Consortium of secular organizations attack scientists deemed transphobic, The Center for Inquiry responds

This will be the next-to-last item I write about my entanglement with the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)—I hope.

I am pretty sure that the joint statement below resulted from the fracas that ensued after the FFRF took down my post about biological sex, followed by my resignation and those of Richard Dawkins and Steve Pinker—all of us members of the FFRF’s Honorary Board.  This censorship didn’t look good, and although some blogging miscreants defended the FFRF’s claim that what I wrote was “harmful”, the real press didn’t make the FFRF’s censorship look so good.  Further, the organization then simply dissolved its entire honorary board of 15 remaining members. The FFRF’s announcement of that, below, actually comes from an Intelligent Design site run by the Discovery Institute:

Here’s the announcement from the FFRF site (archived here as well); rectangle is mine:

and from the Intelligent Design site Mind Matters:

They really need some competent people to run their website, even more so because there’s still a page listing the entire Honorary Board. Oy!  I suspect the “Mind Matters” citation will be removed within a day or so. (This reminds me of the “”cdesign proponentsists” vestigial wording found by Barbara Forrest and revealed during the Dover Trial as evidence that “Intelligent Design” was simply a recasting of creationism.)

At any rate, the FFRF got together with 16 other humanist organizations to issue a joint statement that is below, and which you can find here .  The words are indented below the headline. I have bolded three passages.

As the 119th Congress and state legislative sessions begin across the nation — and the incoming Trump-Vance administration prepares to take office — the extreme White Christian nationalist movement and their politician enablers have made it clear that LGBTQ-plus Americans, particularly trans people, will be singled out for discrimination, exclusion and attacks in 2025. Indeed, this dangerous movement has made anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policies a cornerstone of their agenda.

As organizations committed to protecting the separation of government and religion, as well as universal human and civil rights threatened by the White Christian nationalist ideology, the undersigned organizations reaffirm our commitment to forcefully advocate for the rights of LGBTQ-plus Americans, create inclusive and welcoming communities, represent the interests of our diverse constituents, and act in accordance with our values.

We will not permit religious extremists to foment a moral panic, encourage harassment or violence, and enact dangerous policies that seek to force LGBTQ-plus Americans generally — and trans Americans in particular — out of public life and out of existence. Nor will we sit silently or ignore when the talking points, misinformation and outright fabrications of anti-LGBTQ-plus extremists are laundered and given a veneer of legitimacy or acceptability by those who hold themselves out as voices of reason or science.

In just the past year, we have seen book bans forcing libraries and schools to remove materials that even mention LGBTQ-plus characters; bathroom bans and “bounty” laws that threaten harassing lawsuits or even criminal prosecution against trans Americans simply for using the restroom; religious refusal laws allowing medical providers to deny treatment; outright bans on a range of medical care for gender dysphoria, substituting the judgement of state governments for that of patients, parents, and physicians; and even investigations threatening to remove trans and gender nonconforming children from their families. More of the same is coming in 2025.

For the more than 1.5 million trans Americans, this is the reality they are forced to live every day. It is not merely some academic debate.

These unworkable, ill-conceived and plainly discriminatory laws and policies are about one thing: forcing a regressive, largely religious view of gender norms onto the American people. They are “solutions” in search of a problem that simply doesn’t exist. Instead, the extremists advocating for these actions intend to send a clear message that trans Americans are not worthy of dignity or respect — and their cruel and dehumanizing rhetoric only confirms that intention. We cannot and will not ignore such bigotry, no matter its source.

Instead, we stand with our trans members, supporters, and constituents. We will continue to advocate for policies that protect the civil and human rights of every community that comes under threat from the White Christian nationalist ideology. And we will ensure that the inherent dignity and worth of all people is respected within our community and beyond.

American Atheists
Nick Fish
President
American Humanist Association
Fish Stark
Executive Director
Association of Secular Elected Officials
Leonard Presberg
President
Black Nonbelievers
Mandisa Thomas
President
Camp Quest
Alyssa Fuller
Executive Director
The Clergy Project
Duane Grady
President
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Dan Barker & Annie Laurie Gaylor
Co-Presidents
Freethought Society
Margaret Downey
President
Hispanic American Freethinkers
David Tamayo
President
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
Jason Torpy
President
Recovering From Religion
Gayle Jordan
Executive Director
Secular Student Alliance
Kevin Bolling
Executive Director
Secular Coalition for America
Steven Emmert
Executive Director
Secular Woman
Monette Richards
President
Society for Humanistic Judaism
Paul Golin
Executive Director
Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association
Leika Lewis-Cornwell
President

Now I largely agree with this statement! As I have made clear many times, I think that LGBTQ+ individuals deserve exactly the same rights and dignity afforded to everyone else, save for a few areas in which the rights of such people (mostly of the “T” persuasion rather than the other letters) clash with the rights of other groups. But singling out these few areas (like sports or hormones given to children) gets one called a “transphobe”. So be it. I am not sure whether the organizations above approve of things like infusing children with hormones, proselytizing them with “affirmative” therapy, or allowing a biological male who self-identifies as a woman to compete in women’s athletics. If they wouldn’t, then we largely agree!  But they don’t tell us.

Further, it is not just “White Christian Nationalists” who are wary of giving unlimited rights to trans people. A new NYT poll, summarized here, shows that the American public in general has pushed back against the two trans rights I mentioned above.  Here’s a summary of the NYT data, divided by political affiliation. As you see nearly 80% of Americans, including 67% of Democrats, don’t think that trans female athletes should be able to compete in women’s sports.  These are clearly not all “White Christian Nationalists”!  For these people, as for me, the views on sports reflect a simple concern of fairness for women. And the concerns about drugs and hormone therapy on minors comes from the fact that we don’t know the long-term effects of these drugs plus people should be of a certain age (I think about 18 or 21) before they can decide whether to take hormone therapy or surgery to assume some secondary traits of their non-natal sex. There are, after all, permanent effects of such treatment that require a certain maturity to grasp and understand.

As for “White Christian Nationalists,” well, I suspect that many people of color share the attitudes given in the tables above.  Where does the “White” come from? Are there no Christian Nationalists of Color? And, of course, neither I nor, I suspect, most of the Democrats (or even Republicans) mentioned above, are Christian Nationalists.  In fact, as far as I see, their views seem to me to be based on ethics, not religion! But it is in the interest of humanist organizations to blame religion for every ideological or ethical view they don’t like, as it keeps the members and money flowing in.

Finally, I have no doubt about one thing: the statement below was aimed at me, Steve Pinker, and Richard Dawkins:

Nor will we sit silently or ignore when the talking points, misinformation and outright fabrications of anti-LGBTQ-plus extremists are laundered and given a veneer of legitimacy or acceptability by those who hold themselves out as voices of reason or science.

I stand by my “talking points”, affirm that sex in humans is binary, and reject assertions that “a woman is whoever she says she is.” If that is not misinformation, then I’m a monkey’s uncle (actually, I’m a monkey’s relative).

As one reader emailed me, and I quote with permission:

[The FFRF] apparently canvassed other humanist/atheist organizations and got them to endorse the statement as well, though I’d guess at least some those organizations viewed it as a boilerplate expression of support for those communities and weren’t aware of FFRF’s larger agenda.

This is a textbook and quite literal case of “virtue signalling” — a full-throated declaration that they are the virtuous ones, complete with a strenuous denunciation of heretics to demonstrate that virtue. It’s incredible, and incredibly disappointing to see this level of ideological and (frankly) religious capture within the allegedly-secular community.

Now I don’t know if the FFRF instigated this group statement, but, as I said, I’m pretty sure that it wouldn’t have been issued had I not written my short essay (archived here) that was taken down after a day by the FFRF.

Now, onto what seems to be one of the few remaining secular/skeptical organizations that remains sensible: the Center for Inquiry. Click to read. It was written by Robyn Blumner, the President and CEO

The text:

January 17, 2025

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) stands for reason, science, and secularism and has been doing so for nearly fifty years.

We are often the speakers of inconvenient truths: There is no evidence that you will see your departed loved one in a place called heaven. There is no evidence that a loving god is answering your prayers. Ancient indigenous medicine is not on a par with western medicine. GMO crops are not harmful per se and can be hugely beneficial.

Lately, there has been a disagreement among secular groups with regard to transgender activism. As disagreements go, this one is rather narrow, though it has been made to seem gigantic.

Biological science indicates there are two biological sexes, a fact consistent throughout the animal world of which humans are a part. There is also a more fluid concept of gender that allows for a more complex picture of human sexuality. Both things can be true at the same time. There can be two biological sexes and multiple gender identities. And when public policy is enacted, it should be sensitive to the former as well as the latter.

This appears to be an inconvenient truth in light of the response by some secular groups.

Some secular groups are taking the position that any discussion of biological facts is transphobic and a denial of civil and human rights. They posit that giving reasons for understanding the natural world as a place divided into biological male and female members of species isn’t just a scientific discussion but a cover for full-on Christian nationalism.

CFI is opposed to Christian nationalism in all its guises. And to the extent Christian nationalists have used transgender issues to gin up outrage and make gains politically for their agenda of injecting religion into public policy, we are opposed.

None of that changes biological facts or the complexities of the issues involved. Good people of good will should be willing to grapple with these complexities without imputing bad motives for divergent views.

For instance, if there is a medical clinical trial for women to determine if a medication has a different impact on women than men, should transgender women participate? If transgender women are to be considered the same as natal women, the answer is “yes” they should participate. However, science suggests otherwise, because they are not biologically the same.

Saying as much doesn’t make you a tool of Christian nationalism.

There are other places where the biology of sex has a significant role to play. In sports, for instance. Once male puberty has occurred, it is no longer fair physiologically for whoever has benefited from it to compete in almost any category of women’s sports. At least that is what the science and evidence demonstrate.

One of the most contested areas involves transitioning minors before they reach the age of majority. In light of the latest research and actions by several European countries that have stepped back from such medical interventions, the way “gender-affirming care” is practiced in the United States is no longer universally accepted as the most beneficial approach. There are increasing numbers of detransitioners, whether transgender activists want to believe it or not, and those stories can be just as heartbreaking as the stories of transgender-identifying children seeking medical intervention.

To elide past these complex issues and claim that only one side involves civil and human rights is simply wrong. Natal women athletes have civil rights as well. Children have human rights that include not having permanent disabling surgeries before they truly understand the consequences.

Those who think these and other areas are open to rational, scientific, evidence-based debate are not laundering the fabrications of Christian nationalists as has been charged. They are recognizing that these are not simple matters of right and wrong and that the full panoply of interests at stake should be considered.

But if the conversation is over before it even begins, if any crack of daylight between one’s point of view and that of the most extreme transgender activist is considered hateful bigotry and shall not be uttered without fear of cancellation, then that is a place where reason and science have disappeared and all that remains is vitriol, anger, and self-righteousness.

That won’t happen at CFI.

CFI will continue to promote the separation of church and state, the rights of nonbelievers here and around the world, and the end of pseudoscience wherever it arises. And we strongly disagree with people or groups who think discussion is dangerous, biology is bigotry, and science is Christian nationalism in disguise.

Robyn E. Blumner,
CEO and President, Center for Inquiry
Executive Director, Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

This is eminently rational, and I have nothing to add to it.  But I have to repeat this part, which I especially like:

But if the conversation is over before it even begins, if any crack of daylight between one’s point of view and that of the most extreme transgender activist is considered hateful bigotry and shall not be uttered without fear of cancellation, then that is a place where reason and science have disappeared and all that remains is vitriol, anger, and self-righteousness.

That won’t happen at CFI.

No, it won’t happen at CFI—not as long as they steer the course that Robyn describes.

While I continue to admire the work that the FFRF does in keeping church and state separate, I will no longer support them financially given their new ideology and behavior. Instead, my donations will go to the Center for Inquiry as the sole secular/skeptical organization I support.  If you have rescinded membership in the FFRF, I would suggest that you simply give that money to the CFI, which will need it since it may lose some donors over this fracas.