation (back then, also Atheist Ireland and Australiens were a part of the “scene”). I believe Dawkins and Pinker were the only two notable non-Americans left that were involved in these circles.
Are you not familiar with, for example, American Atheists?
I would argue that the FFRF is not technically an atheist organisation on a couple of counts.
One is that its goal is (or was) to protect the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This is a goal that can be and is supported by theists and religionists.
The other is that religion and gods are not synonymous. You can have a religion without believing in God and vice versa.
KenS – kudos for being gracious with ungracious folks. In Denver, it looks like this: https://www.secularhub.org/
You’ve got to be joking.
At least Chas apologized.
I came across a website that was discussing the issue. I cannot remember the name of the site, nor do I have the desire to make the effort.
95% of the comments simply dismissed Prof Coyne and his contentions as trans-phobic and hateful. Not a single counter-argument nor any reasoning was presented.
The few commentators that attempted to shed light, were similarly shot down as trans-phobic bigots. They were exhorted to stay away from the site.
The smugnees and fabricated outrage in this echo-chamber was astounding. It is no different than any ultra-right wing site. I am so disheartened.
Have you seen this trashing of Dawkins by YouTube atheists?
The divisions which began with the “Elevatorgate” incident – primarily between younger “social justice” atheists and the old-timers – have continued, with the focus now on sex/gender and trans issues.
The comments of that video are depressing. Especially the one by Stephen Woodford, aka Rationality Rules, whom I used to admire. He accusses Dawkins of not being open to correction and having betrayed the scientific method.
It makes me sad that those with a true intellectual ability for doubt and reason have fallen so low.
That YouTube presenter sounds like a deceptive sanctimonious little prick.
And of course he and his interlocutor at 10 minutes are wrong that Imane Khelif “is not a man masquerading as a woman.” That’s exactly what he has been shown to be, just as Richard Dawkins said. He’s a man with 5-alpha reductase deficiency. Whether or not Khelif counts as trans is a matter of semantics. He is a man who has been able to masquerade as a woman because he has a DSD and might have sincerely believed at one time that he was female. But he knew long before he went to the Olympics that he is a man. So his deception collapses to the same thing as a a trans-identified man does. The trans-identified athlete wants us to think he has become a woman just by saying he has. Khelif wants us to think he is really a woman because he says he is. Both know they are men.
The video was posted only six days ago. Can these two jokers not accept they are wrong?
They also look rather funny quoting the ACLU about “anti-trans” legislation.
Well said.
Woodford (Rationality Rules), like many of his YT atheist-influencer ilk, has fully embraced gender identity apologetics, including gleeful, knee-jerk ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares question the dogma. I understand Sarah Haider’s motivation to reduce/end her association with such zealots. They have become the antithesis of reason and scientific curiosity.
I too have seen a couple websites like that, just comment after comment saying that Dr. Coyne is a right-wing bigot. It is indeed very disheartening. I was even banned from one site because I said that Dr. Coyne was not trans-phobic.
Here’s an example (free to read with Substack commenting).
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/biology-is-not-ethics-a-response
Prof. Coyne,
When I called the ongoing turmoil at the FFRF a kerfuffle in the email I sent you a couple of days ago; I did not imagine that you would creatively adapt that word in such a wonderful fashion. Good job! It really is a KerFFRFle.
Cheers,
James
Yes, KerFFRFle really is a brilliant new er… Coyne-age!
I’ve resisted the idea that some of the positions of the progressive left amount to religious beliefs, yet here we are. Non-believers are targets of ad hominem attacks, they are shunned, excommunicated, and held up as examples of what can happen if one goes astray. It’s all very familiar. I give in. It’s religion.
The “Friendly Atheist” said that, “the trash is taking itself out” at the FFRF.
I think “The Friendly Atheist” is a bit of a misnomer.
Friendliness is extended by these people only to the designated victim classes. Anyone identified as an oppressor is fair game to be targeted with the nastiest of invective.
So much for “woke is dead”, or even dying. I expected better from atheists, I guess because I erroneously assumed that atheists are people who value reason and don’t merely accept unscientific claims on ideological grounds. I had no idea that the “atheist movement”, whatever it might actually be, had been so captured by social justice fanatics.
But it is also a bit upsetting to see Sarah Haider say things like “I even feel that there are intellectual benefits to faith”. The reasons she gives for this view are specious and seem merely to be a reaction against the illiberalism of the woke mob she has encountered. Leaving “organized atheism” is one thing, but dangling candy like this in front of religious apologists in a bridge too far. Religious organizations and right wingers must be hooting with glee.
How immensely disappointing this entire episode has been. I had hoped FFRF would come to regret their defection from integrity and reason, and eventually they still might, but apparently at present there are plenty of acolytes to see them comfortably through.
It seems there are people that “identify” as atheist without actually absorbing what that should mean, as they have turned it into a belief system, as Jerry has written, with “the worst aspects of religion (dogma, heresy, excommunication, etc.)”
Perhaps we should call them trans-atheists?
Or trantheists?
edit: that might be confused with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheism, though.
I had to bury the idea that atheists are immune to pseudo-religious bullshit some ten years ago, when the community was fractured by the rise of “Atheism+”. Incidentally, that was also the first time I heard the term “transphobia”, which immediately triggered my bullshit detector when it appeared in a list of the most urgent social justice issues to be tackled.
In retrospect, A+ was one of the first major battles of the SJ/woke hostile takeover campaign, and common sense lost, big time.
It’s the “plus” part that’s the problem. They’re adding issues that have nothing to do with atheism.
It seems to be drawing in a lot of people though, to go by the size of the readership at The Friendly Atheist.
My circle – friends, family and larger community – use the terms man/woman (and many other) as gender based labels. We use male/female for biological sex. We recognize that sex is binary, but we also recognize the changes around gender identification in our society. With a very few exceptions (medicine, sports) a person’s self identified gender not matching their birth biological sexi is not consequetial.
I’ve definitely been called anti-trans by folks because I recognize biological sex is binary and has physiological consequences, but those people are wrong.
If you go back and read the origianl FFRF article with this context (male/female = biology, man/woman = culture), then it reads clearly and correctly as an appeal to allow people to assume the cultural role they prefer. Perhaps the author of the original piece has conflated sex and gender elsewhere, or let their trans supporting ideology trump scientific understanding previously – but my family and I didn’t see it in the original article (we all read it and discussed).
It seems like the whole thing is an issue around semantics (unless there is history around Grant that I don’t know about), and a big todo about nothing.
I do not think they would accept playing a “cultural role” that did not allow them the legal right to use single-sex spaces or substitute gender for sex in legal documents and laws. That is why they attack the reliability of classifying people by sex.
Hmmmm – do we need single-sex spaces or sex in our legal documents? Usually the spaces are bathrooms – in a visit to Scandinavia last year I was impressed by their wide adoption of general purpose bathrooms. I suppose there are other spaces as well, but seems like we, as a society, could make the adjustments needed. We definitely made the effort for disabled access, but I don’t think acceptance of trans identity is there yet for that kind of push.
Actually, it’s not usually bathrooms. Unisex bathrooms are ubiquitous now and no one really cares.
The single-sex spaces that matter are:
Women’s shelters and counseling. (Note that there are no men’s shelters to protect men from violence by women.)
Women’s prisons. A single example from many: https://komonews.com/news/local/washington-inmate-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-cellmate-after-transfer-to-womens-prison-washington-corrections-center-for-women-mozzy-clark-christopher-williams-gender-identity
Women’s sports. All one needs to ask oneself is: Why are there women’s and men’s divisions in the first place. The question of allowing (self-ID) men to participate in the women’s division answers itself.
All of this results from the fact that there are real differences between men and women. This is the fact that the trans-ideologues are trying to obfuscate, even if they can’t actually make it go away.
Most shelters accept men or can find them accommodation, so I think you’re not talking from experience but instead making things up to support your ideology.
But of course, that isn’t the point of what I wrote.
The point was that I think we can use language to allow us to talk through the gender fluidity while retaining the dedication to scientific truth.
Bathrooms, changing rooms, and showers do matter because they are regularly used by the most women. Unisex communal bathrooms are not popular (privacy, dignity, safety, cleanliness) & prompt protests.
Sastra: I agree that bathrooms can be an issue. And changing rooms are (IMO). I forgot to include changing rooms.
My point was say that bathrooms aren’t the main issue.
Phaedrus: I don’t think women’s rape/abuse shelters will accommodate men. I could be wrong … And if they did, it’s wrong: no rape/abuse survivor should be required to be housed with men.
Nevermind, I should have read your initial comment better.
Many women’s shelers have been forced by law to accept men identifying as women. And the shelters and their clients definitely did want to do so.
” in a visit to Scandinavia last year I was impressed by their wide adoption of general purpose bathrooms”
Yes, common in Scandinavia, and have been for decades. On the other hand, public saunas there are usually separated by sex, whereas in German- and Dutch-speaking countries they aren’t (and nudity is required). What spaces should be “separate but equal” varies enormously over time and place: saunas, changing rooms, toilets, churches, any public space, homes, children’s bedrooms, youth hostels, university dorms, public transportation, schools, hospital rooms, swimming pools. The list goes on. Usually, there are fewer distinctions as a place becomes more civilized, but the point is that such distinctions, or their removal, must evolve. One can’t impose them, even if they are desirable, if they have no support in the society. An ideal society would have no police, but de-funding the police will not bring one closer to such a society, but rather the opposite (ask Steven Pinker about the Montreal police strike). The point is that if a society deems that a separation is necessary somewhere, then that distinction shouldn’t be over-ridden via self-ID. (Note that it is usually NOT a demand for a unisex space, but explicitly trans-identifying women wanting to be in spaces reserved for real women (rarely the other way around), because they see that as validation of their chosen identity.
Went to saunas several times in Sweden and Norway – the were always open to everyone, so our experiences are very different.
The ideal society having no police is a non-sequitor, and the idea that THAT was the goal of the de-fund movement is simply false.
Your statement that trans-women can’t be “real” women shows that you’re arguing in bad faith. You are exactly the kind of person that the trans community is properly angry at.
I see NO way that males should compete in women’s sports.
Nor should males be present at La Leche League meetings, where nursing mothers bring their babies and may nurse them.
https://millihill.substack.com/p/i-wont-support-breastfeeding-men
La Leche League: yet another organization captured by trans ideology.
Went to saunas several times in Sweden and Norway – the were always open to everyone, so our experiences are very different.
Was nudity required? Most saunas in Scandinavia and Finland are separate with nudity required; more recently there are some mixed ones but with nudity forbidden. A tourist is more likely to encounter the latter, though the former are more numerous.
The ideal society having no police is a non-sequitor, and the idea that THAT was the goal of the de-fund movement is simply false.
I didn’t say that that was the goal of that movement, merely using it as an example that pushing for something which itself is good if society is not ready for it can backfire. (Witness members of “the squad” wanting to de-fund the police but walking around with private bodyguards.)
Your statement that trans-women can’t be “real” women shows that you’re arguing in bad faith. You are exactly the kind of person that the trans community is properly angry at.
I am arguing in good faith, whether or not you agree with it. I’m sure that the flat-earth community is angry at me for believing in science, as are the creationists, astrologers, etc.
If transwomen are “real” women, then please explain what a real woman is other than someone who identifies as a woman, as that definition is circular.
And what is a woman, Phaedrus, and what is not a woman? Do we need to ask anyone to tell us these things?
Still waiting.
Q.E.D.
@Phaedrus I’m sorry if this sounds ad hominem but I think you really undermine your initial comment’s seeming good faith when you start accusing all that disagree with you of “making things up to support your ideology”, being “kind of a grinch”, “arguing in bad faith” and being “exactly the kind of person that the trans community is properly angry at”.
One would almost be tempted to say you are behaving exactly in the aggressive and disingenuous kind of way people are properly angry at, maybe because of a personal motive (“We’ve been doing this for several years now, since one of the niblings started transitioning”).
Do we need sex in our legal documents?
I suspect so, but the question is different. (Italian here) We used to have eye and hair colour written on the ID, the height is still there and of course the age. Should we be able to change (=falsify) those data at will, say we have brown eyes when they’re green and we are 1.80 cm when we actually are 1.60, or that we are 20 years old when we’re 60? If not, should we be able to change the sex indication? what’s the difference?
The only reasonable argument I ever saw is that for the (passing) trans person may be awkward if a policeman sees a “suprising” sex marker during a control. I’d say it’s not good enough a reason neither for removing the sex indication, nor, a fortiori, for falsifying it. If the problem is the policemen transphobic attitude, act on that.
Do we need single sex spaces?
Firstly, this is a reductive framing. The more general one should be: are there cases where gender identity (whatever that may mean, I’d say self-identification) should matter more than biological sex? This should be recognized for what it is: a political demand, not a human right; and I’ve never seen an example. This also extends to affirmative actions: you may well argue that according to you there shouldn’t be any “preferential” treatment for human females, but we can’t deny that introducing self-identification into the cathegory undermines forever every possibility of differential treatment. I find it hard to demonstrate that such a necessity will never arise. In UK, the gender recognition act was born because of a judgement on retirement age. You may be happy that now women can’t get a state pension at an earlier age, but somehow that doesn’t sound all that progressive to me. In Germany they have just introduced the possibility to change “legal sex” once a year; if you are male, change to female, and you’re not doing it in the immediate preceding of a war, you can’t be conscripted even in case of military necessity. Maybe it’s because I’m Italian (insert joke on opportunism here), but I’d immediately change my sex marker just for that reason.
As for the sex spaces, the reference to trans women in jail wasn’t a thing prof. Coyne decided to highlight for nefarious reasons, it was a needed rebuttal to a false statement made in the article he was responding to. For what’s worth, I think the data isn’t enough to conclude trans women are more likely to be sex offenders. The explanation I find more plausible is that sex offenders are more likely to identify as trans because there are strong incentives to do that, that derive precisely by the stupid demand self-identification be respected.
As for women’s shelters, the fact not all of them understand how important it is for survivors to be able to interact with same sex only is indeed a problem. Just as an example: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/susan-galloway-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre
Finally, to your usage: male/female = biology, man/woman = culture. Indeed it’s not uncommon and even I used it for clarity sometimes. But the problem is if you try to define woman on culture only, decoupled from biology, you necessarily end up using stereotypes, thereby reinforcing, not undermining, oppressive gender norms. I’d also recommend prof. Byrne’s book “Trouble With Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions” about why such usage may be unwise.
Regarding the law in Germany, it was passed by the coalition of social democrats, greens, and libertarian party and all three parties supported it. That coalition broke down (doesn’t happen that often in Germany) due the the chancellor’s dissatisfaction with the libertarians so there will be new elections in February (a bit less than a year before what would have been the normal time). The current coalition wasn’t elected because of their support for the new law. Rather, it was passed with essentially no public debate, almost by stealth. Very probably the conservative party will lead the next government (very probably without an absolute majority, so in a coalition, though it is not clear with whom). They have been rather clear that they would repeal the new self-ID law, even though it is not widely debated. Perhaps they sense that it is just right to repeal it, or that there is little support for it but there is little debate because of cancel culture. Whatever. In any event, it will probably be gone within a year.
Not as extreme, but similar to the Democrats in the USA, the traditional progressive parties have become more occupied with woke ideology and less with the concerns of what used to be their basis. One of the reasons why it is pretty clear that the conservative opposition will probably win the next election is dissatisfaction with wokeness. People have had enough.
It is sad that one has the choice between, on the one hand, traditional progressive politics and wokeness, and, on the other hand, non-wokeness but also more traditional conservative politics. Having said that, the conservative party in Germany is not as conservative as it used to be, and of course the entire spectrum is shifted compared to the USA. The most conservative of the traditional parties in Germany is to the left of Bernie Sanders on almost all issues and there isn’t even any debate about them (single-payer universal healthcare, free university education, etc.).
I do not think they would accept playing a “cultural role” that did not allow them the legal right to use single-sex spaces or substitute gender for sex in legal documents and laws. That is why they attack the reliability of classifying people by sex.“
Exactly. And that is why caving in to their pronoun demands is a slippery slope.
It IS, in part, maybe large part, an issue of semantics. For example, your prescribed definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ as cultural/ psychological phenomena, independent of the physiological sex binary, are nontraditional and not widely understood or used. If Grant composed the essay and title with that esoteric definition in mind, why bother to ‘refute’ the list of straw-biological definitions? The whole thing becomes a pointless exercise in begging the question. It’s Humpty Dumpty. Except in this case the word in question is explicitly undefinable!
Unlike you (credit where due), Grant nowhere admits that there is a valid concept in human biology of binary sexes. Neither of you seem to think that being a ‘woman’ need have anything to do with being ‘female’. A lot of other people disagree.
Similarly, some defend statements like ‘sex is a nonbinary spectrum’ by the simple trick of using a different, usually implicit, conceptual definition of ‘sex’ than the reproductive-biology term has always denoted.
So, yes, semantic. But intentionally so.
Good points. We’ve been doing this for several years now, since one of the niblings started transitioning – so maybe 8 years? – wow! Anyway, it seems so ubiquitous in my experience that it doesn’t seem intentionally esoteric.
I’m open to that. Quick web search shows that pronouns have largely been accepted as disconnected from biological sex, so I wonder if man/woman are still as tightly linked as you say.
The discourse around this has become pretty poisoned, so there might not be room to iron this out if it really is a semantic difference.
Dr Coyne has proven he supports gender fluidity, but I know he has paid a price for his dedication to scientific truth. Wonder if some sort of semantic solution exists.
” Quick web search shows that pronouns have largely been accepted as disconnected from biological sex”
That is not my experience. They DENOTE biological sex. I haven’t seen ANY other use of them other than among the woke.
Happy to be woke. Happy to allow and support people to wear the clothes they want, hold what job they want, to call them by the names and pronouns they feel comfortable with.
What kind of person takes it as a personal offence not to call someone the name they wish? It’s neither breaks my arm nor picks my pocket, and it makes them happy. What kind of a grinch would refuse that bargain?
Phaedrus:
None of this is actually relevant to the issue at hand. I’m sure we all agree that people should be free to wear the clothes they want, hold the jobs they want (assuming of course they’re qualified), and change their names.
Gender nonconformity is fine. The question is, is womanhood, or manhood, about being gender conforming?
Can a female human be gender non-conforming, cross-dress, and still call herself a woman? Of course she can. Many have, and do.
Admit this, and what becomes of the insistence that we redefine “woman”? The proposed redefinition comes down to Grant’s “a woman is anyone who says they are one.”
So much for clarity, let alone feminism.
Most of us are fine with using trans-identified people’s chosen names. Pronouns are another matter.
Nobody owns pronouns. If I’m speaking with you, “your pronoun” is going to be some variant of “you.”
How I speak ABOUT you is up to me, and I stand on my right to call you as I see you.
I’m having trouble conceiving how you could have a male(-sexed) person who is in any meaningful sense a woman as defined by gender. A male-sexed adult human just is a man. There is nothing else he can be. I don’t see how your family can accept “cultural women” who are of male sex. Why do you want to do that? Even if it’s not “consequential” to you, it’s still wrong on the facts. I grant you that if you thought that way, then you might not see anything controversial in Kat Grant’s original article. “A woman is whoever she says she is.” Well, sure. That’s in your definition, so no prob.
To do a bit of steel-manning, the only way I can see this making some sense is in the way we encounter a clothed adult on the street or in any non-intimate social situation. If we used gender in this way — I don’t — we might say to ourselves that this person appears to have female gender and ipso facto could be (or could not be) a potential mating partner (or these days, a potential complainant against us in a sexual harassment suit but let’s leave our libido out of the office.) We are allowing for the possibility that the person might actually be a male adult, i.e., a man, who is dissembling as a woman or, perhaps, who looks so effeminate that the sex cannot be immediately deduced from the gender clues. If we mate only with women, we need to exclude that individual as soon as the sex becomes known to us. The “gender” presentation then amounts to false signaling, either deliberate or “just born that way.” I don’t think you need to conscript a grammatical term for nouns (many of which name objects that have no sex at all) and create a new set of definitions to replace a body/personality type we used to just call “androgynous”….like David Bowie and Tilda Swinton. But, /steel-manning, I think you are using the gender idea for more that just that. So far as I know, neither Mr. Bowie nor Ms. Swinton ever declared themselves to be other than a man and a woman. But you accept Elliot Page’s claim to be a man, not just so you don’t get cancelled, but because you actually do include Page in the gender definition of “man”.
I think you and your family and “community” are fighting a lost cause. The legislatures are going to pass “anti-trans” laws because women and children need to be protected from genderwang. You can welcome male women and female men into your circle if you like but the law is going to keep them out of places that matter….and those places are more than just medicine and sport. It’s every place where children can be made to be confused about how their bodies work to later have them mutilated and every place where women run risks that men will use deception to get close enough to rape them. Because this is anywhere, men should not be out and about dissembling as women or telling little boys and girls that their parents might be wrong about them in the name of inclusivity.
Speaking of children, I haven’t got into an argument with a “you are whatever you say you are” person yet, but if I did, I might ask them if they also think that, say, an older man by all appearance should play, shower and/or sleep over with their or anyone’s children if he declares that he’s actually still a child inside.
You may be in the grips of an irrational ideology if:
1. You summarily refuse to hear dissenting views.
2. Everyone believed the opposite a short time ago.
3. Calling those who disagree with you names is the only response you can muster.
4. …
On the negative side, FA printed a rebuttal by ethicist Aaron Rabinowitz, “Biology is Not Ethics.”
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/biology-is-not-ethics-a-response
The major complaint is that Jerry’s essay was really about ethics, not science; Rabinowitz focuses on the claim that prison statistics suggest that trans identified males might be more likely to be predators than males in general. He then translates this as “certain groups are inferior to other groups … in a way that justifies discrimination” — quickly jumps to implying Jerry thinks they’re “second class citizens” — and lands with “… claims of moral deficiency (used) as a pretext for both legalized discrimination and vigilante violence.”
After that, he argues that, even if the statistics were correct, it shouldn’t be used to “deny trans individuals equal access in our society,” leapfrogging over the main point of Jerry’s essay on the sexual classification of ppl who claim transgender status and making it seem like he’s unethically advocating preventing them from doing things unrelated to that issue.
I wasn’t impressed. The small bit on crime statistics wasn’t the gist of the argument, it could easily be removed and the essay is well grounded without it. The biological expertise involved emphasizing how and why trans ppl are still their own sex and not on a spectrum. Grant that and the moaning about “equal access” floats away on the wind.
Agreed!
Of course, the UK’s Ministry of Justice seems to have released its latest transgender prison statistics since our host (briefly) published his piece on the FFRF website: https://archive.is/zPhbD
Includes a photo of a very masculine-looking trans woman.
What really needs to be looked at is the veritable epidemic that “turns” biological men into trans women. Men, who when convicted of a crime, suddenly identify as female. So that they can be transferred into a women’s prison.
Two good books by Ronald A. Lindsay. “Against the New Politics of Identity: How the Left’s Dogma on Race and Equity Harm Liberal Democracy” and “The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can’t Tell Us What to Do”
At least Chas apologized.
I recommend reading the comment sections of other bloggists to see the reactionary, reflexive, contentless posts whenever this subject comes up (Pharyngula – still good for spiders; the “Friendly” Atheist; Daylight Atheism; and more). Really goes to show how a professed dedication to rationalism can go off the rails real fast – we’re the best at rationalizing ourselves into any position, unless someone calls us out on it, and the “old guard” are serving that purpose on this subject.
Thank you for keeping the candle lit, Professor Coyne.
All good–but what is PFC? I am PCC(E) and not a private first class. 🙂
I corrected it in the probationary posting period. I missed on the Professor Ceiling Cat acronym, and went back to the more respectful title. I’m a daily reader. Occasional poster. I believe the last time I chimed in was to mention I dumped my Sci-Am subscription and would re-subscribe when they replaced Helmuth (I did, day after the resignation – two issues on the table to be read). Anyway, keep up the good work. I’m sure you have many more mostly silent appreciative readers.
Since SciAm’s woke period commenced with the editor who preceded Helmuth, I’m not going to resubscribe until I’m sure that the editor who comes after Helmuth isn’t woke, too.
Thanks for posting these responses. I’m glad this is getting a lot of attention. And, somewhat sorry to say, I’m glad this controversy is generating resignations from the FFRF. I hope that trend continues everywhere. As any parent will tell you, if it doesn’t make them cry, they don’t give a damn.
I read the essays by Robert Goodday. Bravo! His demolition of Grant’s “essay” is complete and hilarious.
Robert Goodday link #3 only taking me to the title with no article.
If you go to his page, you can pick on the other essays. 🙂
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 accidentally put this comment on the wrong article, sorry for the duplicate)
Called it!
A few days ago I said that the woke never back down; they double down. Exactly what FFRF is doing.
I also said that the woke never apologize. FFRF will never apologize to PCCE or the other former members they alienated, nor will they ever apologize for jumping on the trans train.
Damnit. The “old white guy” thing. Is there ANY reason why old people, white people and/or men should be LESS offended by that than, say, the N word or the C word causes others? I don’t see a difference.
We’re all 100% on your side here at WEIT. Fight the good fight PCC(E)
D.A.
NYC
Sarah H. rarely disappoints me – she’s one of my favorite people and I loved her podcast.
She’s off here though and I find her giving an inch to religion strange.
And might I wonder…. she’s had some babies lately, mommy brain fuz?
Too sexist? Too…. biological? Maybe. She admits it has changed her whole outlook.
I still like her – as they say in Japanese: Even monkeys fall from trees – i.e. nobody gets it right all the time.
D.A.
NYC
MOTHER-PHOBIA!
+1 to Sarah!
Regarding Turley’s piece, what does “atheist orthodoxy” mean? Gemini (Google’s A.I. service) says this: “Orthodoxy is the practice of adhering to accepted creeds and beliefs, especially in religion.” Okay, fine. So what are the “creeds” and “beliefs” associated with not believing in gods?
I think what Turley meant is that it is a contradiction that an atheist organization like the FFRF has adopted trans ideology which tolerates no dissent (if you dissent, then you are trash, a reactionary, a fascist, someone bent on the genocide of trans people, somebody to be deplatformed, cancelled, insulted and threatened with violence and death).
Tolerating no dissent = erection of dogma = religion.
“Tolerating no dissent = erection of dogma = religion.”
That’s fair.
This reminds me of the “science” of phrenology, which was accepted by many physicians and taught in medical schools until almost 100 years ago. People not so long ago needed “proof” of racial and gender superiority, which phrenology provided. I have an old medical test (unable to locate just now) which gives a lovely ode to the scientific basis of medical practice, then in chapter 2 explains why North American Indians are incapable of advanced thoughts because of the shape of their skulls. People will believe what they need.
Thank you for continuing the campaign.
The third Robert Goodday link doesn’t work.
It is fixed now; thanks!
I’m glad this issue isn’t dying. As I posted in today’s Hili dialogue, I called the ffrf today at 608-256-8900 and think it helped get my disappointment across better than an email or anonymous comment. If you’re planning to leave, it may have more impact if you politely speak to them directly about it. I could tell the staffer I spoke with today was frustrated and it sounded like she was trying hard to keep to her script. I echo a previous commenter that the tone of my conversation was that they were doubling down and there’s no way they’re going to change their irrational, dogmatic beliefs.
I typically post anonymously online because I fear repercussions at my job but the ffrf needs to know I’m a real person and have had a real membership for quite a long time.
On a lighter note, PCC(E) there’s a new Philomena Cunk special on Netflix today entitled “Cunk on Life.” I’m only a few minutes in and it’s very funny already.
I’d also recommend the interview Diane Morgan did with Seth Meyers when she was promoting “Cunk on Earth.” She’s quite hilarious and seemingly ad-libbing. https://youtu.be/s8dDRItdjIY
Sarah’s essay is graceful but misses the mark on the concept of “intellectual faith.”
Putting aside politics and dogma, for evangelical Christians at least, faith is a form of mental resilience rooted in hope, love, and forgiveness.
Can faith and prayer build cognitive strength? Absolutely—much like Tibetan monks cultivating mental faculties through their practices.
But are religion and faith essential for this mental conditioning? Certainly not.
But do humanism and secular pursuits offer clear substitutes? Not quite. They provide meaning, purpose, and beauty—qualities nurtured by writing, time in nature, philosophical reflection, and contributing to society. However, these differ from the specific mental disciplines honed through prayer and faith.
Where I disagree with Sarah is the statement that the value of faith is intellectual. Faith is certainly cognitive. But I’d reserve “intellectual” for the content of ideas. The value of faith isn’t its mental contents; rather, faith’s value is its impact on the person, which influences their actions.
We don’t really have a secular way of flexing (content-meaningless) mental muscles without faith. The closest are therapy and astrology.
Social justice warriorism is also a poor substitute. That is, wokeism can provide dogma and a sense of righteousness. But it doesn’t create mental fortitude like faith and prayer, as evidenced by how mentally ill much of the Left is.
So there is something going on mentally with faith and prayer. I just wouldn’t call it “intellectual,” and I’m certain that the Big Guy in the Sky isn’t needed for those benefits to be experienced, given the fact that the Big Guy isn’t there anyway, right? And they pray anyway. And they experience some fortitude anyway.
I think Sam Harris would tell you that meditation, done the way he recommends, is an excellent way of building fortitude.
Yep. Agreed. I don’t see any difference between meditation and prayer in terms of the benefits to the person.
However, with meditation, you don’t have the experience of a conversation, where the Big Guy listens and we talk.
Meditation removes that pretense. Meditation is also not about the details of one’s life.
So, I suppose they are different. Prayer is closer to writing than meditation is. With meditation, the goal is observing. It’s like we tap directly into that part of the mind that those who pray pray to. Instead of praying to that, we just watch and listen.
So, I see I’ve penned a little flurry of things here and will stop after this. But speaking of Sam Harris and meditation, while I like Sam, I agree with something Elon Musk once tweeted to him, something that I’m sure Harris despises him for: “Sam, there is a such a thing as meditating too much.”
Just watching what’s going on internally has many benefits. It can also lead to missed opportunities to act when action vs watching is needed.
Also, so many leftists meditate! I don’t know many people who meditate whom I’d say are resilient. (It’s not very resilient to spend one’s life in a safe space like a meditation center or manly with those who hang out at those places. I actually think that the meditation community is partly responsible for some of the wokeism we are seeing. They are safe-space people!) The type of fortitude that meditation can provide is more like a reduction in anxiety if one can create a mental space to watch. Prayer is more cognitively involved than that for better or worse. Anyway, enough from me.
Point taken on praying vs meditating. I’m not a meditator myself but it was from reading Sam that I finally understood what one of the main goals of the practice is. While hard to do and takes much practice, mindfulness meditation is meant to train one’s brain to be present in the moment and to stop (or suspend) our reflexive (and unrelenting) tendency to direct our attention toward discursive conversations inside our heads. These tend to be negative emotions like regret, replayng conflicts or arguments over-and-over, resentment, guilt, etc. We do this for hours daily and it’s unhealthy for several reasons: constantly dwelling on negative emotions becomes depressing and increases anxiety, it can increase your stress hormones like cortisol that increase inflammation and negatively affect your body, you risk missing your life by not living in the beautiful present but are rather unhappily ensconced in a mentally-simulated distraction of past thoughts and future worry.
By exercising this atrophied mental muscle in all of us to remain undistracted by spontaneous thoughts and remain attentive in the present moment, it allows one more self control not to be so emotionally kidnapped by these thoughts and able to let them move past our attention span and dissapate.
This I think is what Sam would refer to as resilience – a developable skill and antidote to mental suffering which is often unwittingly self-inflicted. Apologies if you know all this but it was an epiphany for me in understanding one of the points of meditation, how it can work, and that there is zero woo-woo involved.
Following up on this, as I’m still using it to pre-write my thoughts.
Writers (and coders and mathematicians) experience some of the same things as those who pray. This is because writers go inward and focus for hours. Writing is like a higher-IQ version of prayer.
Prayer is kind of like the condensed version of writing where the beat is always oneself, one’s goal’s, and one’s hopes for the world.
Unlike writing, though, the only audience is oneself (as we have already established that the Big Guy isn’t there to listen). It’s like we know we really need a Reviewer 2 but can’t be arsed to get one in the real world and so partition part of our own minds to function as them. Only this internal Reviewer 2 never gives us insufferable suggestions; just affirmations!
Anyway, I’ll be thinking about all this…
I don’t think faith is intellectual exactly, but I wondered whether it may have an intellectual value.
If it indirectly acts as a prophylactic for the most destructive reality-denying ideas (and one might anticipate that to be occasionally true of at least the older faiths), then I think it has a value that runs alongside reason (or at least, hinders running against it).
This is of course, not always true, but I am speaking of a ‘floor’.
(Oh, forgive me Ceiling Cat for chiming in again. Last one, I swear.)
I agree that it has some value, Sarah. (Not that it matters, but I’m a former chaplain turned scientist.) But I think the word is “cognitive” rather than “intellectual,” as it isn’t so much the particularities of Jesus, for instance, but I hypothesize, the act of reaching out whenever needed and deferring to something within oneself that one relates to as being Higher. The practice of reaching out to something better than oneself, even if an illusion, may be practice for being a better person when engaging those in the world. It’s also quite comforting and empowering.
Yes, that has benefit, both for the person and for others. As I wrote above, I do not see a substitute for this in secular humanism (or, as Jerry offered, meditation, though meditation has some other cognitive benefits).
If someone is honest, then routinely reaching out to their higher self ought to keep them honest. So perhaps that is why there is a prophylactic element going on? Or at least that is a possible mechanism to explain your hypothesis.
Having been in both worlds, as it were: do you think it’s possible people could move to just having up-front, candid “spiritual fictions” then? Kind of like legal fictions?
Like, you know that for example Jesus Christ is an imaginational / fictional, a-rational phenomenon, but you find (or are making a bet that you actually do find) use in treating it as if it’s real once in a while? Things kind of like that.
It seems to me that could be compatible with good inquiry practices (and atheism, though that’s not quite the point as I see it).
Some individuals can move in that direction – arguably a whole bunch of poets and some lyricists of the last 400 years already did this. Religious institutions and religion advocates? Well many of them went woke pretty fast, lol, so maybe at least some of them are a bit more flexible than before, even on this?
The intellectual value that faith adds is conviction. If someone believes there are only two sexes/genders because God made it that way as part of His heavenly plan, then that inner certainty will act as a prophylactic for a certain set of reality-denying ideas.
But an unshakable conviction based on faith is tailor-made for supporting all sorts of reality-denying ideas, religious or secular. Some churches – including Christian ones – are now using the idea of God’s love working through the world to show that sex is a spectrum. Pro war, anti war; pro critical social justice, anti critical social justice — God is always on the “right side of history.”
Having the conviction of your ideas may be an intellectual virtue, but I think this particular method really should be counted as a vice.
So let me get this straight. An intern, that is, a young person with relatively little life experience, writes an article about a scientific subject (i.e. sex determination in humans). The article seems to lack rigor…apparently the conclusion of this intern is that a person must be considered a female if that person proclaims that they are a female. The article is then rebutted by an expert in the field, someone with deep understanding of the subject matter.
The organization who is hosting this discussion, an organization devoted to freedom from religious dogma, then decides to cancel THE EXPERT by removing his rebuttal. Not on scientific grounds, but because he has transgressed the doctrines of the transgender.
This really though is just par for the course. Waaay back in the early years of new Atheism, I spent a fair amount of time on Richard Dawkins site and others engaging in online discussions. Initially, most of the participants were of a scientific or hard core philosophical bent…really committed to free-thinking. But over time, more and more of these atheist sites were captured by ideologues of “studies” and “isms”. Gender studies, queer studies, racism, sexism…all of these things came to dominate the discussion boards. They were readily accepted at first by the freethinking hosts, because these seemed to be enlightened, liberal folks.
But the “studies and isms” crowd had long since mutated into an intolerant parasite that takes over its host and eventually kills it.
Thankfully, Richard’s site (and this one!) steered clear of all of that nonsense.
A couple of thoughts:
Firstly, Sarah Haider seems to be disappointed with the infighting in atheist circles and thus she wants to leave organised atheism. I have some sympathy because I have always resisted getting involved in organised atheism. Atheism is characterised by a negative i.e. we don’t believe in God. There’s no reason why any of them should get along with any of the others – they have almost nothing in common. Furthermore, if you think this is a spat, it’s nothing compared to the disagreements religionists have. Much blood has been spilled and is being spilled over the most trivial of disagreements of religious doctrine.
—
The other thing I want to say is I’d rather people didn’t use the statistics from the UK prison service to claim that trans women are more likely to be sexual predators than others.
We are not talking about an unbiased sample of the population, but convicted prisoners. An alternative interpretation is that, excluding sex offenders, trans women are much more law abiding than the general population. There’s also the possibility that sex offenders find it advantageous to pretend to be women whilst in prison.
–> There’s also the possibility that sex offenders find it advantageous to pretend to be women whilst in prison <–
Yes, I’m repeating myself here but I think this should be stressed everywhere everytime. JK Rowling also reposted a similar news just a few days ago, and of course you find trans activists commenting that data from Canada show most of them commited the sexual offences (very serious ones like assaults or rapes) while “living as males”. This amounts to claiming those convicted sex offenders are “cis pretenders” not “true trans”.
But this doesn’t substract from the argument that self-identification is a dangerous policy. One simply has to say: “and how do you propose to distinguish the two before they offend?”.
Since you can’t objectively measure sincerity, once you allow for the existence of someone who CLAIMS to be a woman, but is not “true trans”, then it’s proven a woman is not ANYONE who says she is.
(It’s also easy to argue that in practice you can’t ever allow anyone to self-identify, just in the same way you don’t allow any male to self-identify as harmless, even if not every man is a rapist. Feminists are at pain of always reiterating that they’re not anti-trans, they simply are cautious about trans women as they are for every male person).
Indeed, and I said that. But the important result for this issue, which simply cannot be questioned, is that transwomen commit sex offenses far more often than do biological women, and this makes hash of the claim that “transwomen are women”, at least in this important sense.
Very sorry to learn about KerFFRFle. FRRF, once a proud Madison cultural entity, as noted above, derailed. Late to the discussion, typically, what’s come to my mind has already been expressed. There are links to open and read. I do enjoy Philomena Cunk. I think I get the PCC(E) acronym, still not sure. It’s always a curious thing to encounter the limits of reason, rationality, and attention to argument and evidence that can overcome the best of us. And what is it about being an old white guy? — other than the sheer luck of still being alive and being able to think to oneself — yikes — callow youth, been there, done that, best to avoid rumination. Jimbo had some good comment on that, above. In the meantime, a fine rainy day, landscape well hydrated. The cat’s curled up in her chair.
This whole kerFFRFle reminds me of the Atheism+ controversy surrounding the 2011 Elevatorgate controversy. I thought we’d moved beyond that, but I guess not.
I haven’t heard the “Atheism Plus” term used much anymore. And as I remember, FFRF managed to stay out of it then – without losing any of its most prominent Honorary Board members.
It seems to me that skeptics, atheists, and freethinkers should be able to discuss controversial topics without being accused of heresy.
I may not know the correct answer to the question “What is a woman?” but I don’t think it’s wise for there to be only one orthodox FFRF answer.
Jen McCraight was one of the initiators of the Atheism+ stuff. She transitioned (I believe with surgery and hormones) and was working for 23 and Me the last time I heard.
The slide of You Tube atheists into SJ lunacy is, I think, another consequence of the economics of media. A show built on undermining theism is bound to run out of content and lose audience. The arguments for theism are finite, as are the rebuttals. That’s why many of the best atheist You Tube channels quit producing content years ago. Trans ideology is a kind of mission creep to build/maintain an audience. Follow the money. Their livelihoods depend on an engaged online audience. They’re also playing with fire. If they ever wind up on the wrong side of the mob, the rationality they’ve abandoned won’t ride in to save them.
“Critical” social justice advocates largely establish their credibility by parasitizing that of legitimate social causes, and of institutions (e.g. Scientific American) who earned their credibility the hard way by respecting the principles of science, the only “way of knowing”. I suspect they’ve done irreparable damage to, among other things, issues related to the legitimate rights and needs of transgender individuals, a real variation on innate gender identity, affecting real people. The ignorance and hypocrisy of the “critical” movement indeed poisons whatever it touches.
Thanks for continuing to fight the good fight, Prof CC.
+1
I have previously stated that ‘trans’ is the highest god. Anyone who deviates from the gender woo religion is guilty of blasphemy . The “The trash is taking itself out” line is from Hermant Mehta. Hermant Mehta is a deeply religious man. His religion is gender woo.
Not sure my “Letter” rally adds much, but here ’tis–
https://edbuckner.substack.com/p/first-person-in-trans-itive-tense?sd=pf