Trans ideology corrupts EVERYTHING it touches: the Freedom from Religion Foundation's betrayal of its mission and principles (4)

Comments on the FFRF statement explaining, and attempting to justify, removing Jerry Coyne’s critique of the FFRF-posted essay “What is a woman?”

Quick recap:

- FFRF posts an essay by Kat Grant titled “What is a woman?”. The concluding sentence of the essay is the remarkably vacuous “A woman is whoever she says she is.”

- Jerry Coyne, a biologist and honorary member of the FFRF advisory board, writes a critique of Grant’s essay.

- FFRF posts Coyne’s essay on the FFRF website.

- FFRF (apparently) receives complaints from one or more individuals, claiming that Coyne’s essay (grounded in biological science) has the potential to cause distress to one or more trans individuals

- FFRF removes Coyne’s essay, without communicating further with him about the issue

- FFRF posts a statement explaining and attempting to justify their decision to remove Coyne’s critique

- Jerry Coyne, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins (all members of the FFRF advisory board) resign from the organization . Others, who are general members of the organization, resign as well.

Update:

FFRF is not a large organization, although it has often been successful in punching above its weight in its efforts to fight religious influence over secular institutions in society. But now — what could have remained a minor tempest in a teapot if FFRF had not acted in such a censorious manner with regard to Coyne’s critique — this controversy involving the organization has managed to even reach across the pond, where an article discussing these events was published yesterday in the British publication The Spectator.

These events are also the focus of a substack posting by Sarah Haider titled “Atheism without reason”. It’s hard to imagine this is working well for FFRF.

---

In this – my 4th posting related to these events – I will offer my own critique of the FFRF statement. The entire statement is copied below in italics. My comments are in standard font.

---

Freedom From Religion Foundation supports LGBTQIA-plus rights

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is dedicated to protecting the constitutional principle of state/church separation, which ensures religious beliefs do not dictate public policy. While advocating for LGBTQIA-plus rights is an indirect component of our mission, we recognize that many attacks on these rights are rooted in attempts to impose religious doctrines on our secular government.

FFRF is certainly far from unique in referring to “LGBTQIA-plus” as if that series of initials characterizes a coherent group of individuals. The problem is – it doesn’t. “LGB” relates to an individual’s sexual orientation. “T” refers to whether or not an individual has chosen to self identify as the sex different from their biological sex. Some “T” individuals prefer having sex with those of the “T” individual’s biological sex, while others prefer to have sex with people who share the “T” individual’s self-identified gender. In other words – sexual orientation (“LGB”) and “T”-status are orthogonal characteristics of humans. The legal and societal issues that relate specifically to “T”-status may have nothing to do with sexual orientation — and vice versa. Thus, for instance, the Biden administration’s failed attempt to change title IX from a sex-based to a gender-identity-based set of regulations relates to “T” but not to “LGB”. And there are many gay males and lesbian females who are NOT supportive of what at least some “T” individuals believe to be a “trans-right” — the “right” of male rapists to be housed in a women’s prison if the rapist decides to identify as female — and this is certainly an issue that has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian. Similarly, some of the most vocal critics of transwomen participating in women’s sports are gays and lesbians (Martina Navratilova being a case in point).

Basically, it is not really clear what the co-presidents of FFRF (who wrote this statement) really mean by “LGBTQIA-plus” rights, because this is simply not an internally coherent grouping of individuals.

It also is not clear what the “plus” at the end of this metastasizing sequence of initials might possibly refer to. Currently, there are pedophile-supportive groups who are trying to shoehorn their way into this listing under the “plus” umbrella. Does FFRF support special “rights” for pedophiles? Certainly pedophiles are deserving of all of the human rights that are supposed to be accorded to all members of our society. But one would not refer to those more general human rights as “LGBTQIA-plus” rights. So – what exactly is it that FFRF is referring to here?

---

We are acutely aware that Christian nationalists have cynically manipulated the LGBTQIA-plus issues just as they have cynically done so with abortion rights. We are proud to have a diverse staff and membership, 13 percent of whom identify as LGBTQIA …

How is the composition of the FFRF membership relevant to the mission of the FFRF? I had always thought that the FFRF based its policies and initiatives on fundamental principles of the separation of church and state, not on the particular characteristics of people who are FFRF members. And why should FFRF be “proud” of having 13% of their staff and membership identifying as “LGBTQIA”? Is being gay something to be “proud” of? Is being asexual something to be proud of? Are those accomplishments of some kind? And how does FFRF even know what % of their staff and membership identify as LGBTQIA? Let me put this as directly as I possibly can: I was a member of FFRF, and they had no idea whether I was straight or gay, trans or not, or whether I was Q or I or A. In fact, I thought it was one of the principles of the FFRF that it should be illegal to even ask an employee about their sexual orientation. The sexual orientation and trans-status of the FFRF staff and membership should not be — and is not — any of the co-presidents’ business.

In addition — the mere fact that Christian nationalists have adopted a particular position on an issue is not — in an of itself — reason for FFRF to oppose that policy or position. An example I have used before is the issue of the teaching of phonics as a major focus on early reading instruction. For reasons that are not completely apparent to me, the teaching of phonics has tended to be championed by religious groups, while opposition to phonics instruction is associated with politically progressive perspectives on education. But in this case — the religious conservatives are right! The evidence is clear that explicit phonic instruction SHOULD play a central role in early reading instruction. Even Christian nationalists are not wrong about EVERYTHING, and FFRF should not reflexively oppose everything that even Christian nationalists support.

---

… and 97 percent support civil rights for the LGBTQ community — far more than the general population

What “rights” are the co-presidents of FFRF referring to here? I quite honestly do not know what they could be referring to when referencing “civil rights for the LGBTQ community” (and I’m not sure what happened to the “I, A, and - plus” folks here, but whatever). Are we talking due process rights when charged with a crime? Or the right to vote? Or freedom of speech? Is it even possible that 3% of the FFRF staff and membership do NOT support those rights for lesbians or gays or trans individuals or “Q”s? But if not those rights – then what “civil rights” are being referred to here?

---

Religious interference often seeks to erode protections for LGBTQIA-plus individuals in areas such as marriage equality, health care, education and workplace rights. FFRF opposes these efforts, as they threaten not only individual freedoms but also the integrity of our secular democracy. FFRF recognizes the right of bodily autonomy for LGBTQIA-plus individuals, just as we consider that the government or outside individuals have no right to dictate or interfere with such intimate matters as abortion or contraception.

Again – the devil is in the details, and this statement is deeply bereft of concrete details. The above paragraph mentions the “right of bodily autonomy for LGBTQIA-plus individuals”. Surely FFRF supports rights of bodily autonomy for EVERYONE – so this statement must refer to something specific to LGBTQIA-plus individuals. I’m not certain what that might be, but my strong suspicioun is that they are talking about giving children with gender dysphoria puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones — and castrating gender dysphoric boys and removing the healthy breasts of gender dysphoric girls. If so (and I acknowledge I might be wrong, but if I am, then it is really a mystery what they ARE referring to here), then FFRF is staking out a position on a highly controversial medical and mental health treatment issue – and given what is currently known about the harms and benefits of these treatments, FFRF is on the wrong side of the issue. And to then equate the “right” of children to have those bodily-mutilating procedures with rights of all people to the use of contraception is simply not deserving of respect as a form of justification for their position.

---

Unlike some other secular groups, FFRF opposes such assaults not only in principle but also in practice. FFRF has devoted many resources toward education over LGBTQIA-plus rights — and countless hours and efforts toward defeating anti-LGBTQIA-plus legislation through action alerts, statements and blogs. We work closely with allies, and this year, we gave the $50,000 Henry Zumach Freedom From Religious Fundamentalism Award to the Human Rights Campaign to support their vital work. Beyond legislative work, FFRF staff and executive directors have championed LGBTQIA-plus rights in FFRF media, including podcasts, radio, video and TV shows, blogs and statements — and in the legal realm, including amicus briefs.

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.

---

However, advocacy is rarely perfect, and progress is not always linear. Recently, we published a guest blog post as part of an effort to provide a forum for various voices within the framework of our mission. Although we included a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed within the post were not necessarily reflective of the organization, it has wrongfully been perceived as such.

Despite our best efforts to champion reason and equality, we recognize mistakes can happen, and this incident is a reminder of the importance of constant reflection and growth. Publishing this post [Jerry Coyne’s critique] was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values or principles. We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.

The final three sentences of this paragraph are painful to read. They were characterized in the article in The Spectator as a “groveling apology” — which is what they are. And what makes these sentences so cringe-inducing shameful is that Coyne’s critique of the Grant essay was a critique based in science – and FFRF was supposedly an organization that valued reason and science. Moreover, it should not be the role of FFRF to try to protect certain individuals from their own feelings of distress when reading a science-based discussion of any topic. I can assure the FFRF presidents that reading about almost anything the FFRF does has the potential to cause feelings of distress in some people. Simply put — the FFRF should not be in the business of trying to minimize feelings of distress amongst those who read their articles.

---

Moving forward, we are reviewing our content guidelines and internal processes to ensure our public messaging consistently reflects our values. We are committed to learning from this experience.

Yikes. This reads like the words of a broken person at the end of a struggle session. It honestly saddens me to read these words written by the FFRF co-presidents. It is clear that the organization has been broken by its commitment to trans ideology.

---

We stand firmly with the LGBTQIA-plus community and their allies in advocating for equality, dignity and the freedom to live without fear of religiously motivated discrimination. Our mission to keep religion out of government is inextricably linked to preserving and advancing these fundamental rights.

Again - which “fundamental rights” are they specifically referring to here? What does it mean to advocate for “dignity”? I really don’t know.

---

Together, we will continue to champion a society where all people — no matter their sexual orientation, gender identity, beliefs or nonbeliefs — are treated equally under the law.

So here we have it. According to the FFRF co-presidents, issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity are, for the FFRF, on par with issues related to beliefs or nonbeliefs. Fine. But that’s not what I always thought was the mission of the organization, and I think it is really unfortunate that FFRF is no longer the kind of organization I had always thought that it was.