In my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”, I discuss cancel campaigns directed against figures like Dr. Pinker, who has also been the subject of this blog in his own fight for free speech.
In this controversy, Coyne published a column on Dec. 26th arguing that human sex is “binary” and seeking to separate the science from the politics in the transgender debate. The article critiqued the prior piece by Kat Grant, a fellow at the FFRF, titled “What is a Woman,” which concluded, “A woman is whoever she says she is.”
Coyne offered a view shared by many that “[i]n biology … a woman can be simply defined in four words: ‘An adult human female.’…Because some nonbinary people — or men who identify as women (‘transwomen’) — feel that their identity is not adequately recognized by biology, they choose to impose ideology onto biology and concoct a new definition of ‘woman.’” While Coyne supports equal rights for transgender people, he argued that, as a scientist, “feelings don’t create reality.”
Notably, the posting noted that the FFRF was sharing Coyne’s view as a courtesy to an honorary board member and that the views do not necessarily reflect the organization.
That was not good enough. The transgender community and others on the left responded with an all-too-familiar cancel campaign and demanded that Coyne be censored. Figures like Evan Clark, Executive Director of Atheists United, said, “If you still support FFRF, I’d encourage you to pull your donations and talk to their leadership about the importance of trans rights in the battle against white Christian nationalism.”
The FFRF caved into the pressure, removed Coyne’s publication, and called its posting a “mistake.”
According to his later account, despite being an honorary board member, Coyne did not receive a response to inquiries from co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor.
FFRF did make a major mistake but it was not in allowing a diversity of opinion on its site. Coyne’s essay has now been republished on Reality’s Last Stand.
Coyne also ran a response to the FFRF co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker in which he stated that he resigned due to “the censorious behavior I cannot abide” in the removal of his article. He noted that he and others had previously objected to the “mission creep” at the FFRF “to adhere to ‘progressive’ political or ideological positions.”
He then added a haymaker that said that this is all strikingly familiar to FFRF members. It is the very orthodoxy that the organization was created to combat:
“The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (“a woman is whoever she says she is”), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.”
The action taken against Dr. Coyne is reminiscent of the campaigns targeting writer “Harry Potter” creator J.K. Rowling. We have been discussing this campaign against Rowling, a feminist who has opposed transgender policies that she views as inimical to the rights of women.
To their credit, Pinker and Dawkins also submitted their resignations in solidarity with Coyne and free speech. Pinker wrote “With this action, the Foundation is no longer a defender of freedom from religion but the imposer of a new religion, complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics.”
Dawkins also wrote a resignation letter objecting to the “unseemly panic” in response to “hysterical squeals from predictable quarters.”
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.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”