The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is under fire this week after it censored a leading scientist, atheist, and board member, Jerry Coyne, a professor emeritus of ecology at the University of Chicago. The FFRF took down a Coyne column titled “Biology is not bigotry,” a critique of an earlier transgender column. The move followed objections from transgender activists and led to the resignation of biologist Richard Dawkins and Harvard University Professor Steven Pinker in support of Dr. Coyne and free speech. The FFRF board has decided to ring in the New Year by reinventing itself as a freedom from free speech foundation.
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.”
“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.”
That right there defines woke leftists to a T.
In nature, some animals change sex, produce asexually, and even have virgin births. So why would the idea that a human cannot identify as a woman or a man when they feel it despite having sexual organs that say otherwise? Hermaphrodites exist because they are scientifically accurate.
It’s the religious conservatives who cannot handle the idea that some people make an odd choice because it’s what they feel or believe. They are afraid that the notion would be normalized like homosexuality has. What they are witnessing is the constant narrowing of their worldview and reality. Remember, they used to think the world was at the center of the solar system and punished and killed those who challenged that perception because it threatened their authority to dictate moral norms and ideas. Things that had no discernible effect on their lives except in the realm of social influence.
And, yet, New York recognizes 32 genders while Shaziya Allarakha, MD and Pallavi Suyog Uttekar, MD take the position that there are more than 70 genders. Alice’s Wonderland really does exist.
In nature, some animals change sex, produce asexually, and even have virgin births.
Yes George, all mammals do this, all the time. That is, the ones that self-identify as Democrats. Or declare themselves to be transgender.
It’s the religious conservatives who cannot handle the idea that some people make an odd choice
Clearly, in George-world, atheists like those featured in this column are actually religious conservatives who have been lying to the world their whole lives.
George as one of the Bolshevik Birthing Boys Marxist theologians will never be accused of being an apostate to Marxist religious beliefs in all it’s forms.
Radical Marxist theologians like George, AOC, regularly resort to dismissive declarations like this to protect their inane beliefs.
It’s a really weird claim (or another lie from George): the world’s agnostics, animists, etc never disagree that little boys can menstruate and men can get pregnant. Only devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
In George-world, if you disagree that George can get pregnant, then you MUST be a “religious conservative”
And if you point out how ridiculous his lies and dogma are, the best response he will be able to come up with is that the problem isn’t his Marxist word salad. No, the actual problem is that his lack of reading comprehension and repeatedly ignoring context and nuance are actually your problems.
George is a cheap fake mammal.
Old Airborne Dog
“Lil Bow Wow,” what were your MOS, Awards, Theater, and Campaign?
Only a coward would refuse to answer that question.
Only a cowardly Airsoft Gun Bunny who escaped the brig and is now on probation, prohibited from using the Internet least he again lure little boys and girls for sex would post such irrelevant questions Anonymously.
Why would ANYONE answer ANY question repeated regularly by a coward who lures little children by asking for help finding his lost kitten, and now Anonymously demands personal information from others?
Usernames are not hard for those who aren’t cowardly pedophile Airsoft Gun Bunnies violating their probation by using the internet.
Old Airborne Dog
Why does a man or a woman have to fit into a stereotype? They are who they are. Some women can handle a chainsaw or a jackhammer as good as any other man. Why do all men have to fit into a cubbyhole? Some could care less about football or drinking beer. They don’t. They are men and women and are free to live their lives.
What is not okay is when a big bruiser dude dresses up like a woman and wants to unfairly compete in women’s sports! It is insanity it state otherwise.
What is not okay is for the cult to indoctrinate vulnerable boys and girls and surgically mutilate them and make them forever dependent on corporate big pharma and the maw of corporate medicine.
It is a case of the emperors new clothes. Those that mindlessly follow this bizarre line of thinking woukd have been suited for the People’s Temple in Guyana.
E.M.
Well said.
Pardon the typos, my thumb is not as accurate as my keyboard.
Protandrous and protogynous hermaphroditic species of animals are genetically programmed to be such because these reproductive strategies proved to be successful over the course of their evolution. They do not make individual choices to change their genders. It’s not as if some clownfish (protandrous) have identity crises and start watching MSNBC while the rest of the population stays tuned to Fox News. Every clownfish starts out as a boy fish and grows up to be a lady fish because of genetics.
There is, of course, a small minority of the human population who have sexual identity issues because of their genetic make-up, and they deserve the best medical and psychological treatment available. Most transsexuals these days, however, strike me more as attention-seekers who are cashing in on the latest trend.
There’s nothing irrational about wanting to cling to a heteronormative culture and its ideals being inculcated in the young. It’s a requirement of species survival. Additionally, we have to stop poisoning our environment and food chain.
The meaning of the word “censorship” is being mangled in this piece.
Government censorship is where the threat of prosecution and forceable confiscation of materials and equipment is used to impede the dissemination of information the government would prefer not be published. Govt. censorship is prohibited by the 1st Amendment, and when self-restraint fails, enforced through civil lawsuit and court order.
Defamation law is wielded by individuals and private entities to prevent the spreading of false accusations harmful to our reputations. It also is enforced by civil lawsuit, with a jury deciding truth and doling out monetary consequences. It is incorrect to call the legal assertion of our individual reputational rights “censorship”, because the govt’s role is only as a neutral magistrate. The jury decides where the truth resides, not the govt.
Otherwise, an essential human freedom is to sift and weigh the information we hear or see, make judgments about its credibility, and decide what to pass along to others. The correct term for this is “filtering”. All private organizations have the right to filter (i.e., curate, edit, moderate) their output information. Every person and organization does this, often unconsciously. To label this as “censorship” implies that there is no private freedom of information filtering.
Conservatives abhor the militant repurposing of words for political effect. Defending language against militant butchery is a highly virtuous cause — neutral, dispassionate, clear language being the only peaceful tool we have for resolving conflicts through attentive listening and negotiation.
This athiest organization is not the government. It was not defaming anyone. Therefore, it was filtering its output.
That’s a basic freedom we all own, springing from natural rights. It’s not “censorship”.
Pbinca, that’s a great point!
Therefore, it was filtering its output.
It wasn’t censoring when it freely published the article. Then, once it was threatened with demonitization, all of a sudden it became necessary to “filter its output”?
You can make up whatever definition you want for filtering. But to claim you should have both the right to see or hear information and then take coercive action so that others do not have the same right to that information, is censorship.
Hardly, verbose dude.
Per the article, the FFRF silenced/removed a publication of their own member in response to “transgender activists” (and it is not clear that those ‘activists’ were members of their organization!). That is censorship. You can call it ‘filtering output’. You can call it ‘repurposing’ or whatever. It is still censorship. Manure by any other name is still manure. The name is nothing more than a convention to facilitate discussion/activity/etc.
And regarding “the militant repurposing of words for political effect”, there is no requirement of government to be involved in an activity in order for the term “censorship” to be applied. “Censorship” is “a basic freedom we all own, springing from natural rights.” And, unless detailed under very specific conditions, the outfit that does NOT have that right is the US Government.
It was a guest article by a honorary board member. They are not obligated to keep it or support it.
ROTFLMAO! There is no need to fill in who wrote the article, the affiliations of the author or whether there is an ‘obligation to keep or support it’. The simple act of removal is censorship.
They are not obligated to keep it or support it.
What they weren’t obligated to do was publish it if it didn’t meet their editorial standards. However once they did, they then removed the article solely on the basis of a potential loss of revenue. Their so called “filter” worked to publish it, but it was the financial threat that forced them to censor it.
Olly, so they aren’t allowed to change their minds? This had nothing to do with finances. They chose to publish a guest column. If they got a reaction and chose to remove it it’s entirely their prerogative. That is not censorship. Especially when a private organization is not bound by the 1st amendment. Turley censors posts here often. When posts violating his values are removed it’s also censorship. Even after being ‘published’ first.
They chose to publish a guest column. If they got a reaction and chose to remove it it’s entirely their prerogative. That is not censorship.
Yup. They chose to publish it, got a reaction and as a result, they chose to unpublish it. That is their prerogative. Unless you have other information specifying why, the only reaction provided was someone recommending to stop financial support for this particular entity. You can call it anything other than censorship, that is your prerogative, but the fact remains that they unpublished (censored) the article to appease those threatening to withdraw financial support, not some BS that it couldn’t make it through a filter.
pbinca: Respectfully, I fail to see where either government censorship or “defamation law” has anything to do with today’s post. I further fail to understand where any definition of “censorship” has been “mangled.” Perhaps you need to look up the simple definition of censor/censorship. Of course you know that censorship is NOT limited to governmental action.
Next, I believe you missed an important paragraph in JT’s article,
“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.”
As Dr. Coyne clearly articulates,
“Several things are clear, including a point I’ve made before: the FFRF has a remarkable ability to place any kind of antiwoke ideology under the rubric of ‘Christian nationalism.'”
Coyne goes on to say,
“That’s why I wrote in my now-expunged piece, ‘As a liberal atheist, I am about as far from Christian nationalism as one can get!’ And of course I support LGBTQIA+ rights, save in those few cases where those rights conflict with the rights of other groups, as in sports participation. I doubt that even the FFRF would think that women should be boxing, professionally or in the Olympics, against men or biological men who identify as women. So in terms of ‘LGBTQIA-plus rights,’ I’m pretty much on the same plane as the FFRF, even though they imply I’m not.
“But it’s the last six paragraphs of the FFRF’s post where they explain why they took down my piece. It is because it caused ‘distress’ and ‘did not reflect [the FFRF’s] values or principles.’ I’m not sure what values or principles my piece failed to reflect. Does the FFRF think that sex is really a spectrum, that there are more than two sexes in humans, or that the most useful definition of biological sex doesn’t involve gamete size? I don’t know, nor do they say.”
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/12/28/the-ffrf-removed-my-piece-on-the-biological-definition-of-woman/
MY inference is simply that the good professor was pointing out the disjunctive actions of FFRP in CENSORING Coyne’s article,– placating to an orthodox subgroup of the FFRP, which now appears to be a controlling faction, see, e.g., FFRF’s response to Coyne, wherein LGBQTIA+ rights are now declared an “indirect component of our mission.” https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/12/28/the-ffrf-removed-my-piece-on-the-biological-definition-of-woman/
p.s. A “censor” is one who “filters” and decides whether to remove or edit……. Look it up.
Thanks for considering.
You might not agree with my narrow, legal definition of censorship. But, I think it’s a big mistake to define censorship subjectively, as in, “if I want that viewpoint given publicity and someone (not govt.) disagrees and blocked it, that’s censorship”. The problem with this definition is it’s subjective — it depends on whether you favor spreading the blocked info. Since people will differ on this, we automatically give up any possibility of agreeing on a shared definition of the term “censorship”. This invites political factions, where the two sides cannot even communicate using a common language anymore because meaning has been made subjective.
We can legally constrain govt. censorship. But, the best we can do regarding each other’s freedom of thought and word is to champion open-mindedness and independent thinking as a key virtue of the free citizen — the same for organizations in a free society. We can hold an expectation of open-mindedness, or willingness to entertain ideas that challenge pre-existing beliefs and conclusions. This starts with myself. Who will follow my example if I cannot even adhere to that virtue?
Your “narrow, legal definition of censorship” is NOT the legal definition of censorship.
Then you are a censor, and I’m a censor. Everyone is. Because free citizens simply cannot be bullied or cajoled into spouting whatever information someone would like us to push out.
Is it unfair to call yourself a censor, but the slur fits if it’s someone else doing it?
Do facts mean nothing to this idiot?
“Trump Stokes Hate With False Insinuations About New Orleans Truck Attack Suspect”
Has anyone read Coyne’s article? Interestingly, he criticizes Grant’s article as a struggle to arrive at a definition of a woman. Still, Coyne ends up admitting in his article that gender is not explicitly categorized as male and female sexually. He mentions hermaphrodites and that, in nature, there are indeed animals that do change sex or reproduce asexually. Animals have also exhibited homosexual behavior as humans have. While it’s rare, it does not mean it does not exist, which is what religious zealots or fanatics insist is biologically impossible, but nature proves them wrong, which is the point of contention for FFRF.
Coyne’s argument is about the ‘generality’ of the idea being universally accepted, and he is not wrong. However, he dismisses almost flippantly the point that transgender identity and identifying as a woman or man is not a biological issue. But in his article, he admits that in nature, sexual identity does indeed change in animals (those who produce asexually by changing their sex). Male seahorses give birth to offspring, right? Does that make them female? No, but they defy what is generally accepted as what commonly identifies as male behavior; therefore, they should not be able to give birth to offspring, but we still call them males. We don’t go around insisting we call them females because only females give birth, right? If it were up to religious fanatics and zealots we would be re-defining male seahorses as female, because only females give birth. That is why FFRF changed it’s mind in Coyne’s article after LGBTQ + individuals protested. They are allowed to change their minds. But Turley seems to think they are wrong to have the ability to do so.
George, did you miss the point of Turley’s article in your rush to get involved in making a statement? It’s about censorship.
No. Turley used the removal of the article to falsely accuse the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and liberals in general of censorship. Pbinca made an excellent point, highlighting the disingenuous nature of Turley’s claim.
What’s true is that Coyne’s article is still available elsewhere. FFRF is not obligated to publish or continue hosting the article on their website, just as Turley is not obligated to include or publish openly racist viewpoints or allow guests to write columns that contradict his values and beliefs. By that logic, he too could be considered anti-free speech.
Thanks for the clarification. You not only missed the point, you seemingly have a total lack of understanding of the issue. The only question that remains: Is that intentional?
George, did you miss the point of Turley’s article in your rush to get involved in making a statement? It’s about censorship.
George as one of Biden’s Bolshevik Birthing Boys has rushed to the field to pitch Marxist theology in his self-identifying role as the Democrats’ contrarian who has taken a vow to appear here every day to pronounce that his host, Professor Turley, is wrong.
And while this is not George’s blog set up to present his views on Marxist theology, we should be grateful he has taken on the mission of appearing here each day to let us all know that his views expressed here each day are those that are right.
Old Airborne Dog
You are a very stupid individual, or perhaps somebody’s Parody Sock Puppet. Seahorses? What a load of bullsh!t! Hmmm, let’s see – some spiders kill the male after mating. Oh, Eileen Wuornos should never have been charged or executed because spiders. If you are a real person, and not a shill or puppet, educate yourself on this perverted sickness:
Here is a good place to start:
Foyd, you missed the point completely.
No, bro, it is YOU who constantly miss the points made everyday, or else you just enjoy being negative. Do you suffer from XX instead of XY, as in “Mary Mary Quite Contrary”?
* OVA! OVUM!
Even the gods found the daughters of man lovely. WHY? OVA.
The gestational sack can be overcome.
Ova again? You repeat yourself.
Bye, bye The Freedom From Religion Foundation! You drank the political involvement Kool-Aid at the cost of objectivity and now you will suffer the consequences: ignominy by way of bigotry.
The FFRF has revealed itself to be no more than a version of the ‘religions’ from which they design to ‘free’ people.
FFRF may be the choice of individuals, but it defies the Constitutional right of freedom of religion when imposed on other people. The rigid exclusion of opposing opinions seems to be motivated be varying combinations of fear, arrogance, ignorance, and a lust for power. In the end, the only power they have is that which other people cede to them.
I vote for Suzanne as next SJ Justice.
Suzanne,
A little symmetry.
Much as the right to freedom of speech implies the right to hear the speech of others, freedom of religion implies the right to be free of the religion of others. That’s why a public institution like schools should never become a venue for religion. Religion has its tax-free churches as its venue.
Regarding the FFRF excluding a paper from their organization – whatever, don’t like it, start your own org and create the balance yourself – it’s like changing channels.
I find the entire trans issue to be ridiculous and insidious at the same time and I will never be coerced into bending the knee to the destruction of reason and language those vicious activists require. And as far as religion is concerned, I think that I understand it and, personally, have no need for it. And symmetrically, I don’t look down on religion unless given cause.
Much as the right to freedom of speech implies the right to hear the speech of others, freedom of religion implies the right to be free of the religion of others.
Implication is not fact. A reminder: Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof
This is a weird – but common – atheist implication in order to desperately re-interpret the First Amendment for their own religious purposes. That they have the right to not see or hear anything about religion anywhere in their day life – as long as they never walk in a church or drive past one.
In the years since Hugo Black wrote his one line about “separation of church and state” (that many now believe is actually written in our constitutional documents), that has now grown to become an unwritten right to not be offended by hearing or seeing anything in your daily life related to religion.
The question about that wild re-interpretation of the First Amendment from agnostics like me is this:
For those that believe that atheists from the Rock Fairy Religion Of Atheism also qualify as religious acolytes of a religion, how is my right to be free of atheist religious thought protected?
Old Airborne Dog
OldDog,
My point about schools is that I don’t think that they are a proper place for indoctrination – a DMZ if you will.
Preaching to children about gender fluidity and the wonderful world of tranny joy is wrong and needs to cease. In the same way pushing religion on other people’s children is wrong. Incidental study in history or civics makes very good sense.
The 1st is very cleverly, or oddly, worded.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion…”
I see two meanings there:
1) government shall not regulate religions – I guess this sounds pretty good as long as people are not being defrauded or getting their heads chopped off(I’m talking about you, Islam).
2) Goverment itself shall not establish a state approved religion. I’m good with this too, it seems to support my DMZ principle. I mean look at the places that don’t abide by this like Iran, Afghanistan, Utah…
BTW – I am not an atheist, I am an irrelevantist. Nowhere near the same thing as an agnostic. Go think about that one.
Sex in humans is binary but like all things in biology and nature it is not perfect. Some are born with apparent sex characteristics not associated with their XX or XY genome. Usually that is a failure of the enabling hormones that then complete the cycle of developement of the secondary sexual characteristics . Sometimes the hormones are not produced and sometimes the hormone has an aberrant branch or molecule that is not functional. And then there are other aberrations like XYY and XXX. These are aberrations of the norm and relatively rare. If you have the normal XX and XY and the normal hormone developement then you are Female or Male, not because you think you are but because that is what you are, biologically. You should have no discrimination against you because of that. But if you are Male you get to compete as a male and not as a woman. And for safety’s sake you should stay out of women’s bathrooms, so someone does not shoot you and ends the discussion permanently.
I feel sorry for those who have the aberrant development but all society cannot turn itself inside out just to accommodate you. You need to adjust. Or move off planet. Talk to Elon about that because he might have a ride just for you. Your car is already in orbit.
GEB,
Great comment. And displaying a degree of common sense. Thankfully after this last election, we can see over half of Americans have not lost their common sense.
I do not think there is any biological basis whatsoever for trans stuff. That crap resides entirely inside one’s own head. If it were not, then we would have seen relatively high levels of trans people throughout human history. But we haven’t.
Floyd, your ignorance is showing. The fact that it’s rare or it only occurs within a small percentage of the human population does not mean it’s not reality. It’s religious conservatives who cannot handle the idea that there is a possiblity that there is more to it than just simple black and white logic to everything. Anything more complicated undermines their religious worldview.
* The mutilation pathology is found in other illnesses, too.
On the bathroom issue, simply provide floor to ceiling stalls and make them unisex bathrooms.
Ironically, Conservatives have already supported this constitutional logic. Their only argument is that some guys (who also have criminal intent) will violate the rights of women. There have indeed been cases of “criminals” committing crimes in unisex bathrooms.
From a constitutional view, this is also Conservatives main argument about gun rights. Law abiding citizens don’t harm or kill people – only criminals do that. Criminals will be criminals, law abiding citizens don’t break laws inside unisex bathrooms.
This logic actually benefits men. Men’s restrooms would be raised up to the quality standard of women’s bathrooms – with privacy stalls.
Soon the earth will be flat again. . .
Another example of technology upending orthodoxy. Rowling is correct. If your are not a woman anymore then your gender based rights don’t travel with you.
If there is any group that should know all knowledge is uncertain, it should be the scientists. While they live day by day in the certainty of their theories, they dred the certain day when their “precious” will be replaced. That they are now taking a rigid civilian attitude toward anything debases the scientific method of Roger Bacon and rigorous expectations of all scientists. Of course, we have seen lately that Government funding does play a forced and deadly roll in scientific opinion and inquiry. Could it be here, as well? Are administrators of the NSF (National Science Foundation) wearing the black robes of the Inquisitory these days?
Check out my blog, “Uncertainty is Certain” at
https://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2024/12/uncertainty-human-condition.html
There are only three universal truths: death, taxes, and the second law of Thermodynamics
The debate about “What is a woman” reminds me of the old psychiatry joke:
Patient: Doc, I think I am a dog
Doctor: How long have you felt this way?
Patient: Ever since I was a puppy
Sex is not binary.
If you don’t know about the Guvedoce, then educate yourself before stepping in the ring.
Born XY with female sex organs.
Universal truth: there are only men and woman.
Abominations in nature happen.
Your perception of sex is pervrse, stick to p*rno sites friend.
Lo-info comment.
Open-minded people know that 1:5000 babies are born with ambiguous genitalia. In an earlier era, they were “hermaphrodites”. The medical field has settled on the term “intersex babies”. This fact is true, and doesn’t imply any political position.
I ahhor the butchery of the English language as a militant political tactic. We should have distinct terminology when referring to a transsexual’s adopted gender. The commonly understood meaning of the word “woman” cannot be redefined by activist coercion. My suggestion is we use:
“born-male transsexual”
“born-female transsexual”
because it conveys clarity both about the transsexual status and the starting direction of the transition. By the same reasoning, I would also accept:
“became-female transsexual”
“became-male transsexual”
These are neutral language descriptions.
open minded people do not know what you assert.
Easier to lie than state facts with proof.
* “transexual” carries a connotation of reality so is objectionable. A new word is required embracing reality. Psychomale and psychofemale suffice.
I’ve broken my vow of silence. O dear me…
Someday over the rainbow mankind will reproduce by cloning only having no need for differentiated sexes. The genitalia chromosomes will delete and the world of sameness will bloom.
The recombination of genetics when males and females once were and joined won’t exist anymore and variation and evolution no more. Everyone can then be their own father and mother and “motherfather” will be.
Read about Robert Rayford.
Adieu
“Sex is not binary.” Because Guvedoce.
Euglena is also a borderline case — part animal, part plant. Therefore, there is no such thing as trees or bears.
Such is the irrationality of using borderline cases to deny the reality of non-borderline cases. The irony here is that the *only* way to prove the existence of borderline cases is to assume the reality of non-borderline cases.
If there are more than two options, it is NOT binary.
“. . . it is NOT binary.”
Yes it is, in a certain context — the context of non-borderline cases. That is the context you are dropping, then contradictorily relying on to assert the existence of borderline cases.
Binary is another way of saying either-or. And that either-or also applies to the very cases you cite: A person is either guvedoce or he is not.
Try as you might to evade Aristotelian logic — you can’t. And when you try, you end up reasserting its validity.
Oh stfu
Humans replicate by male and female. Cloning isn’t perfected.
Unfortunately, one can also be born without arms, legs, or eyes. Such a happening doesn’t alter human biology nor give rise to a new classification of humans.
That is correct. However, that also means they are not to be denied existence, which is what religious zealots and fanatics want. Religious fanatics or zealots who hold a rigid worldview often find themselves unable to accommodate ideas or perspectives that challenge their cherished established beliefs. When confronted with information, viewpoints, or evidence that contradicts their dogmas, there is a preference to dismiss or pollute those opposing ideas. This reaction serves to protect their narrow understanding of reality, directing them to actively work to suppress or eliminate discussions surrounding these conflicting notions. Consequently, such opposing viewpoints are being systematically marginalized or attempted to be erased from public discourse, reinforcing a bubble of conformity that limits critical thinking and stifles open dialogue. It’s what religion does in a nutshell. Religion is anti-free speech ironically.
However, that also means they are not to be denied existence, which is what religious zealots and fanatics want.
George, you desperately need to explain to the audience laughing at you exactly how and why you are classifying agnostics, atheists, Taoists, animists, etc as “religious zealots and fanatics”?
Simply because they disagree with your claim that you can get pregnant and give birth.
You’ve posting nothing other than Kamala Harris-level word salad George. And claiming that people lack “reading comprehension” because they see no line of adult thought in your contrarian scribblings isn’t going to make it anything other than word salad.
Old Airborne Dog.
George: it appears that you set up a “straw man.” No one is denying the “existence” of a transperson. What is being denied is an alternate view of science as it relates to human biology as well as an insidious interpretation of rights that would essentially allow boys to compete in girl’s sports.
Tryingtoclarify, weird. You made a strawman argument to refute my alleged strawman.
“ No one is denying the “existence” of a transperson. What is being denied is an alternate view of science as it relates to human biology as well as an insidious interpretation of rights that would essentially allow boys to compete in girl’s sports.”
They are denying their existence by denying the idea has merit. An “alternate view of science” is another way of saying their opinion is the only correct opinion. Nobody denies the basic concept of gender. When things get more complicated, they try to deny any other rationale beyond the most basic, which ignores that even in nature, there is no such thing as strictly male and female. We know there are natural examples of species changing their sex and some species reproducing by virgin birth. I find it strange that religious conservatives readily accept the idea that a woman was able to have a child without a male and claim it was divine because they cannot explain how it happened. But cannot accept the idea of a person feeling they are not the gender they were born as. You could say god changed its mind and made them feel as if they were not the gender they thought they were. The holy spirit spoke to them and said they were not the gender they were born as. Why would that not be…irrational?
Guevedoce, XY, is caused by an enzyme deficiency. Twist in the wind all you want, but XY is marker of genetic maleness.
Rare anomalies which is explained in Jerry Coyne article doesn’t change the sex binary. Read his article linked in Professor Turley article. Also here is the definition of this rare anomaly. https://www.rxlist.com/guevedoces/definition.htm
Sex is not binary.
Nope. Still binary with genetic mutations.
Olly: Bingo!
I don’t think you know what the word “binary” means.
If there are more than two options (due to genetic mutations or otherwise), it is NO LONGER BINARY.
What does the word binary mean?
“I don’t think you know what the word “binary” means.”
I don’t think you grasp 4th-grade vocabulary.
The meaning of the word “binary,” as with *every* word in the English language, is determined by its context. Thus the word “trunk” means one thing in a particular context, and another in a different context.
In the context of non-borderline cases, sex is binary.
Anonymous at 10:50:
No, it is you who does not understand. There is a BINARY classification of X and Y (TWO symbols.)
There are no Zs or Ws, -nor are there any third designations of “XYX” or “XYY,” etc.
wHY? Because the mutated variants leading to transsexualism usually find their cause in the absence or mutation of genomic/chromosomal enzymes, usually in Y.
Stfu^
The Trans Belief is a religion. It has a deep and abiding faith that that despite the fact that science is clear who are women and who are men, they can believe something else. FRFF should ban them!
The basic concepts of male and female are well understood. However, science has not established that all humans should be categorized strictly into these two categories. Some individuals are born with XY chromosomes yet have sexual organs that do not correspond to their assigned gender. Additionally, some people naturally exhibit behaviors associated with the opposite gender, just as same-sex attraction exists.
Often, it is the religious extremists who insist on imposing their views on how everyone should define themselves. This is a key reason why the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) ultimately chose not to publish Coyne’s article. Their decision was more about the religious implications than the scientific content; publishing an article that aligns with the beliefs of religious zealots would contradict their values.
It is important to note that this does not mean Coyne’s article or opinion is invalid or “banned.” The FFRF simply changed their minds about publishing a guest column.
Would Turley allow a guest column that contradicts his own values and beliefs? How often does that happen? Does anyone believe he would support a column promoting controversial racist views? How about a column in support of transgender views? Of course not. While he advocates for free speech and diverse perspectives, his stance against openly racist statements or articles would correctly label him as anti-free speech because he would refuse to publish them.
Often, it is the religious extremists who insist on imposing their views on how everyone should define themselves.
George, you desperately need to explain to the audience laughing at you exactly how and why you are classifying agnostics, atheists, Taoists, animists, etc as “religious extremists”?
Simply because they disagree with your claim that you can get pregnant and give birth.
You’ve posting nothing other than Kamala Harris-level word salad George. And claiming that people lack “reading comprehension” because they see no line of adult thought in your contrarian scribblings isn’t going to make it anything other than word salad.
Old Airborne Dog.
Interesting. However, Turley missed an important point while attacking FFRF and exaggerating the situation, as usual.
Initially, FFRF made it clear that Coyne’s article was a “guest article” and did not represent their values and views. Unfortunately, this clarification was not enough for some individuals, leading FFRF to decide to remove the article. It was a guest article. Turley fails to mention that they are not obligated to keep it if they choose to change their minds; after all, they are still a private organization. One commenter on the site made a great point:
“Coyne has a right to contribute to that ‘debate,’ and his piece is still available on the internet. FFRF didn’t assert ownership over it or try to have it scrubbed from existence. They didn’t punish Coyne or call the cops on him. They simply reflected and thought, ‘You know, on second thought, I think it’s better if we don’t host this one piece.’
Just as you don’t have a right to be published by the New York Times, you don’t have a right to be published on FFRF’s blog. Coyne is free to engage in debate across almost the entire internet.
If you believe a publisher’s retraction is an attack on an author’s right to debate, you really don’t understand free expression at all.”
Turley often targets organizations or individuals when they make decisions that are theirs to make, much like it is Turley’s prerogative to refuse openly racist comments on his blog, regardless of how controversial they may be. Elon Musk, who claims to be a “free speech absolutist,” has been censoring critics on his platform.
Coyne was an honorary board member, and his column was published as a guest article, which is acceptable. What Turley overlooks is that Coyne’s article remains available elsewhere, just like any other controversial piece. Nothing has been censored. Turley is using this incident to portray liberals in a harsher light because he evidently does not support transgender rights. This bias is telling.
If Turley genuinely believes in free speech, he should criticize Elon Musk for his censorious behavior on his platform. But, as we all know, he likely won’t. He seems unwilling to risk being on Elon’s bad side. Talk about self-censorship.
“Initially, . . .”
That “initially” is always a tell: Here’s some sand in your eyes — a meandering string of irrelevant minutiae, all designed to do one thing: deflect.
In this case, to deflect from the *only* issue that matters: *Why* they removed Coyne’s article.
The “why” is irrelevant. Turley uses a single incident, which is not a pattern within that organization, to misrepresent an entire group. This is clearly disingenuous.
That “string of minutiae” represents the nuances that make debates meaningful. This is often lacking in Turley’s critiques of various issues.
When you see “deflection,” it should actually be viewed as a different point of view, which is precisely what Turley advocates for. Ironically, he criticizes this stance as part of his anti-free speech narrative.
“Turley uses a single incident . . .” “This is clearly disingenuous.”
Clearly, you have problems with reading comprehension. It is not a “single incident.” There have been numerous such incidents over the years — which is why three of their most prominent Advisors quit.
A swing and a miss.
George, where do you come up with nonsense?
Well, folks, we now know (hooray!) that “censorship” no longer includes removing language that offends you or somebody if the language can be found elsewhere or (even if) if the carrier has warned you (or protected itself by saying) that the offending words don’t necessarily comport with their own. Presumably, the definitions of “courageous”, “tolerant” and “open-minded” no longer include continuing to carry opinions (even if shrouded in “not necessarily our views” or “as a courtesy”) that differ from some of your supporters’. (“I’LL DEFEND TO THE DEATH or until someone objects, whichever comes first.”) [But we already knew that didn’t we?]
Interesting. However, Turley missed an important point while attacking FFRF and exaggerating the situation, as usual.
George, as usual, you attack your host Professor Turley with every single post, exaggerating your deliberate blindness to context and nuance with each contrarian post each day.
The question becomes, since you NEVER agree with any column posted by Professor Turley… why don’t you start your own blog to be the vehicle for you to push your word salad thoughts and defenses of Democrat Marxist theology?
Fear of having a readership of ZERO??? And so like that other social media parasitic entity, Dennis McIntyre, you insert your own blog here, so that at least some will involuntarily read your childish meandering anger and whining?
Old Airborne Dog
What the heck are transgender rights anyway? As far as I know, they have the same constitutional rights as anyone else.
Right. So lets ask the question here, what rights do heteros have that trans doesn’t?
There’s literally a supreme court case evaluating a law which prevents transgender patients from receiving medical care ..
You’re the first to make that known. prove it please.
You mean a case where a 12 year old girl could not have her breasts removed without parental permission?
barnum, you’re just spouting nonsense. Case? prove it instaed you playing gmaes.
Why would permission from the parties legally and morally responsible for the development of that child into a correctly functioning adult NOT be required for such a life-altering procedure?
* cross gender hormone dosing isn’t accepted by the FDA. The case is watering at the wrong trough.
Mr. Strangio did make it easier to reject hetero physical sports on the otherhand.
All they are actually promoting is the “right” to change the definitions of words and then the “right” to be respected, both of which are not rights at all.
In 1995, Hillary went to China and told them, “Women’s rights are human rights!” And I’ve been wondering ever since what the Venn diagram looked like. Is the smaller circle inside the bigger circle? That’s my understanding of predicate logic. Then what are men’s rights – everything else in the bigger circle that’s outside the smaller one? I think what she really meant was abortion should be legal and classified as a human right.
Most of us who read this blog are interested in current or evolving legal boundaries and limits. If I were a physician, I’m not sure I’d want Lia Thomas as my receptionist. Or anyone with a safety pin in their face. But if I ran a bookstore, maybe it wouldn’t matter. So my response is, can a pediatrician or anyone else legally discriminate against a transgendered person as they can’t against a dark-skinned person? With respect to employment or in provision of services?
Since most Americans of either party view transgender issues as primarily constitutional rights – the “Judicial Branch” (not Congress nor the White House) would seem to have primary jurisdiction. Courts by design are required to listen to all viewpoints including unpopular views.
The rule of thumb for primarily “constitutional rights” is anyone is free to exercise any constitutional right, as long as that citizen doesn’t infringe on another person’s constitutional rights in the process.
Since several European nations have unisex public bathrooms or allow women inside men’s bathrooms, there seems to be a non-issue (no harm) allowing unisex bathrooms inside the USA. European nations like Germany, Netherlands, France and Switzerland have proven there is no harm.
On the flip side, if transsexual rights violate women’s rights (Title IX rights) benefitting women’s sports teams, girls’ high school sports, etc. then is that exercise violating another person’s rights?
This is primarily a court issue, not the political branches of Congress nor the WH.
“European nations like Germany, Netherlands, France and Switzerland have proven there is no harm.”
Curious, how many uni-sex B/R’s are there in those countries? Just because a government states such does not mean its fact.
Well, not that they would state they have negative evidence, it is after all a political issue in those countries. therefore governments lie to protect themselves from criticism.
When in Europe a few years ago, we used, just as we do in the US, “unisex” bathroom stalls holding one person. We also were shown spacious bathrooms with toilets and urinals all around in which males and females were exposed to anyone inside. Big difference.
Some women are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a strange dude pretending to be a woman. And for good reason.
The men playing dress up either: 1) suffer from a mental disorder or 2) they just don’t care about abiding by the norms, customs and traditions the broader society accepts about how to present yourself in public.
Either way, the man pretending to be a woman is not normal. It’s perfectly rational for some women to be uncomfortable around an abnormal man they do not know.
Why do the feelings of those women matter less than the feelings of the dude playing dress up?
Gaslit” the TV series says: January 2, 2025 at 7:41 AM
Since several European nations have unisex public bathrooms or allow women inside men’s bathrooms, there seems to be a non-issue (no harm) allowing unisex bathrooms inside the USA.
I’m not aware of any law in the USA prohibiting a store, a club, or some other entity CHOOSING to also provide unisex bathrooms. The operative word being “choose”.
If those European nations should be used as our constitutional navigation beacons, can you explain how they protect what we call Second Amendment rights? Or do only want them used as our beacon when the issue is trannies?
How many are republics, similar to us in how we prize individual liberty and freedom rather than the collective?
Old Airborne Dog
Most Americans see it as medical quackery and malpractice along with the malpractice of not attending a woman during miscarriage.
People aren’t cars with swappable scrap parts in a chop shop.
True syndrome. WHO, CDC NIH track birth defects especially clusters.
You cannot reason with people who are enraged by the truth. The only way to appease them is through submission. How galling it is for these academic autocrats to find that there are still some, even amongst their allies and otherwise true believers, who refuse to willingly repudiate the truth.
Well, let’s see: Your “truth” is a universal truth? Therefore your truth is a truth everyone must accept otherwise they are _________ (fill in the balnk please).
“(fill in the balnk (sic) please)”
You first, since you just implied a universal truth.
The fallacy you just committed is called reaffirmation in the act of denial.
Fallacy? Reaffirmation? Surely you jest?
BTW “[sic]” is required. its not paranthetic.
Philosphy major or English Lit?
“paranthetic” (sic)
And brackets are not required. Either is fine.
3rd grade education or 4th?
I look at the trans issue of recent years as having actually very little to do with trans people. It looks more as if trans persons were chosen as a wedge issue because normal people find them disturbing or worse.
Knowing that a majority of people are put off by the whole tranny narrative makes it easy to club them over the head when they say what they think. I say it is antidissidence training. Shut up and do as we say no matter what your opinion may be.
Oh, by the way, no amount of plastic surgery, method acting, wardrobe changes, hairstyles or makup has ever resulted in a human changing their sex. Furthermore, in reference to human beings, sex and gender are synonyms.
^ true
if you can discriminate against people for religion, then you can have your OPINION against trans, gender, race.
Either we are free or not.
This is like Religion in the Constitution…big difference state mandated or FREE Country.
If it is a “religion” then it is protected by your Constitution. Does a religion have to have a “god” to be accepted as lawful. It is all about belief, right?
These types of controversies, involving freedom or censorship of views or stances regarding religion and science, are becoming more common, complex and disputatious, showing just how radical the Constitution’s First Amendment rights were in the 1780s and how radical they remain today. (“They guaranteed WHAT?!”) This controversy also shows how illiberal liberals often are when their own pet causes are questioned (not even threatened) and how vigilant we must be to avoid the left’s cancellation steamrollers.
Most atheists (all?) are evangelicals. I am not surprised.
Makes no sense.
There is more than 1 definition of evangelical, educate yourself – ignorance is a choice.
And stupidity is a choice.
The problem with “Anonymous” as a handle is we don’t know one “Anonymous from another.
Check the DNA.