This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!
Somehow, in the span of about 24 hours, the Freedom From Religion Foundation made an egregious mistake, got plenty of well-deserved backlash for it, then quickly attempted to correct the problem. (And you can bet they’ll get plenty of undeserved backlash for trying to fix the error.)
If you have no clue what I’m talking about, congratulations on having a life outside the internet. I’ll be asking you for advice later.
This whole controversy dates back to a post on FFRF’s “Freethought Now” blog. (“Freethought Now” is the site where some FFRF staffers, lawyers, and interns elaborate on the group’s work. Recent articles focus on topics like Christian Nationalism and feminism. It’s nothing that would surprise their supporters.)
In early November, former FFRF intern Kat Grant posted an article about how much of our society’s views on gender are steeped in religious traditions:
Missionaries often viewed gender systems outside of the strict sexual binary to be a mark of a “less civilized” nation, and imposed views of both gender and presentation (such as forcing boys in residential schools to cut their hair) onto the indigenous communities.
Grant went on to say that those fears are still in play today through right-wing groups, “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists,” and others, but “such views disregard both medical science and lived experience.” Grant concludes:
… I’m not nonbinary because I don’t identify with femininity, I’m nonbinary because no particular gender matches my internal sense of self at all.
All of this is to say that there is an answer to the question “what is a woman”… A woman is whoever she says she is.
Seemed like a perfectly fine essay to me. It wasn’t out of place for FFRF to publish it because it focused on the harm religion has played in our view of trans people, and Grant had worked with FFRF as a legal fellow. As far as I can tell, no one publicly complained about the article. Honestly, as with all blog posts these days, it’s not clear how many people even saw it.
Still, I’m glad Grant wrote it, and I’m glad FFRF posted it, because a lot of prominent atheists, including Richard Dawkins, have been spreading anti-transgender propaganda for years now.
Dawkins has platformed a number of anti-trans activists, on his podcast and stage shows, and essentially thinks trans people are cosplaying as a gender they’re not. The Center For Inquiry, which merged with Dawkins’ foundation, has not criticized any of this and in fact recently published a lengthy article from CEO Robyn Blumner condemning doctors who work with trans children. (“I hope their malpractice insurance is paid up,” Blumner writes. “They are going to need it.”) She expressed those thoughts after accepting, without question, the deeply problematic claims made in the Cass Review
If that’s how a legacy secular group is handling trans issues, then we need more atheist organizations defending that community because the attacks against them often come from religious conservatives and well-known atheists who, for whatever reason, treat gender the same way their ideological opponents treat faith—as something they refuse to change their minds about, no matter what evidence comes their way, because they’ve invested too much into the lie.
If you believe gender-related issues are tangential to atheism, I assure you that religious conservatives believe the topic is perfectly intertwined with their faith. Just as they used religion to fight marriage equality and abortion rights, they’re using the Book of Genesis in defense of their anti-trans beliefs. If you don’t want religion dictating our laws, and you believe LGBTQ people deserve civil rights, then you understand why these are issues atheist activists ought to care about.
And yet some prominent figures in our loose movement have spent years arguing the opposite, allowing white evangelicals to control the debate on LGBTQ rights—and often taking their side. Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True and Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible, is another one of those atheists who has spent years spreading anti-trans rhetoric on his website. His blog is now mostly a cesspool of blockquotes from his favorite conservative writers. A deep dive through his “sex and gender” posts will rid you of any respect you may have had for him. (Coyne gave a similar anti-trans talk at the Center For Inquiry’s CSICon in October. Dr. Steven Novella, who spoke at the same event, rebutted it here.)
Coyne, however, also happens to be a member of FFRF’s “Honorary Board”—a title the group bestows upon “distinguished achievers who have made known their dissent from religion.” As far as I know, it’s a purely symbolic role, but Coyne asked FFRF if he could post a rebuttal to Grant’s piece on the group’s website, and someone at FFRF gave him the green light.
That resulted in a piece published on Thursday called “Biology is not bigotry,” which (unlike other FFRF blog posts) opens with a disclaimer: “The views in this column are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.” That suggests FFRF knew this essay might be problematic but decided to post it anyway. (More on that later.)
In the piece, Coyne rehashes the right-wing talking point of how sex is binary (it’s not), dismisses Grant’s definition of woman as a “tautology” before offering one of his own (a woman is “an adult human female”), and claims FFRF is stepping out of its lane by even bringing up the topic despite the barrage of attacks on LGBTQ rights specifically from religious lawmakers. He seriously says “sex and gender have little to do with theism or the First Amendment,” which, as I mentioned earlier, will come as a shock to anyone who’s paid any attention to anti-LGBTQ legislation. Some bigots have even used freedom of speech arguments in defense of their refusal to use someone’s pronouns.
But it gets so much worse.
Coyne says trans women are more likely to be sexual predators… based on a stat published by a UK-based hate group focusing only on prisoners. And even that stat is wildly out of context. He writes:
A cross-comparison of statistics from the U.K. Ministry of Justice and the U.K. Census shows that while almost 20 percent of male prisoners and a maximum of 3 percent of female prisoners have committed sex offenses, at least 41 percent of trans-identifying prisoners were convicted of these crimes. Transgender, then, appear to be twice as likely as natal males and at least 14 times as likely as natal females to be sex offenders. While these data are imperfect because they’re based only on those who are caught, or on some who declare their female gender only after conviction, they suggest that transgender women are far more sexually predatory than biological women and somewhat more predatory than biological men.
Among the problems with those statistics? There are only a small number of trans women in prisons. (It’s a very tiny, very select sample size.) There are actually fewer trans women in prison relative to their existence in the general population, an argument that suggests trans women as a whole are more law-abiding than cisgender people. It’s also possible some of the “sex offenses” include getting arrested for consensual sex work. (The 41% claim has been debunked here and here.)
But none of that matters to Coyne, who uses the exact same logic that racists use when they claim Black people commit more crimes because of who they are instead of acknowledging our country’s systemic biases against certain communities.
There’s more.
In the same paragraph where Coyne insists he’s not “transphobic,” he says trans people shouldn’t be allowed to compete in women’s sports, serve as counselors in women’s shelters, or be placed in women’s prisons.
But moral and legal rights do not extend to areas in which the “indelible stamp” of sex results in compromising the legal and moral rights of others. Transgender women, for example, should not compete athletically against biological women; should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters; or, if convicted of a crime, should not be placed in a women’s prison.
Hard to imagine how a trans kid in high school wanting to play basketball impedes the “legal and moral rights” of girls on the other teams. But if we’re talking about sports, Coyne says very little about the processes by which the Olympics and the NCAA have thought through how to include trans athletes while maintaining the integrity of their sports. (If simply saying you’re trans gives you a competitive advantage, it’s downright bizarre we haven’t seen trans athletes winning every women’s sport in which they can play.)
It’s the rest of that passage that’s even more disturbing, though. Coyne doesn’t care whatsoever about the qualifications of trans counselors but just flat-out says they shouldn’t be allowed to help women who have been abused because of his own prejudices. He also ignores the perils of putting trans women in male prisons, including the mental health impact it has on them. You can imagine how those talking points fuel all those bathroom bills promoted by Republicans in order to prevent trans children from just using the proper goddamn bathroom when they’re out in public.
The whole piece is nothing more than anti-trans bigotry wrapped up in a cloak of science.
I expect that from Jerry Coyne because that’s who he is. I expect it from Dawkins now too.
But I expect better from FFRF because they have a much better track record on these issues, and because they have a staff that personally cares about these issues, and because they know better than most just how far-reaching Christian Nationalist legislation can be and how it uniquely impacts LGBTQ people.
The American Humanist Association knows this, too. In 2021, after Dawkins compared transgender people to a woman who lied about her race, the AHA retroactively withdrew the Humanist of the Year award they gave him in 1996. It was a purely symbolic gesture but it received enormous attention. But the AHA felt that continuing to align themselves with a bigot flew in the face of their stated values, and so they made a clean break. They deserve a hell of a lot of credit for that.
So how did this happen and how did FFRF respond?
Shortly after they posted Coyne’s article, the backlash began, with a number of activists and supporters expressing their frustration with the group for promoting this kind of hate.
Evan Clark, Executive Director of Atheists United and a former guest on FFRF’s radio show, 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.” David Williamson, co-founder of the Central Florida Freethought Community and an invited speaker at an FFRF convention, said, “I wish Freedom From Religion Foundation would leave the unscientific anti-trans bigotry to the Center for Inquiry.“ Debater Matt Dillahunty, who’s also appeared at a number of FFRF events, said he’d soon make a video about this “embarrassing garbage transphobic crap.” I shared my own concerns on Bluesky. Who knows how many members sent emails to the organization.
Whatever the reasons, the pressure worked.
On Friday, FFRF removed Coyne’s article from their website and posted a new one, signed by co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor, expressing their explicit support for “LGBTQIA-plus” rights.
After noting the direct harm Christian Nationalists inflict upon that community, how their own membership includes plenty of LGBTQ people, and the various ways they’ve proudly supported LGBTQ rights and fought bigoted legislation, they brought up the elephant in the room:
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 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.
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.
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.
It’s not a bad response. They’re not throwing anyone under the bus for publishing the piece but they’re acknowledging their mistake in putting it out under their name while pledging to do better. That’s a good start. While they’re at it, I suggest taking another look at their “Honorary Board” members.
If you want my take on it, I don’t think FFRF posted the article maliciously; I think they were surprised that someone like Coyne reached out asking to respond to a piece, felt obligated to post it in the name of open discussion, and didn’t pay much attention to the underlying problems with his piece. An appropriate response, then, involves taking down the piece, acknowledging their mistakes, and making sure this doesn’t happen again in the future. That post, by the way, went out to the same email list that received Coyne’s original piece.
Yesterday, Coyne added an update on his website which simply said “My article seems to have disappeared.” (That was presumably posted before FFRF’s note went up.) He posted a lengthier rant this morning… and (surprise!) he’s pissed off.
There are a few things that are interesting in his reactions:
Coyne said yesterday that “After a bit of back and forth with the bosses of the FFRF, they accepted this version.” Which makes you wonder what the hell his first draft looked like given how horrible the final version was… But it also raises the possibility that the “bosses” approved this directly and not someone who just happens to work there. Coyne confirmed that today: “FFRF co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor had given me permission to write it and approved the final published version.”
Yikes. Not a great look.
Coyne also implies FFRF knew this would be controversial, which is why he says the disclaimer was added to the piece. Was it just a “coincidence” that he happened to be the first person to receive it?
Make of this disclaimer what you will, but I find it a remarkable coincidence that the appearance of disclaimers just happens to accompany the publication of an article discussing the definition of “woman”. I trust that the disclaimer will appear alongside every article going forward. But seriously, am I not supposed to feel “picked on” as the recipient of the very first disclaimer?
I can answer that for you: Yes. It’s a coincidence. He wasn’t being “picked on.” An FFRF source told me the disclaimer policy was already in the works before Coyne’s article was published.
But even without a disclaimer, it seems FFRF knew this article had problems but they decided posting Coyne’s article outweighed any backlash they might get for doing it. That assessment was quickly proven wrong.
When I was writing a draft of this article yesterday, I predicted that Coyne was going to pretend to be a victim—of free speech, of cancel culture, of science denialism, etc. Indeed, this morning, he went down the science denialism route:
… that is what disappoints me most: not just the “mission creep” instantiated by the FFRF’s incursion into partisan politics or dubious ideology, but the fact that they will not allow free and civil discussion about an article that they published, an article that concludes by saying, “A woman is whoever she says she is.” If that is not a statement ripe for discussion, then what is? It is only fear that would make an organization take down a rational discussion of such a contentious statement. I don’t know what the FFRF is afraid of, but I am just a biologist defending my turf, and am not by any means bent on hurting LGBTAIA+ people.
Coyne sounds like Republican policy-makers who insist nothing they do can be categorized as racist because they don’t walk around wearing a white hood. Coyne doesn’t get to be the arbiter of whether his posts hurt “LGBTAIA+ people” (?). The people in that community do, and they’re been saying for years how this kind of rhetoric hurts them.
And then, as I also predicted, he claimed to be censored:
… when they start censoring my words because, though biologically justifiable, they are ideologically unpalatable, that is just too much. All I can say now is that this is not the end of this kerfuffle, and that I stand by what I wrote before.
How sad it is that one of the nation’s premier organizations promoting “freethought” won’t permit that kind of thought on their website, but instead quashes what they see as “wrongthink.”
No one owes him a platform, including FFRF, and someone who claims to care about facts and critical thinking should figure out why he’s so easily duped by right-wing propagandists anytime the topic involves trans people.
By the way, I asked Kat Grant what they made of this whole kerfuffle since it was their essay that made Coyne so mad. Grant focused on the response rather than how the piece was published—and wanted to assure people that FFRF was still worth supporting:
… I have absolutely every confidence in the steps that are being taken to ensure something like this does not happen in the future. I know for a fact that the entire staff is already working hard to regain the trust that has been lost as a result of this, including myself. I will still be continuing to write my twice monthly blogs for Freethought Now, and will continue to be a resource for FFRF moving forward in addition to my outside work as an attorney and writer.
Ultimately though, an apology like this is not the end of the situation, but the beginning. FFRF’s actions will hopefully speak far louder than its words moving forward, and I know the organization will grow to be stronger on the other side of this.
If you’re interested in reading more, Grant just published a formal response to the controversy here.
One more related thing: My friend Drew McCoy, who has a large YouTube following as “Genetically Modified Skeptic,” was recently invited to speak with Richard Dawkins to help him promote his new science book. That may have meant appearing on stage with him as part of his recent book tour. But Drew said no because of Dawkins’ repeated anti-trans statements.
While he might have been open to directly challenging Dawkins on his comments on stage, this was a promotional tour for Dawkins, not a debate, so appearing on stage with him would be seen as an endorsement of Dawkins himself. Furthermore, trans rights shouldn’t be up for debate and it’s ridiculous to pretend people can just politely agree to disagree about human rights.
I spoke with Drew about that decision, and why I believe it was the right one, and he made a video about it. I hope you’ll consider watching it:
