It’s been years since I read any Ayn Rand, and her philosophy never fetched me. However, a reader called my attention to the article below on a Rand-ian site that dilates on the “KerFFRFLE”: what I call the fracas about the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s censorship of my critique of their fellow Kat Grant’s piece, “What is a woman?”. I won’t reprise all that; you can see the summary in the collection of posts here.
The new article, which you can access by clicking on the screenshot below, comes from the New Ideal site, whose motto is “Reason/Individualism/Capitalism”. And it seems a site thoroughly devoted to osculating the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Its own summary:
At New Ideal, we explore pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism.
Here you will not find the categories that define today’s intellectual world. We are neither of the right nor the left, but we reject “the center.” We are atheists, but we are for reason, not merely against religion. We champion science, but also free will. We are staunch individualists, but also moralists—embracing a new kind of morality, in which selfishness is a virtue and none of us is bound to be our brother’s keeper. We don’t just oppose “big government,” we eagerly support the right kind of government—one limited to protecting individual rights.
Right off the bat I find a bug: “We champion science, but also free will.” I disagree heartily with that, for libertarian free will is incompatible with what we know of science. But let’s move on.
Short take of the piece: the author, Ben Bayer, (a Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute) agreed with my critique of the FFRF’s self-definition of sex, a critique that ultimately led to the FFRF’s censorship and my resignation from the organization, along with Steve Pinker and Richard Dawkins. But Bayer also argues that scientists should be “proud” rather than “humble,” an approach that the person who sent me the article said was “very Ayn Randian.” I presume some readers will tell me what that means, but it seems to comport with New Ideal’s dictum that selfishness is a virtue. I presume, then, that Bayer equates “pride” with “selfishness” and “humility” with “being a weenie.”
But read below:
As I said, Bayer sides with Pinker, Dawkins, and me on the sex binary, but does take issue with some of the statistics I cited (the stats were supposedly the reason the FFRF found my piece “harmful”). An excerpt from Bayer:
While Coyne’s arguments about the biological sex binary sound plausible to me, as a non-biologist I’m not fully qualified to evaluate the debate. But I find little to no assistance from his critics. After deciding to unpublish Coyne’s piece, the FFRF offered no specific criticism apart from the claim that the piece did not align with the organization’s values.4 Subsequent defenders of the FFRF’s decision for the most part ignored Coyne’s arguments for the sex binary.5 (One tried to challenge the binary by sharing an article that admits that sex is a biological binary but which attacks its utility for failing to explain everything about the behavior of sexed individuals — a straw man if ever there was one.6)
Instead of offering an argument to show why Coyne is wrong on a matter of his expertise, his critics instead focused on his remarks at the end of the piece addressing Grant’s claim that “Transgender people are no more likely to be sexual predators than other individuals.” They’ve made sensible criticisms of Coyne’s use of statistics in claiming that trans women are more likely to be sex predators.7 (Notably, the study he cites draws on a very small sample size and probably classifies non-predatory behavior like consensual prostitution as a “sex offense.”) So far as I can tell, neither Coyne nor his defenders have responded to these criticisms. They should.
So I’ll respond first to the “statistics” argument. The site I used, and the only one to have any decent statistics, is from Fair Play for Women, and I summarized the data in my vanished FFRF piece this way:
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 [-identifying prisoners], 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.
Note that I am emphasizing transgender women here, that is, biological men who identify as women. And my main conclusion is this: transgender women are far more sexually predatory than biological women. That is to be expected simply because transgender women are men who retain some of the biological propensities of men as well as their strength, and thus are expected to commit sex offenses more often than do natal women. In this sense, at least, you can’t say “trans women are women”, for the data show the expected biological differences that result in imprisonment,
Yes, the statistics are based on a small sample size, and there are problems with them–problems that I noted. But I will say two things.
First, Kat Grant gives NO data, saying only that “Transgender people are no more likely to be sexual predators than other individuals. . . “. Well, that’s not true, at least for transgender women compared to natal women, which was my point. Note that I was not saying that trans people are, in general, more likely to be sexual predators than cis people. My point was about trans women versus natal women. And that leads to my second point:
I predict that when more data are collected in the future, this pattern vis-à-vis women will hold up. While trans men (biological women) may not be sexual predators more often than are natal women, I will bet that, based on behavioral differences between the sexes, trans women will be more violent—and more guilty of sex crimes—than are natal women.
I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say. But of course we do need better statistics, for data on trans prisoners are hard to get.
However, the statistics were a small part of my argument, which was mainly about how self-identification is a lousy way to define sex (“a woman is whoever she says she is”, as Grant asserts), but also about how one defines sex has very little bearing on the rights of groups. As I said, “The first [point] is to insist that it is not ‘transphobic’ to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology.” Except in a very few cases, like where one goes to prison or in what sports group one competes, trans people should have all the rights and dignity as everyone else. It is simply dumb to accuse me of trying to “erase” them.
On to Bayer’s accusation that both atheists and those who share my views on biological sex affect an attitude of humility but really should be proud. Bayer doesn’t define humility right off the bat, but eventually gives us a definition before showing us why we shouldn’t even emphasize “humility” as a scientific virtue:
. . . “humility,” which in an ordinary definition means “a modest or low view of one’s own importance.” No one who appreciates the power of scientific reason to discover progressively more truth can see it as modest or lowly.
On this basis Bayer excoriates atheists and scientists for affecting an attitude of humility, when in reality we are evincing fierce pride. Thus we should simply drop the “humility” bit:
In recent years, atheists including Dawkins and Pinker have followed a trend in the broader rationalist community of paying homage to the value of intellectual or epistemic humility. Dawkins claims that science by its nature is “humble” insofar as it doesn’t pretend to know everything. Just a few years back, the house journal of one of Dawkins’s allied organizations, Skeptical Inquirer, published a piece calling on the skeptical movement to embrace the value of humility as its “guiding credo,” as against a consistent “take-no-prisoners” approach that invites the charge of arrogance or elitism.
Yet when atheists fight back against transgender ideology, they are clearly not practicing anything like the now-fashionable intellectual humility. Not only are they asserting with strident certainty the biological reality of the sex binary, they’re doing so knowing that other very intelligent atheists disagree with them. They’re also intransigent about this biological reality even though they know a whole subpopulation of vulnerable people find their assertion not only offensive but threatening to their identities.
That’s not an exercise in humility, but in pride. It’s precisely this pride that Coyne’s critics are condemning; it’s precisely humility that they’re demanding.
Unfortunately, any atheists who otherwise advocate epistemic humility but take the strident approach against transgender ideology are, frankly, hypocrites. Fortunately, there’s a rational way to escape this contradiction and reclaim the moral high ground: they should give up the humility fad.
But when scientists say they are being “humble,” they do not mean “being modest or lowly”. No, what we mean is that we should never assert that we have the absolute truth about the universe. All scientific “facts” and “knowledge” are tentative, subject to revision in light of new observation. Now some observations (e.g., the Earth goes around the Sun and a molecule of regular water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms) are about as certain as you can get, and I’d bet all my possessions on their objective truth. But certainty has been overturned so often in science that the proper attitude is to adhere to this well-known and eloquent passage written by Stephen Jay Gould in 1994 (my bolding)
Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
THAT attitude is what we mean by “humility”: the idea that one considers something “true’ when it’s supported by so much evidence that you’d be crazy to withhold assent. But even Gould would agree that we never have 100% certainty about anything.
I guess there’s an Ayn-Rand-ian reason for what Bayer does next, which is to argue that having pride in adhering to science and being rational helps us form a set of objective moral values:
The following proposal itself has to be weighed carefully against the balance of the evidence. Recognizing that the very practice of science involves commitment to these real virtues reveals not just a guideline for scientific practice, but the possibility of a rational code of morality. The rational commitment to truth is not just the source of our knowledge, it also helps to create the values that help us survive. Respecting the power of truth to give life means respecting the needs of the minds that pursue it, both one’s own needs and those of others. Though it goes far beyond the scope of this article, there’s an argument here that unlocks a code of moral virtues and values we need to live on earth.
Atheists need to do the work to defend a rational moral code now more than ever. It was a major scandal for the atheist movement that its long-celebrated heroine Ayaan Hirsi Ali converted to Christianity. In her statement explaining her conversion, she argued that the West needs guidance to fight off the triple threats of resurgent authoritarianism, Islamist militancy, and “woke” ideology. “Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?” She argued that only religion can offer such guidance. Someone needs to show anyone who sympathizes with her concern that the values of the Western Enlightenment can form the basis of a powerful moral code — and that religion, by contrast, is at the root of the irrational rivals of the West.
To do that, atheists need the courage of their convictions. The latest row over transgender ideology dramatizes this for all to see. When religious-style dogmatism infiltrates atheism itself, it’s a sign of religion’s pervasive influence on our culture, and thus of the need for the courage to challenge widespread conventional assumptions like the alleged virtue of humility.
But atheists have defended a “rational moral code”: the code of humanism. Such codes have been set forth by atheists for centuries, including by people like Spinoza, Rawls, Kant, Singer, Mill and Grayling. The specifics of how one derives morality differ (Rawls, for instance, offered a “veil of ignorance”, Kant offered deontology, and Singer and Mill were utilitarians). And I assert that, in the end, however you derive a moral code, in the end it is subjective, leading to a structure of society that you prefer but cannot justify as “the right structure.”
So what is the sweating Professor Bayer trying to say? I guess I could review Ayn Rand’s philosophy, but I don’t have the stomach for it.
It seems to me the figures for transwomen and sexual offenses could be refined into those who committed the offense as men, (and transitioned after being caught for reasons upon which we can speculate but make no difference here except that they skew the stats perhaps), and those who transitioned before committing any sexual offense.
Both groups are, biologically, men, and it would be interesting to see if they retain their propensity to commit these offenses. But the second group are, I suspect, not really trans, but making the best of their incarceration by providing themselves with some opportunities on the inside.
Even discounting the motivated post-arrest dissemblers I think there are two main groups of trans-identified men:
1) those who present themselves as lesbians and seek to intimidate actual lesbians into having penile sex with them, accusing them of being transphobic TERFs if they refuse, and
2) those who present themselves as heterosexual women and hope to pass well enough to be sexually attractive to ostensibly heterosexual men (although I suspect no one is actually fooling anyone here, least of all himself.)
Only the first, predatory group is on the radar screens of women, as they are a direct threat to women. The second group is largely invisible to women because they are interested only in men, being, at bottom, just an elaborately evolved form of male homosexual seeking men with unusual sexual tastes. Because there are so few men who find them attractive, they risk taking up with an abusive “Mr. Right” when they finally find one, and being the victims of predation, not the perpetrators. However, men from both groups are still men and may be prone to political violence at rallies in defence of their “human rights” against “hate groups” like LGB Alliance, religious fanatics, and women they refer to as TERFs. It’s not clear that political violence counts as predation. What do you think?
(I’m leaving out the euphemistically described “minor-attracted persons” because I don’t want to go there: the word “groomer” may be prohibited speech in Canada even if not directed at an identifiable person. Homosexuality (group 2) is not a vaccination against pedophilia, though, which is by definition predatory.)
Since we don’t know how many trans-identified men sort into each group (plus the pedophiles in both) we don’t have a clear denominator to be able to assess the proportion of trans-identified men over-all who are predatory. I think Jerry’s description of and inference from the statistics he cites are fair comment about incomplete data.
One difficulty with getting better stats is that Canadian and blue-state prison authorities won’t tell you how many transwomen or trans-identified men they have housed in women’s prisons. They will say only that of course all the inmates in our women’s prison are women, duh, whaddayou think?, just as all the girls/women registered to swim with Swim Canada (and using girls’ changing rooms) are women because they say they are. Don’t be a transphobic jerk by pointing out the obvious men and getting the aquatic centre in trouble with Human Rights Commission.
Jerry reviewed a recent paper on the mental health costs of gender-“affirming” surgery where it was impossible to tell the actual sex of the study subjects because some contributing institutions used birth sex and others used declared gender in their medical records. This problem is diffusing. Fortunately for the vast majority (>99.5%) of purposes, gender = sex but in settings where the proportion of transgender subjects is magnified by selection filters (e.g., prisons, athletics, and dating apps) it corrupts statistical understanding.
“those who committed the offense as men”.
Since humans can’t change sex, that’s 100% of them. Whether a man
pretendsclaims to be a woman before or after committing a sex crime is immaterial.No, it might affect behavior, and that is what’s being asked about.
I’ve seen plenty of data (such as those cited by our host) suggesting that trans-identifying men commit crimes with (at least) the same propensity as other males. I’d be interested to see any evidence that they don’t.
Whew – a lot of encouraging thought, but yeah – Sam Harris swung for the fences with The Moral Landscape – it got me thinking, but it did not deliver what I was hoping for. How is this going to work this time?
I think the classics noted above by PCC(E) are as good as it will get without a more accurate model of human nature. I will also suggest, though we have a great time laughing at the lucubrations of Sophisticated Theologian(TM) here – there is “religious” thought and writers I have found that deliver IMHO perfectly good secular reasoning, e.g. Josef Pieper. They are, after all, experienced in the defense against cults – a threat everyone has in common. A case of don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Lastly, a salient quote, IMHO :
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson
From Real Time with Bill Maher
2011-02-04
PS
Science is hard! If you can learn it you have the right to be proud of an achievement!
theonion.com/national-science-foundation-science-hard-1819566466/
The greatest achievement of science:
theonion.com/amazing-new-hyperbolic-chamber-greatest-invention-in-th-1819567821/
🤣🤘🔥🤣🎯🤩🫨😵💫🤠
Thanking both of you for those links above.
The hyperbolic chamber is neat but not as good as the Rockwell retro encabulator.
https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w?feature=shared
Addendum that wasn’t clear :
In a nutshell :
Religious thinkers are acutely on the defensive of “man” becoming God.
This is broadly what theosophic cults sell – wisdom of God – from ancient Gnostics, Hermetics, to dialectic wizards and the relatively modern big d*g of Marxism / Communism / New Age etc.
Science developing that way would be bad.
Free will is a funny thing. If I choose Italian food instead of Chinese food for dinner tonight, what exactly does it mean to ask if I choose “freely”?
One thing I definitely cannot choose is my beliefs. The idea that one can choose to believe in God (or leprechauns, or the truth of the moon landing, or the principles of quantum physics or whatever) seems absurd to me. I evaluate ideas, some I judge to be true, other ideas seem wrong, others I am unsure about. There is zero process of choice. I evaluate reality as I do, doubtless I’m sometimes wrong, but I do not choose. Indeed a willful choice would mean that one is NOT objectively evaluating the proposition.
I don’t get it. My feeling that I can choose my dinner menu for this evening may be illusory, but I have no similar feeling that I can choose what to believe about reality.
The problem with saying “I choose…” is that it implies there is an entity controlling the brain. If that entity is of the brain then, as an argument for free will, it is circular.
On the other hand, if that entity is not of the brain then you have the classic duality – some sort of soul, or whatever, controlling the brain from the outside. There are two problems with this. First, and least important, is that, as far as I know, there is no evidence for such an entity.
But more importantly, such an entity could not effect free will anyway. Immaterial or not, an entity exists by virtue of having properties. Those properties are all it has and all it is and must determine its actions. Otherwise this entity must have something controlling its properties from the outside. In other words, the dual entity would itself need to have a dual entity. You can see where that leads.
“Free will” is an oxymoron. A free action cannot be controlled or it is determined by whatever is controlling it. A willful action must be controlled by ones will. For a willful action to be free one would need to self-determine one’s own will. How would one go about doing that? Through an act of will?
My point is that free will is not something we don’t have because we are material entities. But that free will is a non-sensical idea. It requires meaningful action to come from outside the properties of a system, to essentially come from nothing, and yet be credited to a specific entity within the system. It’s nonsense. Even gods cannot have free will.
I don’t understand consciousness, probably for the same reason a fish can’t understand water. I take the view that mind and awareness are some kind of epiphenomenon on the physical state of the brain and nervous system. But perhaps those are just fancy words that don’t clarify anything. I do not understand the “ghost in the machine”.
I know that my experience of consciousness depends on the physical state of my body and brain. If I am tired, the mind works less well. If I have a fever, I feel trippy. If I consume copious alcohol, that affects my mind. If I indulge in trippy mushrooms, that HUGELY affects my awareness. But how does physics and chemistry really give rise to mind?
Without trying to open the whole can of worms about free will, I was puzzling over my subjective experience of possibly illusory free will. Rightly or wrongly, it SEEMS to me that I can choose what to eat for dinner. But it does not SEEM to me that I can choose whether to believe in the existence of Bigfoot (I don’t) or whether to believe that humans landed on the moon (I do) or to choose to believe anything else I think I know about reality.
I’m illu-u-sion
I’m illu-u-sion
And I’m not what I appear to be
I’m illu-u-sion
And I lost someone who’s near to me
I’m illu-u-sion
And I’m not what I appear – to – me
© 2024, no charge for noncommercial use, all other rights reserved.
It also SEEMS to you that you see the color red, even though there is no color red in physics. According to physics there is only a range of electromagnetic energy that we somehow experience as red. And I cannot know if when you report seeing red that your experience is the same red as mine. Likewise we can have an experience of free choice when, say, deciding what to order for dinner – even though a series of brain computations must have resulted in that behavior. This contrasts with a situation where our outcomes are forced upon us by others, as when a hungry prisoner eats a meal he didn’t order and if freed would not consume. So I think the idea of “free will” just refers to situations where there are no obvious pressures forcing us to behave in a certain way. A person with extensive frontal lobe damage has lost “free will” to some extent, as evidenced by environmental dependency syndrome where the patient’s behavior is often due to external stimuli triggering automatic conditioned responses rather than deliberation leading to a decision.
+1
To say that you (choose to) do something “of your own free will” is to say that you don’t (choose to) do it under internal compulsion (e.g. drug addiction, psychosis) or external compulsion (coercion through physical force, which renders alternative actions impossible, or serious threats, which render alternative actions ineligible).
Great, you made this point much more straightforwardly than I did.
I thought Bayer’s essay was guilty of self-contradiction (which, I believe, is pretty much the Original Sin in Objectivist philosophy.)
On the one hand, he apparently objects to the rational using a rational, secular meaning of “humility” — as in epistemic humility — because he thinks the religious have first dibs on its most legitimate interpretation:
Yet, on the other hand, he wants to rescue the concept of “morality” from its well-entrenched religious approach involving obedience to God and ground it firmly in reason. Which is all well and good, of course — but why then the big problem with agreeing that science practices humility?
A = A … for sufficiently clear and consistent definitions of A.
😀
A long time ago I read a local Objectivist sect’s screed “Ergo”, which trumpeted their objective Objectivism with about the same fervour and irrationality that the local Marxist screeds trumpeted their scientific Scientific Socialism, or the Scientologist’s screeds their Science. Bah, humbug.
Also, re “Reason / Individualism / Capitalism”, how about
“Screed / Me’d / Greed” ?
Allow me to wade in on a very minor point: Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s conversion was NOT a “major scandal for the atheist movement.” Nothing she said challenged or undermined atheism. Her statement that atheism “failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?” showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter. Atheism was never designed to do that and never claimed to. It is, instead, religion that claims to do that and fails by any rational standards to do so. I did not feel scandalized in the least when I read her statement.
Sensible point of view. I certainly didn’t feel threatened by her decision (frankly if I’m going to feel under threat every time someone makes an error I won’t have much of a life!)
https://xkcd.com/386/
Brilliant! (“Atheism was never designed to do that..etc.”) – such a clear evasion of responsibility, and…guilt.
..
On transwomen and crime, I recommend:
Robert Goodday: Do trans women commit sex crimes at higher rates than women … or men? Jan 7, 2025 (free access)
https://carolinacurmudgeon.substack.com/p/do-trans-women-commit-sex-crimes
Written evidence submitted to the Women and Equalities Committee of the UK parliament by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Jo Phoenix: Sex, gender, identity and criminology. in: Alice Sullivan & Selina Todd (eds.): Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader. Routledge, 2023, pp.259-277
Yes, I’d seen both of those (Goodday’s piece came out after mine), but both references show a huge difference in sex crimes between trans women and biological women in the expected direction. Goodday notes there may be several reasons for this, but I think biology (same reasons as crime differences between biological men and biological women) has to be important. I agree with Goodday, though, when he says this:
Thank you.
A good, thoughtful rebuttal. I read some of Rand’s work (“Atlas Shrugged”) and thought she made sense. But then I graduated high school and my education began. I haven’t had the stomach to read anything by her since but I’m not surprised there is still a Randian school of thought and people still working it. I’m also a little frightened by that.
Christian principles have some serious potential differences with humanist principles such as ethical egoism – Baruch Spinoza (self interest vs. self denial), justice as fairness – John Rawls (fairness vs. mercy), utilitarianism/the greatest happiness principle – John Stuart Mill (Christianity rejects “happiness” as life’s primary goal).etc. But, one of the differentiators may also be “societal” principles. vs “individual” principles. Like the father who just a few days ago forgave the young man who killed his son with a knife in an argument over a stadium seat. But, maybe the courts will show some mercy too?
I read Ayn Rand’s “Anthem” in high school. It was an interesting book, I thought. At that time, I didn’t associate it or Ayn Rand with any philosophy. I didn’t even know that there were still living philosophers. I thought philosophy ended with Aristotle! So much for my high school exposure to philosophy.
Science is provisional; that all that “humble” means. Personally, scientist are probably no more or less humble than anyone else. Professional advancement in science depends on the priority of ideas, and this shows itself often in scientific papers: “Our study is the first to show that … .” Science may be humble as a profession (in the manner discussed above), but scientists have their ambitions.
I believe the Progressive’s use of “epistemic humility” means precisely “STFU”.
I’ve never done the Ayn Rand dive, but I’m sensing some “master morality,” “slave morality,” and other Nietzschean vibes here. Contrary to the website’s claim of being “for reason, not merely against religion,” this article’s pivot from the transgender issue to exalting pride trades biologically-grounded argument for moralizing assertion, dripping with old-school condescension and smug Christian bashing—with a bit of “Judeo” swipes on the side. It makes a nice companion piece to a recent interview with the new director at NIH, who demonstrates grace and humility. Imagine the “New Ideal” author’s take if Jay Bhattacharya swapped that for the “will to power”-style ethos.
https://www.thefp.com/p/jay-bhattacharya-fauci-pardon
One should not generalize about transwomen. There are biologically male individuals with VERY different psychologies who end up considering themselves trans. There are the ones that old time bigots would call “sissy boys” who manifest effeminate traits early in childhood and usually, though by no means always, turn out to be gay. And then there are the fetishistic ones who have autogynephilia. There are as psychologically different from each other as any two humans could be.
Statistics are statistics and describe characteristics of groups. There seems to be an average difference among transwomen (self-described, I presume) and natal women in sex crime rate. If you are telling me that that is a “generalization” that should not be pointed out, I disagree. For one commonality among all transwomen is that they are biological men. We can generalize about biological men (for example, they have higher average crime rates or show less discrimination in sexual partners), but you are saying we can’t do the same thing for transwomen.
Sure. But I doubt the “sissy boys” are dangerous to anyone. Some of the autogynophiles are just awful. They are the ones who want to beat up TERFS and send death treats to JK Rowlings and etc.
When you see a man with a sign saying “Punch a TERF in the face” at a trans-rights rally or busting up a talk given by an invited gender-skeptical speaker at McGill law school, how do you know he is an AGP and not a sissy boy? Both are men with male muscles and testosterone. Just because he likes, or is now capable of, only being bottomed doesn’t matter to the women he punches. I posit that the difference is more in the costume for the day than in the underlying nature. You forgive too much without evidence.
It would be nice to say, “Oh, those are a tiny minority. The rest wouldn’t hurt a fly.” But trans-identified men are already a tiny minority. It seems to me that what you see is what you get.
One (and all) should generalize about transwomen in the same way we all generalize about men. That is, a small fraction of men are sexual predators. Nothing about “transitioning” changes those propensities. It should never fall upon women to discover the hard way which ones are predators.
Just so. Reminds me of arguments put forth by Helen Joyce and others and thanks for that. Men as a class are more physically dangerous than women. They retain post-puberty size and strength advantage. One can’t tell at a glance who is dangerous. (There’s an additional argument around the proclivity of men who take it upon themselves to transgress into women’s spaces.) What does seem reasonable: Fair sport for girls and women and security in women-only spaces spaces especially where vulnerable or expecting sex-based privacy — prisons, rape counseling, dressing rooms, bathrooms.
Absolutely, Donna!
I would ask what, in practical application, would it mean for women not to generalize about trans-identified males?
We have our own spaces specifically because of the prevalence of male harassment, intimidation, and violence for the protection of our safety, privacy, and dignity in more vulnerable situations — like getting dressed or in confined privacy for toileting.
How would one go about determining which men in dresses and lipstick aren’t a threat and which ones are? And if they are already in our changing rooms, locker rooms, and restrooms, what would we do about it if we could suss it out correctly?
You and a couple others are imputing to me stupid ideas I never said or even suggested. Biological men, whatever their psychology, cis, trans, straight, or gay, should not invade women’s spaces.
When I made the remark about sissy boys vs autogynephiles, I wasn’t even thinking about the issue of women’s spaces. Jerry had remarked that “transwomen” probably have the same rates of sexual predation as all other biological males. I pointed out that there are two (doubtless more) kinds of M to F transitioners and that one kind is much more aggressive and predatory than the other. I believe the observation is correct. I was NOT, repeat NOT trying to draw any conclusion about men in women’s spaces.
I apologize. I didn’t realize generalizing (or not) about trans-identified males’ proclivity for sexual violence was purely a thought experiment with no practical application.
Not-generalize away, then. Have a party.
Trans activists deny the existence of Blanchard’s typology of autogynephilia (even though there is plenty of evidence for it, not least from the writings of men who identify as women).
Even on Mumsnet, which for a very long time was one of the very few social media sites where transgenderism could be openly debated, posts would be deleted if they included the word “autogynephilia” or even the abbreviation “AGP” – hence the proliferation of baffling references to “people flying in from Málaga airport”. (The international Air Transport Association (IATA) code for Málaga is AGP.)
Some men have read about the psychological theories of autogynephilia and tell us that it accords well with their own understanding of their psychology and their gender issues. We should believe them.
Absolutely! They include Robert Hogge (who calls himself Monica Helms), the designer of the trans flag, who wrote in his autobiography More Than Just a Flag about regularly wearing his mother’s underwear as a teenager and stealing women’s bras etc.in adulthood for sexual purposes.
Edited to add link: https://reduxx.info/creator-of-trans-pride-flag-was-admitted-crossdressing-fetishist/
You are probably already aware, but misogynist bigot and anti-science crank Hemant Mehta was raging over your very sensible pro-science article.
The comments on his blog are hilarious as well. Fewer death threats this time, though…
Interesting timing – John Horgan just referenced Dr. Coyne as well in defending Laura Helmuth
https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/scientific-american-and-the-anti-woke-bros
Thanks. Just added Horgan to my “ignore” list. He joins Philip Ball, who attacked Anna Krylov in a column. I dislike writers who engage in personal attacks.
Me too. I thought this column was poorly written and a display of virtue signaling. He baselessly accuses Dr. Coyne, Shermer, and Singal of to racism, sexism and transphobia signaling (whatever the heck transphobia signaling is). I’ve read his work in the past but won’t be doing so in the future.
“Science is certain,” said Ayn Rand.
What is the difference between a Dark Age and an Enlightenment? Emotion, mysticism, and radical skepticism produce The Dark, while reason and science produce confidence and civilization.
Human knowledge is contextual. Specifically, “within the scope of all proven facts and objective discoveries.” If your claim has passed the test of reason and has been replicated independently and confirmed by the cohort of science, then it is certain. It is true. It is a fact.
Water is a molecule containing two hydrogen atoms.
Human females have large slow gametes.
Evolution is true.
Certainty.
Ayn Rand would have loved this to be a matter of “quiet pride.” As in, normalized in the culture and receiving gratitude for lifting our species out of irrationality.
However, she found it necessary to be a loud warrior against the massive inertia of “normalized doubt of everything” promulgated by religion and Hume (with Kant greedily self-contracting from him). It makes Objectivists such as me cringe every time we observe scientists shy away from the word “true” or “certain”, when they rush to assure “oh science is never certain, we always know we can be wrong, we don’t use the words “proven” or “truth.” THAT is the humility sequence that should be rejected in favor of quiet but deadly pride, “let us know when you prove us wrong. Until then, we are certain.”
Hume was made famous by asserting the utter futility of human reason with many declarations to the effect, “just because the sun came up this morning does not mean it will ever do so again.” This became a meme, right down to today for louts to greedily make room for gods, chaos, and the irrational.
Unfortunately, Ayn Rand was not there to slap his face.
Certainty is easy; accuracy is hard.
If a claim is based on inaccuracies, yet declared true and certain by the author, it will be torched to ashes by the rational cohort. Claims are not true until repeatable by the knowledge community.
It’s still not certain. Consider groupthink. And even a conformed scientific “fact” is not absolutely certain. The 18th century notion that science was certain about all the major aspects of reality proved to be seriously mistaken; hence we have modern physics, correcting and extending the classical (i.e. older) stuff.
Science is after all a social enterprise, albeit a rigorous one.
You did not make any reference to my explanation of certainty with regard to context and and cohort, just recited the modern meme of radical uncertainty.
“Radical”? ISTM it’s basic scientific non-certainty. Do you have a credible cite to the contrary?
For a clear idea of the prevalence of violence (encompassing, of course, sexual violence) in trans-identified males, it’s definitely a confounding factor how many of them discover their trans-ness after their arrest or in prison. One wonders. (Not really.)
But the ongoing revelation of sexual predation in the ranks of leaders in the Trans Rights Movements isn’t great. Certainly there will always be more predatory leaders discovered in non-trans communities, because there are simply more of them – both leaders and communities.
But given the narrow focus of TRA communities and Pride associations that have been coopted by TRAs, the over-representation of sexual predators is vivid.
Reduxx Magazine does a great job of bringing these cases to light, but I never just take their word for it. I always check their sources. (And never find them to be unreliable. Still, I check. I want to be correct in my opinions, not gratified by feeling righteous.)
It’s increasingly difficult to take seriously the argument that trans-identified males are safer to be around than the greater male population.
False signalling makes anyone more dangerous. Even if men who say they are women aren’t actually more predatory than ordinary men — they in fact are, as you say, — their decision as the enemy to wear the uniform of your own side, to pass, means you shouldn’t trust them. Not that women are fooled, of course not. But it’s the attempt at deception that queers your thinking.
In addition, a homosexual man who isn’t interested in sexually assaulting you but who wants to beat you up as a TERF for obstructing his trans tights to be a woman is pretty dangerous, too. Even a sissy boy has hard male fists and massively strong punching muscles. If he punches you in the face, especially if he’s angry, (and he will, because he’s a girl, too, just like you), you won’t get up.
Agreed about Reduxx – a useful asset and one that is pretty accurate (and transparent about its sources).
I remain puzzled by a related issue which these discussions rarely address. HOW did the legitimacy of transgender pretentions get to be assumed in so many institutional contexts—sport organizations, the commonplace misuse of the word “assigned”, and the whole pronoun fetish. Who was responsible for making these quiet adjustments,
and how did they spread? And who grafted them on to the conventional stance that Americas call “liberal”?
I learned a lot from Helen Joyces’ Book: Trans — she describes institutional capture. Kathleen Stock’s book is also good for some of the history. There are there good other books, articles, and interviews. Helen Joyce is my favorite source, plenty of online interviews — with Richards Dawkins, terrific, and a joy to hear her articulate, incisive voice. Liberals like me would be hoodwinked by grafting trans ideology onto gay rights, even women’s rights, despite the regressive, misogynistic and homophobic nature of many of the precepts of the “felt gender sense”. (I think it was an Obama era move, overlooked by many and then there’s, by golly, popular culture which mystifies me.)
Four years after her best-seller was published, Helen Joyce finally appeared at her first literary festival a couple of days ago: https://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2025/april-02/trans-gender-identity-and-the-new-battle-for-womens-rights
The whole thing is so crazy it feels like a conspiracy theory. But there really does seem to have been a conspiracy, and the so-called Denton’s document played a part in it: https://archive.is/6WTEr
Excellent, and illuminating. Thanks, Jez.
Yup, advice such as “Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure” is astonishing.
Rand fanatics can be tiresome, can’t they?
I’m not sure about the whole humility bit. Maybe it is the boss’ Hawaiian shirts – they seem a bit shouty to me! 🙂
D.A.
NYC
“…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 [-identifying prisoners], then, appear to be twice as likely as natal males … to be sex offenders. ”
Only if the overall rate of criminality for the two kinds of natal males is the same or near the same. Of course, I’m comparing males to males here.
I’d like to tangentially point out something I just noticed :
There is a worldly sense – an exoteric dimension – to the notion of “trans people erasure” which preoccupies the mind in showing how trans people are not in fact being harmed, erased, or otherwise, by e.g. sound biology.
If we apply the Iron Law of Woke Projection to the claim of “erasure of trans people”, the true esoteric nature is revealed : that the native individual identity is, in fact being destroyed, and in its place the cult identity is inserted.
This is a standard cult objective – replacing someone’s original identity with the cult identity. See for example Steven Hassan, Margaret Thaler Singer.