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.
This is from Sarah Haider’s Substack. It makes me a bit sad because although I’ve always admired Sarah’s writing and work (she was a cofounder of Ex-Muslims of North America), she is, while remaining a nonbeliever, leaving the atheist “community:
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.”
