I think one thing people have trouble with is thinking that "social construct" = "fake." Money is a social construct, but it has very, VERY tangible effects on our lives. Social constructs are incredibly real and important.
But saying it is a social construct also doesn't mean people can just take on roles and then *be* that role in name. I keep hearing "man" or "woman" are "social roles," for example, which means "function," and I guess then that which we expect of said role. But then they also say a man or a woman is anyone who identifies as such. So, if I identify as a given "role" but then don't perform the function, how does it make any sense? The reality is that the social construct was defined by sexual dimorphism, not people identifying into roles. Further, as a detrans man, I'm not any less of a man for being feminine in presentation and expression, and nor am I an "egg" or experiencing internalized transphobia, for that matter. I'm a man regardless of what I do, no roles required. That's reality.
I think one of the most frustrating things is that folks like Dawkins and Coyne have gotten so lost in their ideological commitments that they're not even talking about biology accurately anymore. Sex characteristics aren't binary, people can have all sorts of variations in sex characteristics, and perhaps most relevantly, biology is *mutable*. I don't understand how Dawkins or Coyne can forget this, but biological systems aren't magically inscribed into the immutable soul or whatever; biology can be changed through all sorts of factors, including purposeful intervention. If a person goes to the doctor and says "I'm a 32 year old female", that doctor's assumptions about that person's biology may be pretty far off if that person is a trans man who has had bottom surgery and been on testosterone for more than a decade. Calling that person "biologically female" seems kind of absurd because of how little information it offers. It would be a lot closer to describe that person biologically in terms closer to being intersex, if anything. The assertion that "biological sex" is a clear, coherent, binary or near-binary thing that solves the problem of transgender identity by providing a clear biological binary fact just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
By the by, this is how we've ended up with the past couple decades of the gender-of-the-gaps stuff from anti-genders. The most basic ones will argue that it's about genitals, but once that argument doesn't work then they'll move to chromosomes, and once that doesn't work they'll move to gametes, and eventually they'll move from gametes to some more arcane factoid they think they can hang their hats on. It doesn't matter if none of those things are reliable or useful in determining gender in regards to anyone, cis people included; the arguments just need to keep finding new little corners where the anti-genders think they can pin everything down to a single hopefully binary characteristics and then build everything from that slim foundation.
Dawkins and Coyne are scientists. They work with evidence. You are an ideologue. You play semantic games to pretend you know something. Here is the evidence. Every mammal on this planet has TWO and only TWO biological parents. One we call a 'male' who contributed a small gamete (sperm), the other we call a "female" who contributed the large gamete (egg). There are NO examples of a third parent and NO examples of a third gamete. Moreover, there is no criteria by which an egg could be judged to be 'more of an egg' or 'less of an egg', nor could any egg be considered to be more of a sperm than an egg. If it performs the function of an egg, it is an egg. If it developed as an egg but does not perform as an egg, then it is a defective egg. The same vice versa. There is no way of measuring the degree of difference between an egg and a sperm. Which is a huge problem for you because.... Spectrums are tools we use to categorize and understand phenomenon, like graphs. We use the two extremes at either end of a spectrum to measure attributes against each other and which describes their (the things being described) relative positions on the spectrum. Take the electromagnetic spectrum which uses wave length as a gradient. Ultra violet is to the left of red because it has a shorter wave length than the visible spectrum. A spectrum is a comparison. But how can there be a spectrum without the means to make the very distinctions which the spectrum exists to make!? Without a gradient, how do you know if these sex attributes even belong on your spectrum? You can't. It’s like a graph with no “X” or “Y” axis. It becomes just a thing people hang their preconceptions on. I have described sex as a binary system by providing evidence (i.e. ever mammal on the planet including yourself). I have dismantled the alleged spectrum by pointing out your inability to measure sex attributes It is now your turn. Prove me wrong with 1) an example of offspring produced by more than TWO biological parents, 2) provide a means to measure sex attributes so they could be placed on a spectrum. *edited for auto correct errors.
@@jasonlongton1876 Exactly what "evidence" are Dawkins, Coyne and the rest of that gaggle of geese working with when they refuse to admit trans people are who they say they are? They are taking the side of the Christofascists, and when you side with the enemy, you may as well be the enemy.
27:09 yeah the ACA has never recovered from losing you. I appaud you for always sticking to your principles and being a defender for marginalized people.
Before I unsubscribed from all their channels I notice they were posting a LOT of throwback vides, usually ones that feature Matt, which was a very curious choice after they had effectively pushed him out.
The ACA discovered "Go Woke Go Broke", they appear to have put their personal feelings and Identity Politics before the facts of the argument. Oh well they had a good innings and I applaud all the good work they did in the past.
@@jitteryjet7525 what are you talking about? They've always put social issues with religious tie-ins at the front. They were talking about same-sex marriage before it was legalized, and they've always had people calling in to argue about reproductive rights. Matt doesn't disagree with that stance, so if they've "Gone woke, gone broke" then he's right there too.
Don't ever let people confuse Dysphoria and Dysmorphia. Claiming gender dysphoria is comparable to body dysmorphia shows a distinct lack of medical knowledge. It's also disrespectful to people who struggle with either.
The main difference between the two is this: People with gender dysphoria correctly identify what their body looks like (e.g. male) and want it to look differently (e.g. female). People with body dysmorphia incorrectly identify what their bodies look like and want to change them because they see it incorrectly. An example would be an anorexic person starving themselves almost to death and still thinking they are fat or a bodybuilder taking steroids because they feel small, even when they're absolutely massive. Body dysmorphia is brought up as a comparison because in that case the best solution is therapy. An anorexic person will never lose enough weight to feel thin, but therapy can help them to get over this. People want to take this to mean that gender dysphoria should be treated the same way, but this simply doesn't work in practice. People with gender dysphoria can change their bodies until it mostly goes away and therapy (read conversion therapy) does not work on them.
@@MegaChickenfish Dysphoria = Recognizing your current physical state and feeling distress over it. Dysmorphia = Having a false perception of your current physical state and feeling distress over it. Which can lead to people trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Some people want to dismiss gender dysphoria by claiming "We don't let anorexic people starve themselves." The comparison falls apart because it assumes trans people believe they are physically the opposite sex BEFORE transitioning (which would be dysmorphia), except if that were the case, they wouldn't transition in the first place. Instead, trans people transition to relieve the dysphoria they feel from recognizing their physical state.
@@MegaChickenfish My reply got deleted, but dysmorphia is an obsession with fixing a perceived flaw, that in reality may be small or non-existent. This can lead to unhealthy outcomes. Dysphoria is a state of persistent low mood or unease. That's not to say someone can't have both gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia. But to claim everyone with gender dysphoria has dysmorphia and their transition is based on an unhealthy obsession is dismissive and frankly rude.
so he states that trans-women are more likely to be incarcerated for sex related crimes. His statistic comes by looking at a population of prisoners, not non-criminal trans people, so he has nowhere near enough data to draw his conclusion. Notice he doesnt look at what trans people have been convicted for and say "wow, they are way LESS LIKELY to be incarcerated for murder" instead he chooses to focus on what they are incarcerated for.
FFRF fell for the old "teach the controversy" line? Frankly both parties ought to have known better. Siding with creationists on other topics doesn't automatically make you wrong. It is a big ass red flag though. And acting like them, well that's all of the red flags.
"Teach the controversy" Oh man, exactly this. I forgot about "teach the controversy" but the similarities between "intelligent design" and trans panic are obvious.
You're aware that it's the "self-identification" people who are playing the role of the creationists, trying to overthrow basic science with nitpicking and whataboutery until they can wedge in their quasi-religious worldview?
No need to mischaracterize their statement. Two wrongs don't make a right. They didn't say, "I have a trans friend." Putting words in their mouth isn't going to get you anywhere. Maybe next time stick to criticizing the actual statement.
@@405DC It's clear that you didn't even read the blog on Freethought Now. Is it really that difficult to read the blog? Just use the Wayback Machine, it's easy.
That non-applogy was such a failure in communication! Particularly the word "wrongfully" - basically saying readers who were upset about FFRF publishing that content came to their conclusions on false pretenses. Disappointing.
I would love it if Forrest would do the "Hi, actual biologist here gender is not binary." And having that play several times throughout the video, while explaining the actual specifics of gender.
What is it that Jerry Coyne does for a living, do you think? I don’t share Coyne’s opinion, but the man is a published author, biologist, and strident opponent of intelligent design.
Biologists aren't experts in gender, as Matt touches on in this video. Forrest, as a biologist, probably has some background in gender studies and sociology, but it would make more sense for him to discuss whether sex is a binary, which he has.
No one has ever, at any point, been able to explain to me how "gender" as currently used is not a synonym for "personality type." And if that means there are "multiple genders" because there are "multiple personality types," then uh, sure? But I don't see how that is an important distinction. You can have feminine traits as a man and masculine traits as a woman. That doesn't mean I should view you AS a man or woman.
A biologist can be wrong about specific aspects of biology. Forrest can speak of this issue from a purely biological point of view and make an empirical case for nonbinary sex @Burtimus02
tysm for everything you've done for us, matt! I've been watching you since I was 14 and I'm turning 25 this year. I'm the only non-religious person in my family, so it can feel a bit lonely at times. But thanks to you and others' efforts, we've managed to build a great community. we have a long ways to go, but I'm thankful that there are people like you in this world to help the cause.
Kinda seems like they chose to sacrifice an entire group of people to appease a larger audience they think they might need support from tbh… how disappointing, human rights should extend to EVERYONE. Dark times we’re living in when secular rights orgs start making these kinds of decisions 🥺
That's exactly what's going on here. That's why Democrats are seriously having conversations about focusing less on LGBTQ+ issues, why news channels CNN is now inviting right-winger guests to joke about Biden & Harris at events. The very fact that FFRF went down the "nobody's perfect" route and not directly apologize tells me they're actually not sorry and intentionally did that to appeal to the socially conservative tone the nation is preparing to take-on. The name of the game for Left ideology-aligning entities for these next 4 years are going to be "Look! See? We're not a woke echo chamber! Come do business with us!"
Many countries are realising that sacrificing an entire group (children) to the ideology of a group of sexual fetishists (middle aged "trans" men) isn't such a good idea.
Oh please, cut the drama. "Sacrificing an entire group of people" by doing what, exactly? Poining out that you can't simply become something you aren't by muddying up the definitions until they become completly untethered from reality? Where in the declaration of human rights does it say "everyone has the right to be anything they want"? 'Cause I couldn't find that in there.
@@richardmetzler7909 It seems like you didn't read my previous response to you explaining this very same thing. Biology is not the same as gender, as long as you keep denying it, you won't understand this very simple issue.
Maybe because they have bigger fish to fry like getting religion out of our public school system they don't wanna get side tracked with this stuff. They have enough on their plate now given that most of the country had turned red.
Too many letters! LGBT rolls off the tongue, LGBTQIA+ is a train wreck. I'm all for inclusivity but wasn't the addition of the Q already supposed to include anyone not captured by the LGBT? Isn't the + just redundant? Idk i think it needs to be tightened up
@@Arminius420 most of the country, no, a majority of those that came out to vote, yes, but only by a couple million, and thats with MANY blue voters not showing up to fight against the red.
30:00 Bringing up biology is like flat earthers bringing up water sticking to the bottom of a ball. They have to know they're not addressing the actual position they're opposing
I feel like this non-apology was the sort of thing lawyers reflexively construct after mistakes in court because there is nothing worse in a courtroom for a lawyer than apologizing and assuring everyone that they’re aware that they just fucked up and are sorry about it. However, this statement wasn’t made in court. Its audience was regular people who needed and deserved that type of acknowledgement and apology. I still think the FFRF is overall good. But I wish they’d install some people who understand how to be better with public relations.
@@Grim_BeardBiology or science is not the avenue IMO to defend trans people. Gender identity (unlike sexual identity) is not inherently a science or biology topic even though gender can be discussed in relationship to biology and science. It’s under the subjective humanities and personal taste umbrella first and foremost. And that important distinction is why there is so much opposition to transgender rights and acceptance by certain progressive atheists like Dawkins who are progressive in nearly every other way. They fixate on science and biology so much that they can’t help but discuss gender and sex like they’re the same thing, and object to the humanities lane for how gender can be discussed while arguing that it should be an exclusively a science topic even though sex and anatomy identity already exists for that lane of communication.
I mean, Coyne isn't really reading the way you present it at 5:45. He actually mentions the difference between sex and gender and talks about how gender isn't just biology, he agrees with you. The specific point in contention is that Grant uses 'woman' to refer to gender, whereas Coyne uses 'woman' to refer to sex. That is the underlying confusion Coyne has about Grant's position, and explains why the article even exists and why it focuses so much on sex.
I agree. I just got done with the article in question. I hardly see any reason for an apology. The only reason I see to apologize for, is having a biologist talk about biology in the conversation of transgender on a website about secular activism against religious over reach. However, his final paragraphs specifically state his intention of writing the post. which is because this topic is being brought to the organization and its website, and doesn't think should have anything to do at all with FFRF. What he was talking about was biologically correct, and made arguments against some gender/transgender debate topics on the basis of biology.
That's a weak-ass copout. Even if we go strictly by biology, there are more than two genders, and he knows that. He is being disingenuous in order to push a right-wing view that is not based in fact.
Yes, I noticed this as well. But Coyne isn't free from error; by bringing up rates of sexual crimes and the bizarrely misinformed 900 medal "study" he shows he isn't informed on this topic despite chiming in confidently.
That's basically the point, yes. Thing is, no one has managed to come up with a coherent definition of "woman" that is based on gender, whereas the definition based on sex is clear, informative, useful and in line with what how people have used the word for ages.
The FFRF has expressed regret for a publishing the blog, and Matt Dillahunty has stated that an apology is necessary. However, an apology inherently presupposes the existence of free will-the idea that a different decision could have been made than the one actually made. If free will does not exist, as determinism suggests, then apologizing becomes conceptually problematic. Under deterministic principles, the most appropriate response would be: "Given what we know now, we would not have made this decision or statement. Therefore, we have taken down the post and regret the action." This approach aligns with determinism while still acknowledging and addressing the issue.
Matt, wow, as articulate as some at FFRF are, I would expect a real apology for such a blunder. But, I would also have expected the blunder never to never have happened. I do feel saddened by these biologists who seem unable, even unwilling, to learn. Dr. Dawkins,(and he did have a stroke, I'd like to hope that has somehow affected his apparent cognitive decline) used to tell of a professor from his past, who refused to accept some new info a student pointed out in one of his classes. He got angry and 'doubleddown' on the outdated view . So it's sad to see Dr. Dawkins due the same thing he warned against. In more than trans issues! I don't know of Dr. Coynes' views before this, I find it hard to imagine any biologist as a bigot. I've always equated bigotry with ignorance. Guess I'm wrong. Maybe age has something to do with it, though again, I don't know his age. 👍🏼💙💖💙💝💙🥰✌
@@bummblebeezy UA-cam would rather recommend me alt-right and flat earth content instead of stuff from my subscriptions. Commenting tells the algorithm, "no, this."
@ProtovoxMedia I'm not talking about recommendations. If the concern was missing a video from a creator, one can easily subscribe so that new videos appear in the subscribed list. You don't need an algorithm for that.
@@ProtovoxMedia I've been here too. You need to change your link; go to feed/subscriptions instead of the base website and it will ONLY show your subscriptions in the order they were published. It's LIFEchanging.
it sounds to me like the FFRF simply didn't want to cause Coyne to have a strop, given his status as a prominent scientist lends a degree of authority to the organisation. So they published his piece and tried to distance themselves from it without making it too obvious. Only people noticed, they grew a pair, took down the article and now Coyne is in a tizzy because his blatant piece of emotive propaganda has been rejected. The telling thing is that Coyne - and by extension Dawkins and Pinker - actually think the article was a valid piece of criticism. This apprehension alone should preclude their involvement in any further discourse, because if that's what they call rational and reasoned critique, they clearly don't understand what that means.
@@Andrea.1tree To be fair, Dawkins was never the most well-reasoned of atheistic voices, even when arguing against religion. A lot of his popularity stemmed exclusively from his bold, inflammatory rhetoric more than any logical, rational arguments he was making. It's why, even though I agree with his conclusions on religion's validity, I stopped caring what he had to say. A lot of his arguments were basically just "They're delusional, stupid, and ignorant," which doesn't get to the meat of WHY they might be.
@@bengreen171 Well, I must admit, I'd simply thought that Dawkins was just getting senile in his dotage, and I hadn't at the time realised that Coyne and Pinker had taken sail on the same boat as the far right Christianists. Pinker in particular seems to have a rightist streak to him. The lesson they oght to learn is that when they side with religious bigots, it may be time to review their opinions on trans issues, rather than settling down for a comfy snooze with their new comrades.
I am quite the atheist and I believe in rationality. I reject gender ideology as anything but rational. All Coyne was doing was stating scientific fact that sex, biological sex and gender/gender expression are two different things. Trans-identified people are *not* the biological sex they affect to be. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to exist, they should have no rights, they deserve no respect, they should be rejected by decent society, etc, etc. But the biological fact remains, and it creates issues in certain areas. Trans identified people are not monolith, either, any more than any minority is, and people identify as trans at different times of their lives and for very different reasons. Some of these choices do come out of a rational evaluation, others not at all, sometimes pathological. And these are not choices easily made by children, either. As far as siding with the hard religionists on this, I assure you, they come at it from an entirely different angle. In fact there's significant support in the fundamentalist Christian community for transing kids who are gender-non-conforming as soon as possible, because altho it's very likely the great majority of such kids are going to resolve these conflicts after puberty, they are also likely to be gay or lesbian...and that cannot be abided. They'd much rather have a trans daughter than a gay son (abomination!). By the way, I take exception to the line "preclude involvement in any further discourse". In other words, certain people should be silenced. I admit I sometimes feel this way, but it's an emotional reaction and I control it. It's not in the spirit of free inquiry, now is it?
It INFURIATES ME when people resort to "well according to Biology" when they have NEVER taken endocrinology courses, have never taken Molecular Genetics, and have NO background whatsoever in Molecular Biology or courses about Gene Expression of any kind. There is a spectrum on what is male and female and their ARE anomalies, and outliers. There isn't a strict definition that can be applied. "Oh but the Y chromosome!" Well that doesn't work if the persons cells are unreceptive to testosterone. Oh but the presence of this or of that....sometimes the gene expression doesn't work. How much of a thing does it take to make a person a MALE and by what quantitative degree? Low T? Still male? What about inactive testes? What about a person with a penis that has internal ovaries? Yes, there are anomalies. And what about the brain itself? That requires a certain sensitivity to testosterone in the brain, also. What about human development and all of the Nature vs Nurture factors? People LOVE simple answers if it is going to make them "right" but they don't love to do actual homework on anything. They love to reduce everything to a middle school science level on everything (if they can even manage that level of scientific literacy to begin with).
Humans seem to have a bias for simple answers to complex issues. Some people see complex, open ended topics without definitive conclusions and they want to wrap it all up into a box, make it simple and put the box away. And "putting the box away" makes them feel good; it feels good to "resolve" these complex issues easily. And the sexual and gender binaries are some people's simple answers to complex issues. Engaging with the literature on these subjects would require them to unwrap the already _perfectly tidy_ box, open it up, pull all of the pieces out and create a mess they feel like they already cleaned up. Why dump this box out when I already wrapped it all up and put it away??
He has a PHD in Biology from Harvard and is a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. You really think he doesn't know anything about genes or molecular biology? He could run circles around you lmao. You can disagree with him for sure, but pretending he isn't educated in biology is just ridiculous.
I'm not confident that proves a spectrum. Sure, people can have varied degrees of feminine and masculine qualities, but I can't help but see sex rather like a coin flip: male, female, and edge cases. Those edge cases are people with differences in sexual development, or DSDs, which as far as I'm aware as usually specific conditions with names. But, you shouldn't need sex to be a spectrum to say, "Hey, I feel an incongruence with my body, and this is really hard, can I get some help?" Further, nature vs nurture very well should be considered but the problem is the model is to NOT consider that. They affirm identity without question. People can self-ID and get hormones without diagnosis of gender dysphoria. However, when you consider nature vs nurture, we see that some percentage of these people are being confused by this ideology and just needed therapy. I know, I was one of those people, as a now detrans man, and in the detrans community we all have similar stories. Yeah, people LOVE simple answers, which is what this gender ideology offers - throw out the nuance and we're not allowed to ask questions, that's transphobic. It's harmful.
While they've had some brilliant stuff back in the day, Coyne, Pinker, and Dawkins have all pretty much lost it now. I don't pay much attention to any of them.
I used to follow him too. Long time ago. After a while though, I started seeing arguments that seemed completely flawed, and things that did not match up with the scientific method, so I stopped following him. I knew that Sam Harris also speaks out against trans, but I didn't know that about Steven Pinker until this video. So sad they can't hear what's being said - or recognize the harm their stance can do. Because have any of them said "I support LGBTQ+ rights"?
I'm surprised FFRF published it in the first place, since, now that I've read his column, he seems to argue the biology, rather than the politics, and that's not really FFRF's thing. However, when religious views are used to advance anti-trans legislation, that, IMO, falls very much within their purview.
Can someone who is supportive of Coyne’s position explain to me how his view that we have no free will squares with his apparent trans is choice comments (because biology is binary)? I will add that he was aghast on his blog that Robert Sapolsky doesn’t agree with him ( and of course is now woke…but he had no choice?😂) Anyone see Sean Carrolls workshop to advance Secular Humanism? All Coyne wanted to talk about was there is no free will. He seems to be unable to tolerate others view points like Dennetts who was also at the workshop.
"Trans is a choice" does not follow from "biology is binary". It's obviously possible to have a body that conforms perfectly to one of the two sexes and yet believe that you should be of the other sex. In fact, the phenomenon of transgender contradicts some interpretations of free will. Who would choose to undergo the confusion and embarrasment, the interpersonal problems, the medical issues associated with transitioning if they could just decide to not be trans? (That said, I don't agree with Dr. Coyne's take on free will. But much like gender, free will is an ill-defined concept, and it's easy to get lost in confusion.)
Good on FFRF for admitting they should not have allowed Dr. Coyne's article in the first place. And good on Dr. Coyne, Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Pinker for resigning from the board of FFRF.
Not an excuse, just an observation, but these older atheists seem to reflect the “values” of the generation they were born into. They have trouble adapting to new paradigms or civil rights.
Speaking as an atheist about as old these horsemen of the transpocalypse, and also with a background in biology, I had no problem accepting trans folk as exactly who they say they are. I'm gay myself, so am used to the notion of being gender-queer. Perhaps the fact that they are heterosexual males makes them fear trans women, in case what they find when they take someone to bed isn't what they expect. Foolish of them, but you have to wonder.
This is so hypocritical. I think Matt should apologize and take down every video he's posted that contains insensitive, harmful, or hateful religious/bigoted views that disagree with his position. Not only does he platform them, he prioritizes them FFS! Whether or not there is a discussion involved is a red herring. He and others will have the opportunity to respond and they have. Whether it's published or posted on UA-cam, it's still providing a platform to spread hate and misinformation. Hell Matt even gives those that do just that.. a "skip to the front of the line pass." Rules for thee not for me.
Did you listen to the whole thing? He addresses this directly. He INVITES opposing views. His forum is designed for debate. FFRF's is not about that. So your "argument" here makes absolutely no sense.
At the beginning of their statement, FFRF says advocating for LGBTQIA plus rights is an indirect component of the mission. At the end, they say it is inextricably linked to their mission. Which is it?
They also say they support it in principles AND in action. What actions? Publishing transphobic low-hanging fruits? How is that action in service to the org's mission? How is that action in service of marginalized groups?
FFRF has a lot to tackle with Trump in office and you guys are just trying to police this company on their stances like a god dam witch hunt. Let them do their thing for hell sakes.
Two different and (imho) equally innocuous comments that I bothered to write seem to have disappeared, and I know this because I keep getting notified about new comments in those threads and yet my own isn't there. Literally, one of them was just me saying that I thought the standard disclaimer was adequate. Is deleting whatever you don't agree with the standard now? Shame on you if so.
The YT algorithm doesn't always show your original post when you reply to an email notification - sometimes it's there, sometimes it isn't, and to be sure, you need to list the entire thread by Newest Posts and scroll down to the one you're trying to reply to. It's not censorship - though they do moderate content and remove posts they find offensive - it's just a glitchy algorithm.
@@haydenwalton2766 That's really helpful, thanks. Glad now that I didn't convict based on flawed evidence, and left it with an "if so" ... otherwise I'd be the one who "ought to apologize" :)
For a few years now youtube has made searching and seeing all comments in a LINKED reply thread challenging or impossible without needlessly going to the video directly and skimming through every comment. It's very obnoxious
Jerry's post didn't even provide a refutation of the other article, just grand standing self-contradicting drivel. He leads with saying that sex is binary, gender doesn't matter, but then details that it's actually a weighted bimodal spectrum. And says that there are conditions that lead to people being outside his ideal binary, but offers no accessibility solutions to those people. So to Coyne, Dawkins, and Pinker all believe that if people are in a small enough minority then they don't deserve solutions that challenge the status quo that makes them comfortable. And they all refuse to debate actual experts, so pitiful.
"So to Coyne, Dawkins, and Pinker all believe that if people are in a small enough minority then they don't deserve solutions that challenge the status quo that makes them comfortable." Good old straw man.
@@vejeke No it isn't. That is the meaning of recognizing those groups then saying they shouldn't get solutions that they don't like and then not offering alternative. Learn what a strawman is.
We always say that "Atheism isn't an ideology, and we disagree about a great many things". Let's not be hypocrites about that. Atheists are allowed to not support trans people. I wish they would... but they don't have to; they can still be an atheist.
The values of skepticism, rationality, and scientific inquiry seem perfectly in line with the FFRF values. The Gender/Sex definition debate is complicated. That the FFRF would allow two somewhat dissenting opinions on their blog does not undermine those values, but rather aligns with them. I've read Coyne's op-ed and read counter op-eds and while Coyne's gamete definition of biological sex seems reductive, I don't think it crosses over into an attempt to marginalize or wound the trans community. Obviously, others see it differently (like Matt in this piece) which is fine. But let's not pretend that this is a simple subject with simple social solutions as it is, at heart, a conflict about access and protection between two people groups who are both at risk in our patriarchy - cis women and trans folk.
@@tobinod4299there is no "conflict" if you're a decent human being. Trans people and women are groups that overlap and have many shared struggles, as you appear to be aware of to some degree. Kind, open-minded women, trans people and people in general can see this. They don't uncritically buy strawm3n and pr0paganda due to uninformed kneejerk reactions, nor do they feel the need to "debate" other human beings partaking in society in basic ways. It's complex and varies by individual, but that's for intra-community discussions. Cis folks, let us live. We're humans, not a debate. If people wanna debate how to get vocabulary up to speed, that's fine. But that can be done decently and it never seems to be.
Thank you for spelling out a couple of the problems with Coyne’s article, Matt. My wife is a huge fan of his, and I’ve had difficulty expressing why his views are problematic.
My ex was like that too. He'd regurgitate queerphobic arguments and deny their consequences, get mad at me for saying it's queerphobic and stuff. It was so rough. I'm glad I ran away.
@@muchanadziko6378 it misrepresents trans people, it dramatizes and demonizes people who are either innocent or whose crime has not been stated, and it does so in an attempt to make the space less inclusive of trans people.
@@Nathouuuutheone ok? So again, what’s wrong with what I said? You said I’m evil. I want you to say what exactly out of the things I said was evil. Go on
I have high respect for you Matt. I see trolls here in the comments, something I'm sure you've dealt with all too much. Thanks for being such and inspiration and not allowing them, or others, to shake you of your better judgements.
@sdwone it's sometimes even worse than speaking with a theist. At least most theists are willing to talk. They more like theists from 400 years ago, where if you say anything or have a question, you're the worst person in the world and need to be expelled from any future discourse
Maybe I missed it, but I've been waiting for Matt to address Richard Dawkins and his awful stance on trans issues. Dawkins's behavior on this issue has been shocking.
Matt makes the same mistake he accuses Coyne of making when he slyly suggests at 12:55 that Coyne's post somehow disagrees with basic human rights. The fact is the original article Coyne criticizes relies on the same type of nonsensical metaphysical claim the the FFRF is supposed to be against when it proposes that a woman is whichever person makes the claim that they are one. This is hardly any different than the claim that "God exists because I feel that he does". It is a travesty that the FFRF even published that first nonsensical post in the first place. They may as well kowtow to religion now.
"This is hardly any different than the claim that "God exists because I feel that he does"." YES. This is a major reason why I am suspicious of trans-ness despite being an atheist. If there were evidence of this, and you could prove that evidence did not have a biased agenda (for example, Boghossian's grievance studies), I would change my mind. So much of this is "it's that way because I say it is." I thought atheists fought this type of thinking?
@@blossom357 That's how I see it, too. Richard Dawkins likened it to the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, i.e. the belief that the wafer and the wine literally become the body and blood of Christ because you believe that they do. And that seems an apt analogy to me. It's religious thought, 100%. Belief over reality.
You're commiting yhe same fallacy mentioned at the beginning of the video. Just because a line of logic fails at one task doesn't mean it fails at all tasks, and just because some things are not self-identifiable doesn't mean nothing is self-identifiable. Having a word for people who have an affinity, a community, a shared label and self-expression... that's a completely normal thing. We do it all the time (and conflate it with biology all the time too, just look at ethnicty and racism, or even just direct familial feuds and stuff, found family vs blood relations, cultural identity versus genetic lineage and so on and so forth). Why is gender the topic where you choose to impose an arbitrary standard and deny people's ability to question and explore??? Do you act like that towards other biological indicators? Do you go around justifying misinformation about racial disparity just because there's an obvious biological elephant in the room? Or do you only do that for gender?
Also I want to make very explicit that it's completely nonsensical of you to compare womanhood to claims about the divine. "I feel like [insert material claim about objective reality]" is not even remotely similar to "I indentify as [a member of a group]". Some labels are explicitly about our subjective experience. Either you want to erase subjectivity completely or you're just bigoted against queer folks. Or you're indoctrinated into defending a traditional application of language. Pro tip: blind faith traditionalism is the other side's mode of operation, if you're an atheist you should know better.
Matt, I'm hoping you could clarify an argument you made in your video. At 6:40 you state "there are things which your perception of yourself and your identification of yourself is not only a valid criteria, but it is the most important criteria", but instead of giving an independent example, you go into a discussion using Coyne's analogy of fat versus gender. This is a problem because that works for both sides. If you don't agree with Coyne, then you can say your self-identification of "fat" can be disputed by observing BDI, body fat, etc.; while your self-identification of gender can't. If you agree with Coyne, then you can say your self-identification of fat can be disputed by observing BDI, body fat, etc.; while your self-identification of gender can be disputed by observing your hormone levels, genitalia, etc. Could you provide a different example, not related to gender, of where your perception of yourself is the most important criteria? Thanks.
The argument is that trans people aren't claiming to be the opposite sex; their claim is only in self-identification, which is the "only valid criteria". Additionally, psychology calls body dysphoria a delusion and treat it as such, but gender dysphoria is not a mental illness and responds best to affirmation.
@@ronhoward121 Lots of trans people are in fact calling themselves (and others) a different sex than what they are. This conflation happens constantly.
Off the top of my head I would argue that fandom might be a servicable analogy? The most important criteria of being a fan of something is self-identifying as a fan: that doesn't mean that there aren't other possible criteria(such as sincereness, wishing to engage with the thing in question, etc), but generally speaking the way that we figure out who is a fan of what is that they tell us. Furthermore, attempts to create an exhaustive test for "real" fandom present a lot of the same kinds of problems as the attempts to create a thoroughly clear gender binary based on AGAB, in the sense that the more rigid you try to get the more obviously people will be excluded who everyone agrees should belong. To be overly twee about it: a Batman fan is who they say they are
Also, separately I would argue that Coyne's notion of testing for gender is clearly post hoc, unless he wants to produce the extensive testing results that prove his maleness by his own criteria before we get to use he/him to describe him. There's a kind of absurdity in the exercise he's doing to try to invent a radical new concept of gender that not only makes no sense whatsoever, but would presumably leave the overwhelming majority of humanity both present and historical functionally without gender since we don't do these kinds of tests all the time and didn't know about many of the biological characteristics he would refer to until recently. It's a really strange idea that we should all accept this very technocratic, oddly unhelpful, radically divergent idea of gender that he's suggesting.
How is using "Human" as an adjetive and "Female" as the noun in the phrase "Adult Human Female" dehumanizing? I mean, we are litterally using the adjetive Human.
@joewalsh4713 I am not an expert with grammar, I may be wrong. My brain can get stuck. I'm trying to think of examples in English where a noun has its adjective after it. I can't. I can think of verbs having an adjective after. Please help me.
Perhaps someone can help me. Im historically a massive fan of both Dawkins and Coyne. Unashamedly. They were the reason I studied evolutionary biology at uni and i still like them both today. I also love Matt here, who has also been a big influence on me. On the trans issue i see this divide between people i respect and im a bit lost in the debate. As i mentioned, i studied biology and in my senior year focused on the evolution of sex. It seems to me Coyne and Dawkins are correct and im worried that Matts position revolves around societal roles of individuals to determine gender, which is seen as wholly separate from sex. This strikes me as classic sexism? Now I assume i have this position wrong as matt is clearly pushing back against sexism. So, long story short is anyone willing to point out what i have missed? Ive done a fair bit of research on this and feel able to discuss at a reasonably high level. But im genuinely struggling to understand the positions here and who is actually being bigoted. Thanks in advance for anyone taking me seriously
There are only two relevant issues: (1) Trans people are real, and are helped by therapy that helps them transition, including hormone replacement therapy and sometimes, surgery as well, to bring bodies into line with minds. And (2) should they be treated socially according to their identity, or our prejudice? Denial that trans people are real is a total waste of time, and if you don't accept equal rights for all, what would you do with trans folk?
@@Leszek.Rzepecki 1 has a number of major errors. In the same way I can accept people with anorexia think they are fat, I can accept that people think they are trans, but for the same reason I don't support the anorexic person to lose more weight nor do I support the trans notion.
@@mcbean1 If the best you can do is compare being a woman to a mentally and physically debilitating condition like anorexia, you've not only lost the argument, you never even understood what it's about.
I don't know that I'd call it sexist in general, but Matt's camp seems to put gender on a higher pedestal than sex in terms of rights and conflicts between those rights, since that's where all of his debate is happening in the first place. Well, almost all of it. Some of it also relates to "gender affirming care" where children are being framed as better understanding what can/should happen to their bodies in adolescence, even irreversible changes and yes, even at very young ages.
As a biologist, you'll know that 'sex' is not a single factor with two mutually-exclusive possibilities. 'Sex' is multifactorial, and most of those factors are non-binary (e.g. sex chromosomes, gene expression, endogenous hormone levels, primary sexual characteristics, secondary sexual characteristics, and even sex-related characteristics). What Coyne and Dawkins want to do is ignore all that and pretend that sex is a simple binary. There is no scientific, biological justification for doing so. Their motivation is to de-legitimise transgender people (focused on trans women).
I always considered the "Freedom From Religion" concept as something which allows intellectual pluralism. Maybe they had a similar understanding of it...
appreciate the video Matt! it’s so frustrating to see people who would otherwise support free-thought and free life-choice in all things suddenly act in total opposition to those principles on what seems like always this one issue in particular.
It's just elderly scientists getting reactionary in their dotage, as many old men do. They've no scientific basis for their whinging, they just don't get it, and imagine that's reason enough to deny it.
@@sdwone What you don't seem to get is that the hysteria and propaganda is all on the side of the transphobes, fueled by the Christianist far right, and now the three horsemen of the transpocalypse, who used to criticise religious ideology, have become so eaily gulled by it they agree. All the scientific evidence is on the side of trans folk, but the horsemen can only say "Neiggghhh!" and stand with their new Christofascist friends. What I'd recommend to you is you actually talk to some and learn about them from themselves, rather than their prejudiced detractors. They stand where gay folk used to stand, and if the religious far right and their atheist comrades-in-arms have their way, the rights of gay folk will end up being abrogated as well. But I suppose that would just be hysteria on our part.
Instead of asking to be platformed, he could've just used a trackback to link his rebuttal to the original article. This is why that online functionality exists.
There is a portion of biology that directly studies this stuff. The things Coyne, Dawkins, and Pinker are saying disagree with what I've heard from the scientists that study this stuff. If Coyne and Dawkins think that the biologists, neuroscientists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. that study this stuff are getting this wrong, then they need to conduct research and publish it to set them straight. They of all people should know how the scientific method works, and making arguments in blog posts is not the right way.
I don't think all the people studying sex and gender disagree with Coyne. Many understand and approve of his position. What you have heard from others, I suspect, consists of those within an ideological movement which does not maintain strict scientific methods.
I completely agree with you. The attitudes of the Coyne, Pinker and Dawkins anti-trans cabal are not only ethically repugnant, they aren't based on science, but pure prejudice. These "gentlemen" are unable to comprehend what it feels like to have the brain of one sex in the body of another, so assume that their normative personal expierience must trump the evidence of trans folk telling their life stories, and some tragically committing suicide as a result of the opinions of the anti-trans cabal. I used to have respect for these folk, but their attitude tworads trans folk makes me doubt their commitment to the rest of the LGBTQ+ alliance.
@SuperRickflick has it right. You need to source your comments. I have read so called scientific defenses of gender ideology by those practitioners inside the ideology (they seem to be the only ones doing it), and frankly, I could not find one scintilla of actual science in them. It's all hypothesis and personal anecdotes and subjective experience.
Who tf are they even throwing shade at? afaik they are kind of the biggest game in town so anyone they might be tossing their thinly veiled attack at would have to be a smaller organization. That's so messed up.
I disagree with you here Matt. Yes, FFRF didn't have to publish a rebuttal. However, it is also totally within their prerogative to publish a rebuttal if they would like. There seems to be a culture of wanting to silence differing opinions. I would even go as far as saying that FFRF weren't even under an obligation to say that they disagree with the article. You, or anyone else have no right to tell other people what they can and cannot publish on their platform any more than they have of telling you what you can publish on yours. I also find it a bit hypocritical that you are claiming that Jerry Coyne is pretending to not understand. I've seen countless clips of you rightly getting upset when theists have said that you were lying about your beliefs. However, you seem to be doing the exact same thing here.
The FFRF cannot pretend to be on the side of LGB rights, while excluding the T, and claim to be for equal rights for all.. They may have a right to publish whatever drivel they please, but they don't have a right to be free from criticism when they publish malicious and uneducated opinions by a transphobe.
Why a 30-sentence diatribe about them ‘having the right’ to publish what they want? Nobody was even talking about that. Secondly, how many times do we have to go over this? Refusing to publish somebody is NOT silencing them. Matt already said Coyne has a blog and is a published author. There’s also social media. You already said it’s their prerogative whether to publish. How can you also say it’s “silencing” to refuse to publish? Your comment ignores every point Matt made. It’s in bad faith. And it’s logically inconsistent.
@@charliekowittmusicI didn't say that Coyne was being silenced. I said that it seems like people want to silence certain views. You're right. He has is own blog that he can put articles on. I'm not saying that FFRF are in the wrong for removing the article. I'm saying that they have nothing to apologize for. It seems like people are trying to bully people like FFRF for posting things that they disagree with.
Very well said. Frankly, they should’ve never taken the article down, having decided to put it up in the first place. People would’ve then been free to respond to it and disagree, and then FFRF could’ve posted the most popular response to it, from a Forrest Valkai or someone like that. It’s ridiculous how much “controversy” is caused by what is often a semantic issue. Why the censorship and not an open discussion?
Hi there! Been watching you for over 15 years, so I hope this comment will be taken as intended, even though I suspect you won't agree with me. Context: I am Left wing politically, pro-LGBTQIA+ (in fact my most beloved is transitioning, and two nieces are in relationships with trans individuals who I adore). However. I take issue with one (pretty major) premise of this video. What I agree with: FFRF should have placed a stronger "does not reflect the views and values of the FFRF ..." A stronger statement of the position of the group would be adequate. I disagree with nearly everything else. I hope disagreement is still allowed. They shouldn't have taken the article down, they shouldn't apologize. I remember when Arden and Katy had a frank and open discussion about transwomen in sports. They allowed all comments and it was a wonderful discussion. There were haters (one who changed his mind, I believe) and allies and the discussion was truly dynamic. How about that? Is it really necessary to shut down discussion? It is so strange from people who have made it their lives' work to talk to people who disagree with them.
His point wasn't that discussion can't happen. It was that the organization both-sides'd it by not taking an official position while simultaneously citing that 97% of the membership supports trans rights and that they donated to the HRC. If it's so universally supported already, why not just state "the FFRF's official stance is counter to the following rebuttal, but we've chosen to include it for discussion." I think the reality is that they probably DON'T have an official stance and view anything not directly "religious" as being outside their organization's purview. But regardless of whatever decision they make, it's going to come with a cost. Being wishy-washy is going to keep Dawkins, Coyne, etc happy while upsetting supporters of trans rights. And being a full advocate is going to cost them the transphobes and biological essentialists.
@@malifex9922 "I think the reality is that they probably DON'T have an official stance" True. This clearly does not fit into their mission statements, which is part of what the original disagreement was all about from Coyne, Dawkins and Pinker. Please note that Coyne's opinion piece was the only time the FFRF put a disclaimer BEFORE the article specifying that his views were not that of the organization. They did not do this on the original article that Coyne was critiquing, so although some people are saying that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth (and they are) it's very clear from their initial AND follow-up reaction that they want to focus, at least in part, on trans activism. Note that they didn't even notify Coyne that his article was removed or reply to his email, at least as of a few days ago.
FFRF should have gone a step further than merely publishing a disclaimer: they should have either postponed publication of Coyne's article till they had a considered rebuttal to go along with it, or issued a stronger disclaimer saying that they would publish the opposite view. Instead, they did everything wrong from the outset, because Coyne was an honarary board member. While I can understand concerns by folk who haven't looked into the issue about trans women in sports or in women's restrooms, these have been grossly exaggerated to the point of hysteria. In sports where trans women do participate, they have shown no sign of dominating those sports - they perform like average women, I suspect because most men aren't that much stronger than women in the first place, and HRT does whittle away whatever male advantage there might be. Biological women have nothing to fear from trans women. Trans women have been using women's spaces for decades now without much incident - till the trans issue started to be used as a weapon, which has now caused attacks against cis women who "look like men." They should be more concerned about religious patriarchs who want to put women back in their places where god intended them to be, subject to men, and who are using the trans issue to whip up reactionary hatreds.
@@malifex9922 This was not a discussion of trans identified people should have as rights, the discussion was more about what they actually are, and how that affects the rest of the world.
@@muchanadziko6378 People who expected the FFRF to stand by its ideological commitment to oppose theistic influence over civil government whether a minority of atheists are cool with it or not.
@@muchanadziko6378 Are you thick or are you just performatively refusing to understand? If opposition to trans people is broadly theistic in nature, then the topic is relevant to atheism.
If people were arguing that the blog wasn't a one-way communication because "There is a comment section," Then that can easily be used to say that Coyn or others that disagreed with the pro trans article could've just commented on that post that they disagreed and why. At least that way, the FFRF wouldn't have been endorsing any transphobia that was brought up.
They explicitly didn't endorse anything Coyne said, writing a disclaimer for his article (and no others) saying it doesn't represent the opinions of the foundation. How more clear could they be, given they don't normally even put disclaimers?
It's odd that out of the 3 people who used to work together who were seen as intelligent, critical thinkers and skeptical, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris, Matt is the only one to buy into the gender ideology which is full of flawed logic.
@@rfwren Name prominent atheists/skeptics that believe gender is a social construct and that people with XY chromosomes and testicles can be "women". Alex O'Connor? Nope, he rejects this stuff too. So who is the most impressive person you know in the entire world that best supports modern gender views? I'd love to hear their arguments.
@@rfwren They're not making an argument. It's just odd that Matt is the only one who's been fooled into this gender ideology and he's the one who claims everyone else are the dumb ones.
@@rfwren If it's okay for tra's to use flawed logic then so can I. However, I was just pointing out how strange it is especially as Matt is the only one of them who has a partner who is a trans woman.
@@Lillypad12 So he gained a greater understanding of the topic and empathy from knowing and speaking to a trans person on a regular basis. If the others would do the same, they'd probably see how harmful their opinions are. It might help you too.
Why would ACA which is an Atheist organisation have positions statements on non Atheist issues. This smacks of group thought and proffers no out for those who hold differing opinions. I may be an Atheist (and am) but I may hold to some of Jerry’s positions. Get off your high horse Matt.
If an atheist's position on god is "evidence-based," then to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, they should adopt evidence-based positions on other ideological claims as well, such as the claim that tran folk aren't real, just freaks or socioipolitical constructs. All the evidence is on the side of trans folk, no matter how uncomfortable that may make you feel. Reality notoriously doesn't care about our comfort.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki Evidence? Like the CASS review? The WPATH scandal? The WPATH files? Or how, myself, living as a trans person, how it felt like nobody actually gave us the evidence, and instead it was all just words and obfuscation and hope. I had to live on *faith* that I was trans for good reason, but I was not, even though I had a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Do they tell you that, how they don't examine etiology to the gender dysphoria? How they lie, and say trauma plays no role in a transgender identity? Do they tell you about autogynephilia, or do they try to erase an entire group of people? They act like any parallel to trans identities (transracial, people believing they are elves, et cetera) aren't related, too. Where is the evidence? It's at Genspect.
@@Roseyla The evidence for trans folk is in their existence and testimony, as well as the effectiveness of transition therapy over deconversion therapy. There are very few instances of detransitioning once transition is complete, given a competent therapy taking things at the trans person's speed. I haven't read the Cass review but from what I've seen of it, I get the impression it emphasises negative results and diminishes positive ones. I think its implementation in the UK is going to be a disaster for trans people.
What the ACA did not apologize adequately for was allowing a person who had directly taken unsavory personal actions against one of their presenters access to airtime on one of their shows. In the case mentioned, the gender issue was actually irrelevant.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki I didn't ask for evidence of existence. I can see clearly that trans people exist. I lived it myself, was part of their community. I want evidence of the claims behind gender ideology that is confusing people into transition. Don't get me wrong. I may be a detrans man now, but I loved being on HRT. I was very comfortable that way. But, I had Ray Blanchard, the researcher behind autogynephilia, and trans activists both telling people like me to transition, it is the only solution to our gender dysphoria. That's not correct. Transition did not solve the underlying mental health issues that built into gender dysphoria. I still had to learn and grow through those things, and eventually, I realized all I had done was run away from my problems, into a transition fantasy. I could be myself without HRT, and to fully accept myself, detransition seemed necessary. My story isn't uncommon. Many of the trans and detrans people I've met have CPTSD, and that is the underlying pathway to their gender dysphoria... maladaptive coping techniques, lack of resiliency, encouraged by today's society, ignored by gender affirmation. We are swept under the rug to be put on hormones, and you all think everything is okay. It's not.
It's rather sad that in an age of rising Christian nationalism/fundamentalism that people like Coyne and Dawkins are quitting the FFRF over such an overall small issue.
It's not a small issue. It's a host of issues of different importance to different people. Sports, prisons, sex-based spaces, and science denial. And being on the "trans side" on these issues doesn't necessarily even support the broader "trans side" in terms of their overall goals because some of these are nonstarters for most people (ex. trans women in female sports - most people are against this for obvious reason)
4 дні тому
@@sdwone The principles of Dawkins and Coyne are dogshit.
@@sdwone What are you talking about? There is literally call-in shows for these topics. I really don't get where you get this idea that we cannot talk about trans issues when literally this video is about trans issues.
While I agree it should be a small issue, the wrong sort of people have shown that pushing transphobia works to rile folk up. One would have though people like Dawkins, COyne and Pinker would know better than the be stampeded so easily by the Christian for right, but I guess their transphobia got the better of them. The FFRF is better off without them.
Sick of all of these personal viewpoints, that are unrelated to the atheist community. Not to mention how absurd Matt is to say FFRF should limit speach or dialogue and instead just be a propaganda space.
Any and every private organization has the right to decide what they platform. They are under no obligation to give a platform to people with opposing views. There are other venues for debate that don’t require organizations to publish opinions that go against their mission statement and stated values.
"Recently, we published a controversial blog post that did not align with the ethics of our organization. We must wholeheartedly apologize for this lapse in judgment and hope that our readers do not think that this error in any way represents our position as an organization."
When you write and publish something, it’s not on the reader to understand what you meant. It’s on you as the communicator to convey what you mean in a direct and understandable manner. You don’t get to blame your audience for “misinterpreting” your meaning.
Matt, you seem not to have understood Coyne. He was addressing the misuse and confusion regarding biological SEX, not gender or gender identity . Go back and reread the piece. Also, the fact that two very distinguished scientists, Richard Dawkins and Seven Pinker, who were also honorary members of the board also quit in protest because the FFRF was cancelling a valid and important viewpoint. A view many in the trans world remain confused about. Jerry Coyne has always made it clear that he is in support of trans rights except where it violates the rights of others. Your discussion here sound dissociated from the facts.
Well, the right-wing Christianist's loss in having the three horsemen of the transpocalpyse quit is FFRF's gain. When atheists take the side of Christofascists on a topic, they should expect some return fire. Their opinion isn't an important viewpoint, nor is it even scientific. It's pure, irrational prejudice, something every atheist should stand against.
Incorrect. Trans people largely never claim to be transsex - hence the phrase transGENDER. They don't conflate sex and gender, but Coyne does, lazily, strawmanning the other side.
"The question is whether the FFRF should be publishing this." - that should have been the question with the original "what is a woman" article, which was an incoherent collecion of gender ideology talking points and willful misunderstanding of biology that had exactly zero relevance to the key objectives of the organization. Once that was out there, denying an honorary board member (who sees keeping the organization on track as one of his duties) an opportunity to respond would have been inappropriate, and censoring and backstabbing Dr. Coyne post-hoc is shameful.
"exactly zero relevance for the key objectives of the organization" Among other things, the FFRF wants to limit/prevent religious control of the civil government. Evangelicals desire to use the power of the civil government to harm trans people. Why would the FFRF accept the related evangelical talking points simply because they're being repeated by an atheist?
"willful misunderstanding of biology" Oh the irony. This isn't about biology. And you are WILLFULLY ignoring that fact. This is about your bigotry. Full stop. I can ignore that from you and let you go off and live your life without limiting your rights. Why can't you do the same?
@@shassett79 they should accept arguments that are sound and based in science, no matter which party brings them up. If someone proposes religiously motivated political measures that restrict actual rights of trans people, by all means, the FFRF should argue against that. That doesn't require tearing down fundamental definitions, and it's not what the "What is a woman" post did.
@@richardmetzler7909 "they should accept arguments that are sound and based in science, no matter which party brings them up" The position that we should use the civil government to harm trans people is not sound or science-based.
Thanks for the explanation, Matt. Not sure why you deleted my ukulele comment, though. I was just agreeing with you, referencing a UA-camr's horrible apology.
@@virtualpaladin3507 This is sadly a reminder that just because someone is an atheist, doesn't automatically mean they are compassionate or have good political values.
Very interesting to learn about this, and the FFRF should do exactly what you suggest to make things right / make things righter. On another topic: looking very sharp with the trimmed beard, Matt!!! Much better than the ancient Santaclause look :D
I guess the Catholic church doesn't have to publish an article "Praying to Mary is really stupid". Have to agree with FFRF here. They don't have to publish articles they disagree with
why are the FFRF expressing an official opinion on Trans identity? I feel like Trans rights and freedom is an issue almost totally divorced from religion? The last thing he trans community needs is unconnected organizations' internecine bickering adding to their problems. Its utterly deranging
Also agree. FFRF should be about freedom from religion - it should not be concerned with gender, race etc. Focus on the goal of helping people get out of religious dogma.
Because a Religion has and continues to play a major role in pushing society to reject lgbtqia persons. It's insidious such that we've seen it infect rational thought discussuoons too.
The gender binary is an invention of religion, a certain group of religions, that didn’t exist in most cultures before these religious spread, mostly through the sword. The majority of people trying to push the binary invention do so because of religious beliefs, cultural or religious, and use religion as the basis for the laws they push trying to take away rights and health care. FFRF have every reason to be involved as the anti queer movement is very much based in religion.
Giving a platform to anyone who engages in negative stereotyping, dehumanizing, scapegoating, and ostracising groups who are different with the intent to harm is disgraceful. Shame on FFRF!
How about having your organization publish a point by point rebuttal from an equally peer reviewed expert/scientist to Coyne’s article? Can we at least agree that definitions (male- female, man-woman) are not generally understood or agreed upon by the average lay person? Address the reality on the ground. It would seem education, debate, and advocacy through cogently written accessible articles would be one good way to advance accuracy and the public’s understanding of this issue.
The fact that those terms aren't well understood and agreed upon by the common lay person is exactly why the common lay person shouldn't have an opinion on the subject at all. Leave it to the professionals who research and study these things and let people live how they want. It's pretty simple.
@@Anonymoose0523 The average lay people cast the most votes in a democracy, frequently get elected to state and federal legislatures, and will heavily influence public policy.
I really appreciate how Matt is one of the last well known (white male) atheist that does not turn into be a bigot over time. Thank you Matt for staying true to reason and humanism principles!
It’s ridiculous that the expectation is that all atheists must somehow be progressive liberals. Well, some of us are social and fiscal conservatives and who don’t give one shit about woke lunatics, and yet still don’t believe in gods. Amazing! Dawkins and coyne are right.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I think one thing people have trouble with is thinking that "social construct" = "fake."
Money is a social construct, but it has very, VERY tangible effects on our lives. Social constructs are incredibly real and important.
But saying it is a social construct also doesn't mean people can just take on roles and then *be* that role in name. I keep hearing "man" or "woman" are "social roles," for example, which means "function," and I guess then that which we expect of said role. But then they also say a man or a woman is anyone who identifies as such. So, if I identify as a given "role" but then don't perform the function, how does it make any sense? The reality is that the social construct was defined by sexual dimorphism, not people identifying into roles. Further, as a detrans man, I'm not any less of a man for being feminine in presentation and expression, and nor am I an "egg" or experiencing internalized transphobia, for that matter. I'm a man regardless of what I do, no roles required. That's reality.
certainly not all of them
You just proved god is real.
@@mintx1720 What? XD
@@mintx1720only in your imagination.
I think one of the most frustrating things is that folks like Dawkins and Coyne have gotten so lost in their ideological commitments that they're not even talking about biology accurately anymore. Sex characteristics aren't binary, people can have all sorts of variations in sex characteristics, and perhaps most relevantly, biology is *mutable*. I don't understand how Dawkins or Coyne can forget this, but biological systems aren't magically inscribed into the immutable soul or whatever; biology can be changed through all sorts of factors, including purposeful intervention.
If a person goes to the doctor and says "I'm a 32 year old female", that doctor's assumptions about that person's biology may be pretty far off if that person is a trans man who has had bottom surgery and been on testosterone for more than a decade. Calling that person "biologically female" seems kind of absurd because of how little information it offers. It would be a lot closer to describe that person biologically in terms closer to being intersex, if anything. The assertion that "biological sex" is a clear, coherent, binary or near-binary thing that solves the problem of transgender identity by providing a clear biological binary fact just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
By the by, this is how we've ended up with the past couple decades of the gender-of-the-gaps stuff from anti-genders. The most basic ones will argue that it's about genitals, but once that argument doesn't work then they'll move to chromosomes, and once that doesn't work they'll move to gametes, and eventually they'll move from gametes to some more arcane factoid they think they can hang their hats on. It doesn't matter if none of those things are reliable or useful in determining gender in regards to anyone, cis people included; the arguments just need to keep finding new little corners where the anti-genders think they can pin everything down to a single hopefully binary characteristics and then build everything from that slim foundation.
Dawkins and Coyne are scientists. They work with evidence. You are an ideologue. You play semantic games to pretend you know something.
Here is the evidence. Every mammal on this planet has TWO and only TWO biological parents. One we call a 'male' who contributed a small gamete (sperm), the other we call a "female" who contributed the large gamete (egg). There are NO examples of a third parent and NO examples of a third gamete.
Moreover, there is no criteria by which an egg could be judged to be 'more of an egg' or 'less of an egg', nor could any egg be considered to be more of a sperm than an egg. If it performs the function of an egg, it is an egg. If it developed as an egg but does not perform as an egg, then it is a defective egg. The same vice versa. There is no way of measuring the degree of difference between an egg and a sperm. Which is a huge problem for you because....
Spectrums are tools we use to categorize and understand phenomenon, like graphs. We use the two extremes at either end of a spectrum to measure attributes against each other and which describes their (the things being described) relative positions on the spectrum. Take the electromagnetic spectrum which uses wave length as a gradient. Ultra violet is to the left of red because it has a shorter wave length than the visible spectrum. A spectrum is a comparison. But how can there be a spectrum without the means to make the very distinctions which the spectrum exists to make!? Without a gradient, how do you know if these sex attributes even belong on your spectrum? You can't. It’s like a graph with no “X” or “Y” axis. It becomes just a thing people hang their preconceptions on.
I have described sex as a binary system by providing evidence (i.e. ever mammal on the planet including yourself). I have dismantled the alleged spectrum by pointing out your inability to measure sex attributes It is now your turn. Prove me wrong with 1) an example of offspring produced by more than TWO biological parents, 2) provide a means to measure sex attributes so they could be placed on a spectrum.
*edited for auto correct errors.
@@jasonlongton1876 Exactly what "evidence" are Dawkins, Coyne and the rest of that gaggle of geese working with when they refuse to admit trans people are who they say they are? They are taking the side of the Christofascists, and when you side with the enemy, you may as well be the enemy.
Sex characteristics are binary. Can you please cite me a sex characteristic that isn't male or female?
27:09 yeah the ACA has never recovered from losing you.
I appaud you for always sticking to your principles and being a defender for marginalized people.
Before I unsubscribed from all their channels I notice they were posting a LOT of throwback vides, usually ones that feature Matt, which was a very curious choice after they had effectively pushed him out.
I'm so sick of them reposting Matt's videos with a word "throwback"
After how they treated him.
Shows how little dignity they have.
The ACA discovered "Go Woke Go Broke", they appear to have put their personal feelings and Identity Politics before the facts of the argument. Oh well they had a good innings and I applaud all the good work they did in the past.
@@jitteryjet7525 what are you talking about? They've always put social issues with religious tie-ins at the front. They were talking about same-sex marriage before it was legalized, and they've always had people calling in to argue about reproductive rights. Matt doesn't disagree with that stance, so if they've "Gone woke, gone broke" then he's right there too.
@@Vaishino There is not much Women's Sport in the Christian Bible.
Don't ever let people confuse Dysphoria and Dysmorphia. Claiming gender dysphoria is comparable to body dysmorphia shows a distinct lack of medical knowledge. It's also disrespectful to people who struggle with either.
In fairness to my own ignorance, *what is the difference again?* Is it related to distinctions between genderfluid and trans?
The main difference between the two is this: People with gender dysphoria correctly identify what their body looks like (e.g. male) and want it to look differently (e.g. female). People with body dysmorphia incorrectly identify what their bodies look like and want to change them because they see it incorrectly. An example would be an anorexic person starving themselves almost to death and still thinking they are fat or a bodybuilder taking steroids because they feel small, even when they're absolutely massive.
Body dysmorphia is brought up as a comparison because in that case the best solution is therapy. An anorexic person will never lose enough weight to feel thin, but therapy can help them to get over this. People want to take this to mean that gender dysphoria should be treated the same way, but this simply doesn't work in practice. People with gender dysphoria can change their bodies until it mostly goes away and therapy (read conversion therapy) does not work on them.
@@MegaChickenfish
Dysphoria = Recognizing your current physical state and feeling distress over it.
Dysmorphia = Having a false perception of your current physical state and feeling distress over it. Which can lead to people trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Some people want to dismiss gender dysphoria by claiming "We don't let anorexic people starve themselves." The comparison falls apart because it assumes trans people believe they are physically the opposite sex BEFORE transitioning (which would be dysmorphia), except if that were the case, they wouldn't transition in the first place.
Instead, trans people transition to relieve the dysphoria they feel from recognizing their physical state.
@@MegaChickenfish My reply got deleted, but dysmorphia is an obsession with fixing a perceived flaw, that in reality may be small or non-existent. This can lead to unhealthy outcomes.
Dysphoria is a state of persistent low mood or unease.
That's not to say someone can't have both gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia. But to claim everyone with gender dysphoria has dysmorphia and their transition is based on an unhealthy obsession is dismissive and frankly rude.
so he states that trans-women are more likely to be incarcerated for sex related crimes. His statistic comes by looking at a population of prisoners, not non-criminal trans people, so he has nowhere near enough data to draw his conclusion. Notice he doesnt look at what trans people have been convicted for and say "wow, they are way LESS LIKELY to be incarcerated for murder" instead he chooses to focus on what they are incarcerated for.
FFRF fell for the old "teach the controversy" line? Frankly both parties ought to have known better.
Siding with creationists on other topics doesn't automatically make you wrong. It is a big ass red flag though. And acting like them, well that's all of the red flags.
"Teach the controversy"
Oh man, exactly this. I forgot about "teach the controversy" but the similarities between "intelligent design" and trans panic are obvious.
@@shassett79 Next thing you know, some FFRF board member will be demanding they publish his article on a flat earth!
@@Leszek.Rzepecki And if they did? Something tells me everyone would read it and laugh.
Well you know who doesn't teach any controversy whatsoever in their groups? Cults.
You're aware that it's the "self-identification" people who are playing the role of the creationists, trying to overthrow basic science with nitpicking and whataboutery until they can wedge in their quasi-religious worldview?
“We’re sorry you feel this way, and also we have a trans friend” is not an apology
No need to mischaracterize their statement. Two wrongs don't make a right. They didn't say, "I have a trans friend." Putting words in their mouth isn't going to get you anywhere. Maybe next time stick to criticizing the actual statement.
@@405DC It's clear that you didn't even read the blog on Freethought Now. Is it really that difficult to read the blog? Just use the Wayback Machine, it's easy.
It’s sad to see so many “skeptics” falling for anti-science and religious bullshit in their old age.
They get reactionary as their brains addle! :)
Come on, Matt is not that old...
Facts, what happened to "ma science"
They want the bigotry of christianty without the magic sky daddy
That non-applogy was such a failure in communication! Particularly the word "wrongfully" - basically saying readers who were upset about FFRF publishing that content came to their conclusions on false pretenses. Disappointing.
It's really venomous.
Instead of opening their hearts they tried to cover their behinds, and people saw through it. That's what they regret.
A business form of regret is a lie cosplaying as an apology. It was signed by a human but there's no humanity behind it.
I would love it if Forrest would do the "Hi, actual biologist here gender is not binary." And having that play several times throughout the video, while explaining the actual specifics of gender.
What is it that Jerry Coyne does for a living, do you think?
I don’t share Coyne’s opinion, but the man is a published author, biologist, and strident opponent of intelligent design.
Biologists aren't experts in gender, as Matt touches on in this video. Forrest, as a biologist, probably has some background in gender studies and sociology, but it would make more sense for him to discuss whether sex is a binary, which he has.
No one has ever, at any point, been able to explain to me how "gender" as currently used is not a synonym for "personality type." And if that means there are "multiple genders" because there are "multiple personality types," then uh, sure? But I don't see how that is an important distinction. You can have feminine traits as a man and masculine traits as a woman. That doesn't mean I should view you AS a man or woman.
A biologist can be wrong about specific aspects of biology. Forrest can speak of this issue from a purely biological point of view and make an empirical case for nonbinary sex @Burtimus02
@@Burtimus02 Do you think all biologists are experts in all fields of biology???
In the first paragraph, Coyne entirely mischaracterizes the issue and misses the entire point.
Thank you for this ♥️
tysm for everything you've done for us, matt! I've been watching you since I was 14 and I'm turning 25 this year. I'm the only non-religious person in my family, so it can feel a bit lonely at times. But thanks to you and others' efforts, we've managed to build a great community. we have a long ways to go, but I'm thankful that there are people like you in this world to help the cause.
Kinda seems like they chose to sacrifice an entire group of people to appease a larger audience they think they might need support from tbh… how disappointing, human rights should extend to EVERYONE. Dark times we’re living in when secular rights orgs start making these kinds of decisions 🥺
@@sarahchristine2345 It's sad when people think they need to appease MAGA conservatives to garner an audience. Human rights are not up for debate.
That's exactly what's going on here. That's why Democrats are seriously having conversations about focusing less on LGBTQ+ issues, why news channels CNN is now inviting right-winger guests to joke about Biden & Harris at events. The very fact that FFRF went down the "nobody's perfect" route and not directly apologize tells me they're actually not sorry and intentionally did that to appeal to the socially conservative tone the nation is preparing to take-on. The name of the game for Left ideology-aligning entities for these next 4 years are going to be "Look! See? We're not a woke echo chamber! Come do business with us!"
Many countries are realising that sacrificing an entire group (children) to the ideology of a group of sexual fetishists (middle aged "trans" men) isn't such a good idea.
Oh please, cut the drama. "Sacrificing an entire group of people" by doing what, exactly? Poining out that you can't simply become something you aren't by muddying up the definitions until they become completly untethered from reality? Where in the declaration of human rights does it say "everyone has the right to be anything they want"? 'Cause I couldn't find that in there.
@@richardmetzler7909 It seems like you didn't read my previous response to you explaining this very same thing.
Biology is not the same as gender, as long as you keep denying it, you won't understand this very simple issue.
FFRF is one of the organizations I have a bequest for in my will. Hopefully they will right the ship on this issue and I won't have to update that.
if you do, add me into your will. I'll put it into good use :)
Pinker, too. How disappointing.
That was a new disappointment for me too.
All the great thinkers
FFRF: Supportive of the LGB but not the T apparently, and who the hell knows what their actual stance is on the QIA+
You aren't the only one THAT question has occurred to!
Maybe because they have bigger fish to fry like getting religion out of our public school system they don't wanna get side tracked with this stuff. They have enough on their plate now given that most of the country had turned red.
Too many letters! LGBT rolls off the tongue, LGBTQIA+ is a train wreck. I'm all for inclusivity but wasn't the addition of the Q already supposed to include anyone not captured by the LGBT? Isn't the + just redundant? Idk i think it needs to be tightened up
@@Arminius420 most of the country, no, a majority of those that came out to vote, yes, but only by a couple million, and thats with MANY blue voters not showing up to fight against the red.
@@Arminius420Trans rights are the current battleground of LGBTQ rights, especially now Trump has been elected.
30:00 Bringing up biology is like flat earthers bringing up water sticking to the bottom of a ball. They have to know they're not addressing the actual position they're opposing
I feel like this non-apology was the sort of thing lawyers reflexively construct after mistakes in court because there is nothing worse in a courtroom for a lawyer than apologizing and assuring everyone that they’re aware that they just fucked up and are sorry about it. However, this statement wasn’t made in court. Its audience was regular people who needed and deserved that type of acknowledgement and apology.
I still think the FFRF is overall good. But I wish they’d install some people who understand how to be better with public relations.
Someone needs to tell Jerry Coyne (and Richard Dawkins) that bigotry is not biology.
@@Grim_BeardBiology or science is not the avenue IMO to defend trans people. Gender identity (unlike sexual identity) is not inherently a science or biology topic even though gender can be discussed in relationship to biology and science. It’s under the subjective humanities and personal taste umbrella first and foremost.
And that important distinction is why there is so much opposition to transgender rights and acceptance by certain progressive atheists like Dawkins who are progressive in nearly every other way. They fixate on science and biology so much that they can’t help but discuss gender and sex like they’re the same thing, and object to the humanities lane for how gender can be discussed while arguing that it should be an exclusively a science topic even though sex and anatomy identity already exists for that lane of communication.
@@Grim_Beard Cite an instance where Coyne and Dawkins were being bigots.
LMAO
Neither gentleman is bigoted. Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder.
Thanks Matt! As a trans man, this means a lot!
Exactly, you're here to have your feelings validated, not to actually know what's up.
I mean, Coyne isn't really reading the way you present it at 5:45. He actually mentions the difference between sex and gender and talks about how gender isn't just biology, he agrees with you.
The specific point in contention is that Grant uses 'woman' to refer to gender, whereas Coyne uses 'woman' to refer to sex. That is the underlying confusion Coyne has about Grant's position, and explains why the article even exists and why it focuses so much on sex.
I agree. I just got done with the article in question. I hardly see any reason for an apology. The only reason I see to apologize for, is having a biologist talk about biology in the conversation of transgender on a website about secular activism against religious over reach. However, his final paragraphs specifically state his intention of writing the post. which is because this topic is being brought to the organization and its website, and doesn't think should have anything to do at all with FFRF.
What he was talking about was biologically correct, and made arguments against some gender/transgender debate topics on the basis of biology.
That's a weak-ass copout.
Even if we go strictly by biology, there are more than two genders, and he knows that. He is being disingenuous in order to push a right-wing view that is not based in fact.
Good observation
Yes, I noticed this as well. But Coyne isn't free from error; by bringing up rates of sexual crimes and the bizarrely misinformed 900 medal "study" he shows he isn't informed on this topic despite chiming in confidently.
That's basically the point, yes. Thing is, no one has managed to come up with a coherent definition of "woman" that is based on gender, whereas the definition based on sex is clear, informative, useful and in line with what how people have used the word for ages.
It's such a shame to see Jerry Coyne go the Richard Dawkins route. Why can't they do any basic research about the trans issue?
Richard Dawkins simply states the truth - Men are men and women are women. You cannot change your chromosomes.
@@sdwone Being transgender has nothing to do with biology, but with how you present yourself in society. People should know this by now.
@@sdwone you have no idea what you're talking about
The FFRF has expressed regret for a publishing the blog, and Matt Dillahunty has stated that an apology is necessary. However, an apology inherently presupposes the existence of free will-the idea that a different decision could have been made than the one actually made. If free will does not exist, as determinism suggests, then apologizing becomes conceptually problematic. Under deterministic principles, the most appropriate response would be: "Given what we know now, we would not have made this decision or statement. Therefore, we have taken down the post and regret the action." This approach aligns with determinism while still acknowledging and addressing the issue.
Matt, wow, as articulate as some at FFRF are, I would expect a real apology for such a blunder. But, I would also have expected the blunder never to never have happened. I do feel saddened by these biologists who seem unable, even unwilling, to learn. Dr. Dawkins,(and he did have a stroke, I'd like to hope that has somehow affected his apparent cognitive decline) used to tell of a professor from his past, who refused to accept some new info a student pointed out in one of his classes. He got angry and 'doubleddown' on the outdated view . So it's sad to see Dr. Dawkins due the same thing he warned against. In more than trans issues! I don't know of Dr. Coynes' views before this, I find it hard to imagine any biologist as a bigot. I've always equated bigotry with ignorance. Guess I'm wrong. Maybe age has something to do with it, though again, I don't know his age. 👍🏼💙💖💙💝💙🥰✌
Commenting for the algorithm. I didn't want to miss any of Matt's stuff.
Glazer
You realize you can subscribe to the channel for free, no?
@@bummblebeezy UA-cam would rather recommend me alt-right and flat earth content instead of stuff from my subscriptions. Commenting tells the algorithm, "no, this."
@ProtovoxMedia I'm not talking about recommendations. If the concern was missing a video from a creator, one can easily subscribe so that new videos appear in the subscribed list. You don't need an algorithm for that.
@@ProtovoxMedia I've been here too. You need to change your link; go to feed/subscriptions instead of the base website and it will ONLY show your subscriptions in the order they were published. It's LIFEchanging.
A different question is why they have board members of any type that are opposed to stated positions.
bc boards are not and more should they be of unanimous opinion.
That Dawkins and co resigned is a huge plus of this.
It's about time we start cleaning house. We don't need people who are wishy-washy about human rights in atheist spaces.
Even they knew the twinklies and their lovers have jumped the shark
Thank you Matt. I have so much respect for you.
it sounds to me like the FFRF simply didn't want to cause Coyne to have a strop, given his status as a prominent scientist lends a degree of authority to the organisation. So they published his piece and tried to distance themselves from it without making it too obvious.
Only people noticed, they grew a pair, took down the article and now Coyne is in a tizzy because his blatant piece of emotive propaganda has been rejected.
The telling thing is that Coyne - and by extension Dawkins and Pinker - actually think the article was a valid piece of criticism. This apprehension alone should preclude their involvement in any further discourse, because if that's what they call rational and reasoned critique, they clearly don't understand what that means.
@@bengreen171 I believe that Dawkins age/experience has caused him to become a bit lazy in researching new things. Or arrogance.
@@Andrea.1tree
I think you're right. It's a case of - "what do these kids know, I've been there done that and forgotten more than you kids know"
@@Andrea.1tree To be fair, Dawkins was never the most well-reasoned of atheistic voices, even when arguing against religion. A lot of his popularity stemmed exclusively from his bold, inflammatory rhetoric more than any logical, rational arguments he was making. It's why, even though I agree with his conclusions on religion's validity, I stopped caring what he had to say. A lot of his arguments were basically just "They're delusional, stupid, and ignorant," which doesn't get to the meat of WHY they might be.
@@bengreen171 Well, I must admit, I'd simply thought that Dawkins was just getting senile in his dotage, and I hadn't at the time realised that Coyne and Pinker had taken sail on the same boat as the far right Christianists. Pinker in particular seems to have a rightist streak to him. The lesson they oght to learn is that when they side with religious bigots, it may be time to review their opinions on trans issues, rather than settling down for a comfy snooze with their new comrades.
I am quite the atheist and I believe in rationality. I reject gender ideology as anything but rational. All Coyne was doing was stating scientific fact that sex, biological sex and gender/gender expression are two different things. Trans-identified people are *not* the biological sex they affect to be. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to exist, they should have no rights, they deserve no respect, they should be rejected by decent society, etc, etc. But the biological fact remains, and it creates issues in certain areas. Trans identified people are not monolith, either, any more than any minority is, and people identify as trans at different times of their lives and for very different reasons. Some of these choices do come out of a rational evaluation, others not at all, sometimes pathological. And these are not choices easily made by children, either. As far as siding with the hard religionists on this, I assure you, they come at it from an entirely different angle. In fact there's significant support in the fundamentalist Christian community for transing kids who are gender-non-conforming as soon as possible, because altho it's very likely the great majority of such kids are going to resolve these conflicts after puberty, they are also likely to be gay or lesbian...and that cannot be abided. They'd much rather have a trans daughter than a gay son (abomination!).
By the way, I take exception to the line "preclude involvement in any further discourse". In other words, certain people should be silenced. I admit I sometimes feel this way, but it's an emotional reaction and I control it. It's not in the spirit of free inquiry, now is it?
I encourage everyone else to contact the FFRF and let them know they messed up. I did.
Anyone who has read any of Coyne’s posts on social media would have known his views. He’s not shy about being pugnacious with his opinions.
FFRF's apology needed more ukulele
It INFURIATES ME when people resort to "well according to Biology" when they have NEVER taken endocrinology courses, have never taken Molecular Genetics, and have NO background whatsoever in Molecular Biology or courses about Gene Expression of any kind.
There is a spectrum on what is male and female and their ARE anomalies, and outliers. There isn't a strict definition that can be applied. "Oh but the Y chromosome!" Well that doesn't work if the persons cells are unreceptive to testosterone. Oh but the presence of this or of that....sometimes the gene expression doesn't work. How much of a thing does it take to make a person a MALE and by what quantitative degree? Low T? Still male? What about inactive testes? What about a person with a penis that has internal ovaries? Yes, there are anomalies. And what about the brain itself? That requires a certain sensitivity to testosterone in the brain, also. What about human development and all of the Nature vs Nurture factors?
People LOVE simple answers if it is going to make them "right" but they don't love to do actual homework on anything. They love to reduce everything to a middle school science level on everything (if they can even manage that level of scientific literacy to begin with).
Humans seem to have a bias for simple answers to complex issues.
Some people see complex, open ended topics without definitive conclusions and they want to wrap it all up into a box, make it simple and put the box away.
And "putting the box away" makes them feel good; it feels good to "resolve" these complex issues easily.
And the sexual and gender binaries are some people's simple answers to complex issues.
Engaging with the literature on these subjects would require them to unwrap the already _perfectly tidy_ box, open it up, pull all of the pieces out and create a mess they feel like they already cleaned up.
Why dump this box out when I already wrapped it all up and put it away??
Well, according to biology...
Since Jerry Coyne is a biologist I don't think that applies here
He has a PHD in Biology from Harvard and is a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. You really think he doesn't know anything about genes or molecular biology? He could run circles around you lmao. You can disagree with him for sure, but pretending he isn't educated in biology is just ridiculous.
I'm not confident that proves a spectrum. Sure, people can have varied degrees of feminine and masculine qualities, but I can't help but see sex rather like a coin flip: male, female, and edge cases. Those edge cases are people with differences in sexual development, or DSDs, which as far as I'm aware as usually specific conditions with names. But, you shouldn't need sex to be a spectrum to say, "Hey, I feel an incongruence with my body, and this is really hard, can I get some help?" Further, nature vs nurture very well should be considered but the problem is the model is to NOT consider that. They affirm identity without question. People can self-ID and get hormones without diagnosis of gender dysphoria. However, when you consider nature vs nurture, we see that some percentage of these people are being confused by this ideology and just needed therapy. I know, I was one of those people, as a now detrans man, and in the detrans community we all have similar stories. Yeah, people LOVE simple answers, which is what this gender ideology offers - throw out the nuance and we're not allowed to ask questions, that's transphobic. It's harmful.
While they've had some brilliant stuff back in the day, Coyne, Pinker, and Dawkins have all pretty much lost it now. I don't pay much attention to any of them.
heckin jerry coyne. hadnt thought about him in years. its always a pain to learn someone you liked in the past ends up being a dirtbag.
I used to follow him too. Long time ago. After a while though, I started seeing arguments that seemed completely flawed, and things that did not match up with the scientific method, so I stopped following him. I knew that Sam Harris also speaks out against trans, but I didn't know that about Steven Pinker until this video. So sad they can't hear what's being said - or recognize the harm their stance can do. Because have any of them said "I support LGBTQ+ rights"?
I'm surprised FFRF published it in the first place, since, now that I've read his column, he seems to argue the biology, rather than the politics, and that's not really FFRF's thing. However, when religious views are used to advance anti-trans legislation, that, IMO, falls very much within their purview.
Right on Matt. Excellent analysis as always. Can't wait for the next video.
"The viewpoints expressed within the post do not necessarily reflect the view of this organization."
Maybe not. BUT may so. Not a denial.
Can someone who is supportive of Coyne’s position explain to me how his view that we have no free will squares with his apparent trans is choice comments (because biology is binary)? I will add that he was aghast on his blog that Robert Sapolsky doesn’t agree with him ( and of course is now woke…but he had no choice?😂)
Anyone see Sean Carrolls workshop to advance Secular Humanism? All Coyne wanted to talk about was there is no free will. He seems to be unable to tolerate others view points like Dennetts who was also at the workshop.
He doesn't see gender as a choice....that seems pretty compatible.
"Trans is a choice" does not follow from "biology is binary". It's obviously possible to have a body that conforms perfectly to one of the two sexes and yet believe that you should be of the other sex.
In fact, the phenomenon of transgender contradicts some interpretations of free will. Who would choose to undergo the confusion and embarrasment, the interpersonal problems, the medical issues associated with transitioning if they could just decide to not be trans?
(That said, I don't agree with Dr. Coyne's take on free will. But much like gender, free will is an ill-defined concept, and it's easy to get lost in confusion.)
You make so much sense Matt I’m a huge fan because you’re humble realistic and full of good information. Hope you have a great new year.
Did he say pobodies nerfect?😂
That needs to be the next shirt 😂
@@sh4577 2025 Mug design 😂
😂😂 that appeals to my basic sense of humor
Good on FFRF for admitting they should not have allowed Dr. Coyne's article in the first place. And good on Dr. Coyne, Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Pinker for resigning from the board of FFRF.
Not an excuse, just an observation, but these older atheists seem to reflect the “values” of the generation they were born into. They have trouble adapting to new paradigms or civil rights.
The problem is that certain people feel they've done all the learning. Thats why they stop furthering their knowledge, then stagnate.
@@htpkey Yeah? This is what it looks like to me, a person who lived trans for 3.5 years. It looks like the trans community has stopped learning.
You have numpties in all age groups.
what's the "new paradigm of civil rights"?
Speaking as an atheist about as old these horsemen of the transpocalypse, and also with a background in biology, I had no problem accepting trans folk as exactly who they say they are. I'm gay myself, so am used to the notion of being gender-queer. Perhaps the fact that they are heterosexual males makes them fear trans women, in case what they find when they take someone to bed isn't what they expect. Foolish of them, but you have to wonder.
"They're still posting my old content so they can pay their employees" that's a bar Mr.Dillahunty (27:05)
A bar?
@SansDeity like a rap bar. It 'goes hard' it sounds 'bad ass'
@@SansDeityWhat are ur thoughts on Che Guevara and was Noam Chomskys opinion on him correct!
Thanks Matt. You rock.
This is so hypocritical.
I think Matt should apologize and take down every video he's posted that contains insensitive, harmful, or hateful religious/bigoted views that disagree with his position. Not only does he platform them, he prioritizes them FFS! Whether or not there is a discussion involved is a red herring. He and others will have the opportunity to respond and they have. Whether it's published or posted on UA-cam, it's still providing a platform to spread hate and misinformation. Hell Matt even gives those that do just that.. a "skip to the front of the line pass." Rules for thee not for me.
Did you listen to the whole thing? He addresses this directly. He INVITES opposing views. His forum is designed for debate. FFRF's is not about that. So your "argument" here makes absolutely no sense.
At the beginning of their statement, FFRF says advocating for LGBTQIA plus rights is an indirect component of the mission. At the end, they say it is inextricably linked to their mission. Which is it?
They also say they support it in principles AND in action. What actions? Publishing transphobic low-hanging fruits? How is that action in service to the org's mission? How is that action in service of marginalized groups?
FFRF has a lot to tackle with Trump in office and you guys are just trying to police this company on their stances like a god dam witch hunt. Let them do their thing for hell sakes.
@@Nathouuuutheone I don't think you understand what "phobic" means. Do you also go around calling anyone who critizes Islam and "Islamophobe"?
Two different and (imho) equally innocuous comments that I bothered to write seem to have disappeared, and I know this because I keep getting notified about new comments in those threads and yet my own isn't there. Literally, one of them was just me saying that I thought the standard disclaimer was adequate. Is deleting whatever you don't agree with the standard now? Shame on you if so.
It's YT, and yes it is censorship.
if you're not aware, you'll find them in 'newest'
The YT algorithm doesn't always show your original post when you reply to an email notification - sometimes it's there, sometimes it isn't, and to be sure, you need to list the entire thread by Newest Posts and scroll down to the one you're trying to reply to. It's not censorship - though they do moderate content and remove posts they find offensive - it's just a glitchy algorithm.
@@haydenwalton2766 That's really helpful, thanks. Glad now that I didn't convict based on flawed evidence, and left it with an "if so" ... otherwise I'd be the one who "ought to apologize" :)
@@Leszek.Rzepecki "removing posts they (YT) find offensive" is censorship by any definition I've ever seen
For a few years now youtube has made searching and seeing all comments in a LINKED reply thread challenging or impossible without needlessly going to the video directly and skimming through every comment. It's very obnoxious
Jerry's post didn't even provide a refutation of the other article, just grand standing self-contradicting drivel. He leads with saying that sex is binary, gender doesn't matter, but then details that it's actually a weighted bimodal spectrum. And says that there are conditions that lead to people being outside his ideal binary, but offers no accessibility solutions to those people. So to Coyne, Dawkins, and Pinker all believe that if people are in a small enough minority then they don't deserve solutions that challenge the status quo that makes them comfortable. And they all refuse to debate actual experts, so pitiful.
"So to Coyne, Dawkins, and Pinker all believe that if people are in a small enough minority then they don't deserve solutions that challenge the status quo that makes them comfortable."
Good old straw man.
@@vejeke No it isn't. That is the meaning of recognizing those groups then saying they shouldn't get solutions that they don't like and then not offering alternative. Learn what a strawman is.
Yes, sex is binary. That's true.
@@cooscoe Sure, and that's not denial and projection either. 👍🏻
@@vejeke Sorry that it's so difficult for you to understand these concepts.
We always say that "Atheism isn't an ideology, and we disagree about a great many things". Let's not be hypocrites about that. Atheists are allowed to not support trans people. I wish they would... but they don't have to; they can still be an atheist.
Thank you for sticking to your values Matt, or rather, sticking up for people whom everyone feels are easy to abandon.
The values of skepticism, rationality, and scientific inquiry seem perfectly in line with the FFRF values. The Gender/Sex definition debate is complicated. That the FFRF would allow two somewhat dissenting opinions on their blog does not undermine those values, but rather aligns with them.
I've read Coyne's op-ed and read counter op-eds and while Coyne's gamete definition of biological sex seems reductive, I don't think it crosses over into an attempt to marginalize or wound the trans community. Obviously, others see it differently (like Matt in this piece) which is fine. But let's not pretend that this is a simple subject with simple social solutions as it is, at heart, a conflict about access and protection between two people groups who are both at risk in our patriarchy - cis women and trans folk.
@@tobinod4299there is no "conflict" if you're a decent human being. Trans people and women are groups that overlap and have many shared struggles, as you appear to be aware of to some degree. Kind, open-minded women, trans people and people in general can see this. They don't uncritically buy strawm3n and pr0paganda due to uninformed kneejerk reactions, nor do they feel the need to "debate" other human beings partaking in society in basic ways.
It's complex and varies by individual, but that's for intra-community discussions. Cis folks, let us live. We're humans, not a debate.
If people wanna debate how to get vocabulary up to speed, that's fine. But that can be done decently and it never seems to be.
Thank you for spelling out a couple of the problems with Coyne’s article, Matt. My wife is a huge fan of his, and I’ve had difficulty expressing why his views are problematic.
can you explain to me now why his views are problematic? Without rewatching the video
@muchanadziko6378 why?
My ex was like that too. He'd regurgitate queerphobic arguments and deny their consequences, get mad at me for saying it's queerphobic and stuff. It was so rough. I'm glad I ran away.
@@muchanadziko6378 it misrepresents trans people, it dramatizes and demonizes people who are either innocent or whose crime has not been stated, and it does so in an attempt to make the space less inclusive of trans people.
@@Nathouuuutheone ok?
So again, what’s wrong with what I said?
You said I’m evil. I want you to say what exactly out of the things I said was evil.
Go on
I have high respect for you Matt. I see trolls here in the comments, something I'm sure you've dealt with all too much. Thanks for being such and inspiration and not allowing them, or others, to shake you of your better judgements.
So anyone that happens to disagree with Matt is a troll? That's the problem.
@sdwone it's sometimes even worse than speaking with a theist. At least most theists are willing to talk. They more like theists from 400 years ago, where if you say anything or have a question, you're the worst person in the world and need to be expelled from any future discourse
@@w8m4n Nope, not what I said. Nice try though. I was talking about 2 specific people.
What ? - if you disagree you are a troll - hmmmm welcome to communist Russia
Maybe I missed it, but I've been waiting for Matt to address Richard Dawkins and his awful stance on trans issues. Dawkins's behavior on this issue has been shocking.
Matt makes the same mistake he accuses Coyne of making when he slyly suggests at 12:55 that Coyne's post somehow disagrees with basic human rights.
The fact is the original article Coyne criticizes relies on the same type of nonsensical metaphysical claim the the FFRF is supposed to be against when it proposes that a woman is whichever person makes the claim that they are one. This is hardly any different than the claim that "God exists because I feel that he does".
It is a travesty that the FFRF even published that first nonsensical post in the first place. They may as well kowtow to religion now.
"This is hardly any different than the claim that "God exists because I feel that he does"."
YES. This is a major reason why I am suspicious of trans-ness despite being an atheist. If there were evidence of this, and you could prove that evidence did not have a biased agenda (for example, Boghossian's grievance studies), I would change my mind. So much of this is "it's that way because I say it is." I thought atheists fought this type of thinking?
@@blossom357 That's how I see it, too. Richard Dawkins likened it to the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, i.e. the belief that the wafer and the wine literally become the body and blood of Christ because you believe that they do. And that seems an apt analogy to me. It's religious thought, 100%. Belief over reality.
You're misquoting her article to build a strawman. Just like Coyne.
You're commiting yhe same fallacy mentioned at the beginning of the video. Just because a line of logic fails at one task doesn't mean it fails at all tasks, and just because some things are not self-identifiable doesn't mean nothing is self-identifiable.
Having a word for people who have an affinity, a community, a shared label and self-expression... that's a completely normal thing. We do it all the time (and conflate it with biology all the time too, just look at ethnicty and racism, or even just direct familial feuds and stuff, found family vs blood relations, cultural identity versus genetic lineage and so on and so forth). Why is gender the topic where you choose to impose an arbitrary standard and deny people's ability to question and explore??? Do you act like that towards other biological indicators? Do you go around justifying misinformation about racial disparity just because there's an obvious biological elephant in the room? Or do you only do that for gender?
Also I want to make very explicit that it's completely nonsensical of you to compare womanhood to claims about the divine. "I feel like [insert material claim about objective reality]" is not even remotely similar to "I indentify as [a member of a group]".
Some labels are explicitly about our subjective experience. Either you want to erase subjectivity completely or you're just bigoted against queer folks. Or you're indoctrinated into defending a traditional application of language. Pro tip: blind faith traditionalism is the other side's mode of operation, if you're an atheist you should know better.
Matt, I'm hoping you could clarify an argument you made in your video. At 6:40 you state "there are things which your perception of yourself and your identification of yourself is not only a valid criteria, but it is the most important criteria", but instead of giving an independent example, you go into a discussion using Coyne's analogy of fat versus gender. This is a problem because that works for both sides. If you don't agree with Coyne, then you can say your self-identification of "fat" can be disputed by observing BDI, body fat, etc.; while your self-identification of gender can't. If you agree with Coyne, then you can say your self-identification of fat can be disputed by observing BDI, body fat, etc.; while your self-identification of gender can be disputed by observing your hormone levels, genitalia, etc. Could you provide a different example, not related to gender, of where your perception of yourself is the most important criteria? Thanks.
The argument is that trans people aren't claiming to be the opposite sex; their claim is only in self-identification, which is the "only valid criteria".
Additionally, psychology calls body dysphoria a delusion and treat it as such, but gender dysphoria is not a mental illness and responds best to affirmation.
@@ronhoward121 Lots of trans people are in fact calling themselves (and others) a different sex than what they are. This conflation happens constantly.
Off the top of my head I would argue that fandom might be a servicable analogy? The most important criteria of being a fan of something is self-identifying as a fan: that doesn't mean that there aren't other possible criteria(such as sincereness, wishing to engage with the thing in question, etc), but generally speaking the way that we figure out who is a fan of what is that they tell us. Furthermore, attempts to create an exhaustive test for "real" fandom present a lot of the same kinds of problems as the attempts to create a thoroughly clear gender binary based on AGAB, in the sense that the more rigid you try to get the more obviously people will be excluded who everyone agrees should belong. To be overly twee about it: a Batman fan is who they say they are
Also, separately I would argue that Coyne's notion of testing for gender is clearly post hoc, unless he wants to produce the extensive testing results that prove his maleness by his own criteria before we get to use he/him to describe him. There's a kind of absurdity in the exercise he's doing to try to invent a radical new concept of gender that not only makes no sense whatsoever, but would presumably leave the overwhelming majority of humanity both present and historical functionally without gender since we don't do these kinds of tests all the time and didn't know about many of the biological characteristics he would refer to until recently. It's a really strange idea that we should all accept this very technocratic, oddly unhelpful, radically divergent idea of gender that he's suggesting.
How is using "Human" as an adjetive and "Female" as the noun in the phrase "Adult Human Female" dehumanizing? I mean, we are litterally using the adjetive Human.
In your way, FEMALE is treated as the noun being described instead of HUMAN being the noun.
Someone didn't pay attention in their grammar and syntax lessons at school...
@joewalsh4713 I am not an expert with grammar, I may be wrong. My brain can get stuck. I'm trying to think of examples in English where a noun has its adjective after it.
I can't. I can think of verbs having an adjective after. Please help me.
English, unlike Latin, depends on word order to convey meaning.
@@joewalsh4713 and? human is still an adjective. Nothing dehumanizing about that.
Perhaps someone can help me. Im historically a massive fan of both Dawkins and Coyne. Unashamedly. They were the reason I studied evolutionary biology at uni and i still like them both today.
I also love Matt here, who has also been a big influence on me.
On the trans issue i see this divide between people i respect and im a bit lost in the debate.
As i mentioned, i studied biology and in my senior year focused on the evolution of sex.
It seems to me Coyne and Dawkins are correct and im worried that Matts position revolves around societal roles of individuals to determine gender, which is seen as wholly separate from sex. This strikes me as classic sexism? Now I assume i have this position wrong as matt is clearly pushing back against sexism. So, long story short is anyone willing to point out what i have missed? Ive done a fair bit of research on this and feel able to discuss at a reasonably high level. But im genuinely struggling to understand the positions here and who is actually being bigoted.
Thanks in advance for anyone taking me seriously
There are only two relevant issues: (1) Trans people are real, and are helped by therapy that helps them transition, including hormone replacement therapy and sometimes, surgery as well, to bring bodies into line with minds. And (2) should they be treated socially according to their identity, or our prejudice? Denial that trans people are real is a total waste of time, and if you don't accept equal rights for all, what would you do with trans folk?
@@Leszek.Rzepecki 1 has a number of major errors. In the same way I can accept people with anorexia think they are fat, I can accept that people think they are trans, but for the same reason I don't support the anorexic person to lose more weight nor do I support the trans notion.
@@mcbean1 If the best you can do is compare being a woman to a mentally and physically debilitating condition like anorexia, you've not only lost the argument, you never even understood what it's about.
I don't know that I'd call it sexist in general, but Matt's camp seems to put gender on a higher pedestal than sex in terms of rights and conflicts between those rights, since that's where all of his debate is happening in the first place.
Well, almost all of it. Some of it also relates to "gender affirming care" where children are being framed as better understanding what can/should happen to their bodies in adolescence, even irreversible changes and yes, even at very young ages.
As a biologist, you'll know that 'sex' is not a single factor with two mutually-exclusive possibilities. 'Sex' is multifactorial, and most of those factors are non-binary (e.g. sex chromosomes, gene expression, endogenous hormone levels, primary sexual characteristics, secondary sexual characteristics, and even sex-related characteristics).
What Coyne and Dawkins want to do is ignore all that and pretend that sex is a simple binary. There is no scientific, biological justification for doing so. Their motivation is to de-legitimise transgender people (focused on trans women).
Great stuff Matt. Thank you for what you do.
The echoes of the Atheist Community of Austin continue to reverberate...
Thank you for all the work you do to protect ppl from followers of Abraham. ❤
I always considered the "Freedom From Religion" concept as something which allows intellectual pluralism. Maybe they had a similar understanding of it...
appreciate the video Matt!
it’s so frustrating to see people who would otherwise support free-thought and free life-choice in all things suddenly act in total opposition to those principles on what seems like always this one issue in particular.
It's just elderly scientists getting reactionary in their dotage, as many old men do. They've no scientific basis for their whinging, they just don't get it, and imagine that's reason enough to deny it.
@@sdwone What you don't seem to get is that the hysteria and propaganda is all on the side of the transphobes, fueled by the Christianist far right, and now the three horsemen of the transpocalypse, who used to criticise religious ideology, have become so eaily gulled by it they agree. All the scientific evidence is on the side of trans folk, but the horsemen can only say "Neiggghhh!" and stand with their new Christofascist friends.
What I'd recommend to you is you actually talk to some and learn about them from themselves, rather than their prejudiced detractors. They stand where gay folk used to stand, and if the religious far right and their atheist comrades-in-arms have their way, the rights of gay folk will end up being abrogated as well. But I suppose that would just be hysteria on our part.
Instead of asking to be platformed, he could've just used a trackback to link his rebuttal to the original article. This is why that online functionality exists.
I wish FFRF would just stick to religious issues and stay away from other social spheres. Let other organizations deal with those issues.
But they’re bullied into making “position statements” on these issues just because it’s vogue.
@@5enecan Translation: I want to act like a troglodyte and get away without criticism, so to hell with those decent woke people.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that the financial impact aspect of the backlash from this misstep is going to be far beyond their worst imaginings...
There is a portion of biology that directly studies this stuff. The things Coyne, Dawkins, and Pinker are saying disagree with what I've heard from the scientists that study this stuff.
If Coyne and Dawkins think that the biologists, neuroscientists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. that study this stuff are getting this wrong, then they need to conduct research and publish it to set them straight. They of all people should know how the scientific method works, and making arguments in blog posts is not the right way.
I don't think all the people studying sex and gender disagree with Coyne. Many understand and approve of his position. What you have heard from others, I suspect, consists of those within an ideological movement which does not maintain strict scientific methods.
I completely agree with you. The attitudes of the Coyne, Pinker and Dawkins anti-trans cabal are not only ethically repugnant, they aren't based on science, but pure prejudice. These "gentlemen" are unable to comprehend what it feels like to have the brain of one sex in the body of another, so assume that their normative personal expierience must trump the evidence of trans folk telling their life stories, and some tragically committing suicide as a result of the opinions of the anti-trans cabal. I used to have respect for these folk, but their attitude tworads trans folk makes me doubt their commitment to the rest of the LGBTQ+ alliance.
There is absolutely no science supporting gender ideology. Biology is real, gender is a made up thing that no-one can even define.
@SuperRickflick has it right. You need to source your comments. I have read so called scientific defenses of gender ideology by those practitioners inside the ideology (they seem to be the only ones doing it), and frankly, I could not find one scintilla of actual science in them. It's all hypothesis and personal anecdotes and subjective experience.
@@tofu_golem there is absolutely no science behind gender ideology - it's just another cult
Who tf are they even throwing shade at? afaik they are kind of the biggest game in town so anyone they might be tossing their thinly veiled attack at would have to be a smaller organization. That's so messed up.
I disagree with you here Matt. Yes, FFRF didn't have to publish a rebuttal. However, it is also totally within their prerogative to publish a rebuttal if they would like. There seems to be a culture of wanting to silence differing opinions. I would even go as far as saying that FFRF weren't even under an obligation to say that they disagree with the article. You, or anyone else have no right to tell other people what they can and cannot publish on their platform any more than they have of telling you what you can publish on yours.
I also find it a bit hypocritical that you are claiming that Jerry Coyne is pretending to not understand. I've seen countless clips of you rightly getting upset when theists have said that you were lying about your beliefs. However, you seem to be doing the exact same thing here.
The FFRF cannot pretend to be on the side of LGB rights, while excluding the T, and claim to be for equal rights for all.. They may have a right to publish whatever drivel they please, but they don't have a right to be free from criticism when they publish malicious and uneducated opinions by a transphobe.
Why a 30-sentence diatribe about them ‘having the right’ to publish what they want? Nobody was even talking about that.
Secondly, how many times do we have to go over this? Refusing to publish somebody is NOT silencing them.
Matt already said Coyne has a blog and is a published author. There’s also social media.
You already said it’s their prerogative whether to publish. How can you also say it’s “silencing” to refuse to publish?
Your comment ignores every point Matt made. It’s in bad faith. And it’s logically inconsistent.
@@charliekowittmusicI didn't say that Coyne was being silenced. I said that it seems like people want to silence certain views. You're right. He has is own blog that he can put articles on. I'm not saying that FFRF are in the wrong for removing the article. I'm saying that they have nothing to apologize for. It seems like people are trying to bully people like FFRF for posting things that they disagree with.
@@Azmarith That's all it is: you're not allowed to disagree lest you be reprimanded for it.
Very well said. Frankly, they should’ve never taken the article down, having decided to put it up in the first place. People would’ve then been free to respond to it and disagree, and then FFRF could’ve posted the most popular response to it, from a Forrest Valkai or someone like that. It’s ridiculous how much “controversy” is caused by what is often a semantic issue. Why the censorship and not an open discussion?
What happened to 2sp ?
Hi there! Been watching you for over 15 years, so I hope this comment will be taken as intended, even though I suspect you won't agree with me. Context: I am Left wing politically, pro-LGBTQIA+ (in fact my most beloved is transitioning, and two nieces are in relationships with trans individuals who I adore). However. I take issue with one (pretty major) premise of this video. What I agree with: FFRF should have placed a stronger "does not reflect the views and values of the FFRF ..." A stronger statement of the position of the group would be adequate. I disagree with nearly everything else. I hope disagreement is still allowed. They shouldn't have taken the article down, they shouldn't apologize. I remember when Arden and Katy had a frank and open discussion about transwomen in sports. They allowed all comments and it was a wonderful discussion. There were haters (one who changed his mind, I believe) and allies and the discussion was truly dynamic. How about that? Is it really necessary to shut down discussion? It is so strange from people who have made it their lives' work to talk to people who disagree with them.
His point wasn't that discussion can't happen. It was that the organization both-sides'd it by not taking an official position while simultaneously citing that 97% of the membership supports trans rights and that they donated to the HRC. If it's so universally supported already, why not just state "the FFRF's official stance is counter to the following rebuttal, but we've chosen to include it for discussion." I think the reality is that they probably DON'T have an official stance and view anything not directly "religious" as being outside their organization's purview. But regardless of whatever decision they make, it's going to come with a cost. Being wishy-washy is going to keep Dawkins, Coyne, etc happy while upsetting supporters of trans rights. And being a full advocate is going to cost them the transphobes and biological essentialists.
@@malifex9922 "I think the reality is that they probably DON'T have an official stance"
True. This clearly does not fit into their mission statements, which is part of what the original disagreement was all about from Coyne, Dawkins and Pinker.
Please note that Coyne's opinion piece was the only time the FFRF put a disclaimer BEFORE the article specifying that his views were not that of the organization. They did not do this on the original article that Coyne was critiquing, so although some people are saying that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth (and they are) it's very clear from their initial AND follow-up reaction that they want to focus, at least in part, on trans activism.
Note that they didn't even notify Coyne that his article was removed or reply to his email, at least as of a few days ago.
FFRF should have gone a step further than merely publishing a disclaimer: they should have either postponed publication of Coyne's article till they had a considered rebuttal to go along with it, or issued a stronger disclaimer saying that they would publish the opposite view. Instead, they did everything wrong from the outset, because Coyne was an honarary board member.
While I can understand concerns by folk who haven't looked into the issue about trans women in sports or in women's restrooms, these have been grossly exaggerated to the point of hysteria. In sports where trans women do participate, they have shown no sign of dominating those sports - they perform like average women, I suspect because most men aren't that much stronger than women in the first place, and HRT does whittle away whatever male advantage there might be.
Biological women have nothing to fear from trans women. Trans women have been using women's spaces for decades now without much incident - till the trans issue started to be used as a weapon, which has now caused attacks against cis women who "look like men." They should be more concerned about religious patriarchs who want to put women back in their places where god intended them to be, subject to men, and who are using the trans issue to whip up reactionary hatreds.
@@malifex9922 This was not a discussion of trans identified people should have as rights, the discussion was more about what they actually are, and how that affects the rest of the world.
Keep up the great work.
Bravo, Matt! This was "sorry your feelings were hurt".
Basically. "Sorry you failed to be indifferent to my horrible position," like it's your fault for thinking they suck.
whose feelings were hurt though?
@@muchanadziko6378 People who expected the FFRF to stand by its ideological commitment to oppose theistic influence over civil government whether a minority of atheists are cool with it or not.
@@shassett79 trans-issues have nothing to do with atheism
@@muchanadziko6378 Are you thick or are you just performatively refusing to understand? If opposition to trans people is broadly theistic in nature, then the topic is relevant to atheism.
If people were arguing that the blog wasn't a one-way communication because "There is a comment section," Then that can easily be used to say that Coyn or others that disagreed with the pro trans article could've just commented on that post that they disagreed and why. At least that way, the FFRF wouldn't have been endorsing any transphobia that was brought up.
They explicitly didn't endorse anything Coyne said, writing a disclaimer for his article (and no others) saying it doesn't represent the opinions of the foundation. How more clear could they be, given they don't normally even put disclaimers?
It's odd that out of the 3 people who used to work together who were seen as intelligent, critical thinkers and skeptical, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris, Matt is the only one to buy into the gender ideology which is full of flawed logic.
If you are using this statement as some sort of argument, then you are using flawed logic as well.
@@rfwren Name prominent atheists/skeptics that believe gender is a social construct and that people with XY chromosomes and testicles can be "women". Alex O'Connor? Nope, he rejects this stuff too. So who is the most impressive person you know in the entire world that best supports modern gender views? I'd love to hear their arguments.
@@rfwren They're not making an argument. It's just odd that Matt is the only one who's been fooled into this gender ideology and he's the one who claims everyone else are the dumb ones.
@@rfwren If it's okay for tra's to use flawed logic then so can I. However, I was just pointing out how strange it is especially as Matt is the only one of them who has a partner who is a trans woman.
@@Lillypad12 So he gained a greater understanding of the topic and empathy from knowing and speaking to a trans person on a regular basis. If the others would do the same, they'd probably see how harmful their opinions are. It might help you too.
Where'd the beard go?
Why would ACA which is an Atheist organisation have positions statements on non Atheist issues. This smacks of group thought and proffers no out for those who hold differing opinions. I may be an Atheist (and am) but I may hold to some of Jerry’s positions. Get off your high horse Matt.
If an atheist's position on god is "evidence-based," then to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, they should adopt evidence-based positions on other ideological claims as well, such as the claim that tran folk aren't real, just freaks or socioipolitical constructs. All the evidence is on the side of trans folk, no matter how uncomfortable that may make you feel. Reality notoriously doesn't care about our comfort.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki Evidence? Like the CASS review? The WPATH scandal? The WPATH files? Or how, myself, living as a trans person, how it felt like nobody actually gave us the evidence, and instead it was all just words and obfuscation and hope. I had to live on *faith* that I was trans for good reason, but I was not, even though I had a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Do they tell you that, how they don't examine etiology to the gender dysphoria? How they lie, and say trauma plays no role in a transgender identity? Do they tell you about autogynephilia, or do they try to erase an entire group of people? They act like any parallel to trans identities (transracial, people believing they are elves, et cetera) aren't related, too. Where is the evidence? It's at Genspect.
@@Roseyla The evidence for trans folk is in their existence and testimony, as well as the effectiveness of transition therapy over deconversion therapy. There are very few instances of detransitioning once transition is complete, given a competent therapy taking things at the trans person's speed. I haven't read the Cass review but from what I've seen of it, I get the impression it emphasises negative results and diminishes positive ones. I think its implementation in the UK is going to be a disaster for trans people.
What the ACA did not apologize adequately for was allowing a person who had directly taken unsavory personal actions against one of their presenters access to airtime on one of their shows. In the case mentioned, the gender issue was actually irrelevant.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki I didn't ask for evidence of existence. I can see clearly that trans people exist. I lived it myself, was part of their community. I want evidence of the claims behind gender ideology that is confusing people into transition. Don't get me wrong. I may be a detrans man now, but I loved being on HRT. I was very comfortable that way. But, I had Ray Blanchard, the researcher behind autogynephilia, and trans activists both telling people like me to transition, it is the only solution to our gender dysphoria. That's not correct. Transition did not solve the underlying mental health issues that built into gender dysphoria. I still had to learn and grow through those things, and eventually, I realized all I had done was run away from my problems, into a transition fantasy. I could be myself without HRT, and to fully accept myself, detransition seemed necessary. My story isn't uncommon. Many of the trans and detrans people I've met have CPTSD, and that is the underlying pathway to their gender dysphoria... maladaptive coping techniques, lack of resiliency, encouraged by today's society, ignored by gender affirmation. We are swept under the rug to be put on hormones, and you all think everything is okay. It's not.
Looking forwatd to the biology video!
It's rather sad that in an age of rising Christian nationalism/fundamentalism that people like Coyne and Dawkins are quitting the FFRF over such an overall small issue.
It's not a small issue. It's a host of issues of different importance to different people. Sports, prisons, sex-based spaces, and science denial. And being on the "trans side" on these issues doesn't necessarily even support the broader "trans side" in terms of their overall goals because some of these are nonstarters for most people (ex. trans women in female sports - most people are against this for obvious reason)
@@sdwone The principles of Dawkins and Coyne are dogshit.
@@sdwone What are you talking about? There is literally call-in shows for these topics. I really don't get where you get this idea that we cannot talk about trans issues when literally this video is about trans issues.
While I agree it should be a small issue, the wrong sort of people have shown that pushing transphobia works to rile folk up. One would have though people like Dawkins, COyne and Pinker would know better than the be stampeded so easily by the Christian for right, but I guess their transphobia got the better of them. The FFRF is better off without them.
@sdwone yes, your faith seems to trump facts. You are correct.
"oh there's comments" then the guy should be happy to post his disagreement in the comments, right? 😂
Not really as he is offering a far wider critique not an ad hoc comment.
Sick of all of these personal viewpoints, that are unrelated to the atheist community. Not to mention how absurd Matt is to say FFRF should limit speach or dialogue and instead just be a propaganda space.
Why should they publish objections to their stated policy positions? What exactly do you think the free marketplace of ideas ought to entail?
Any and every private organization has the right to decide what they platform. They are under no obligation to give a platform to people with opposing views. There are other venues for debate that don’t require organizations to publish opinions that go against their mission statement and stated values.
"Recently, we published a controversial blog post that did not align with the ethics of our organization. We must wholeheartedly apologize for this lapse in judgment and hope that our readers do not think that this error in any way represents our position as an organization."
The standard disclaimer was enough.
Thanks for your integrity Matt!
When you write and publish something, it’s not on the reader to understand what you meant. It’s on you as the communicator to convey what you mean in a direct and understandable manner. You don’t get to blame your audience for “misinterpreting” your meaning.
Matt, you seem not to have understood Coyne. He was addressing the misuse and confusion regarding biological SEX, not gender or gender identity . Go back and reread the piece. Also, the fact that two very distinguished scientists, Richard Dawkins and Seven Pinker, who were also honorary members of the board also quit in protest because the FFRF was cancelling a valid and important viewpoint. A view many in the trans world remain confused about. Jerry Coyne has always made it clear that he is in support of trans rights except where it violates the rights of others. Your discussion here sound dissociated from the facts.
Well, the right-wing Christianist's loss in having the three horsemen of the transpocalpyse quit is FFRF's gain. When atheists take the side of Christofascists on a topic, they should expect some return fire. Their opinion isn't an important viewpoint, nor is it even scientific. It's pure, irrational prejudice, something every atheist should stand against.
@@Leszek.Rzepeckifacts don't care who's side they're on
@@haydenwalton2766 Transphobes have no "facts" - just prejudices.
Incorrect. Trans people largely never claim to be transsex - hence the phrase transGENDER. They don't conflate sex and gender, but Coyne does, lazily, strawmanning the other side.
"very distinguished scientists" stange way to refer to old bigots
i feel like their justification was "well, he didnt use god to discredit trans existence so lets hear him out"
"The question is whether the FFRF should be publishing this." - that should have been the question with the original "what is a woman" article, which was an incoherent collecion of gender ideology talking points and willful misunderstanding of biology that had exactly zero relevance to the key objectives of the organization. Once that was out there, denying an honorary board member (who sees keeping the organization on track as one of his duties) an opportunity to respond would have been inappropriate, and censoring and backstabbing Dr. Coyne post-hoc is shameful.
"exactly zero relevance for the key objectives of the organization"
Among other things, the FFRF wants to limit/prevent religious control of the civil government. Evangelicals desire to use the power of the civil government to harm trans people. Why would the FFRF accept the related evangelical talking points simply because they're being repeated by an atheist?
"willful misunderstanding of biology"
Oh the irony.
This isn't about biology. And you are WILLFULLY ignoring that fact. This is about your bigotry. Full stop. I can ignore that from you and let you go off and live your life without limiting your rights. Why can't you do the same?
@@SilortheBlade What is it about?
@@shassett79 they should accept arguments that are sound and based in science, no matter which party brings them up. If someone proposes religiously motivated political measures that restrict actual rights of trans people, by all means, the FFRF should argue against that. That doesn't require tearing down fundamental definitions, and it's not what the "What is a woman" post did.
@@richardmetzler7909 "they should accept arguments that are sound and based in science, no matter which party brings them up"
The position that we should use the civil government to harm trans people is not sound or science-based.
Thanks for the explanation, Matt. Not sure why you deleted my ukulele comment, though. I was just agreeing with you, referencing a UA-camr's horrible apology.
Its more than likely youtube themselves not Matt.
I see. Looks like my replies to other commenter's on this video are gone too. Weird.
"We are sorry YOU are offended." Well, whatever else, I am done with FFRF probably forever.
Excellent presentation, well thought out!
Crazy seeing so much division within the Atheist community over the LGBTQIA+ issue
@@virtualpaladin3507 This is sadly a reminder that just because someone is an atheist, doesn't automatically mean they are compassionate or have good political values.
The crazy thing is that both sides insist that the science is on their side.
@@ramigilneas9274the anti trans folks are like what intelligent design proponents are to evolution, pretending they’re scientific when they aren’t.
@@sdwone We will never have fruitful conversations if we continue to use the language (like woke) and framing of online reactionaries.
@@ramigilneas9274Trans people exist. You shouldn't need science to tell you that, lol.
Very interesting to learn about this, and the FFRF should do exactly what you suggest to make things right / make things righter.
On another topic: looking very sharp with the trimmed beard, Matt!!! Much better than the ancient Santaclause look :D
In my experience, Americans have a very difficult time with apologizing.
america bad
Us Canadians do it all to easily, "Punch our face and we'll say 'We're Sorry"" as the song says
Even the apologists suck at it.
@@finestPluginsChristian apologists?
I guess the Catholic church doesn't have to publish an article "Praying to Mary is really stupid". Have to agree with FFRF here. They don't have to publish articles they disagree with
why are the FFRF expressing an official opinion on Trans identity? I feel like Trans rights and freedom is an issue almost totally divorced from religion? The last thing he trans community needs is unconnected organizations' internecine bickering adding to their problems. Its utterly deranging
COMPLETELY AND WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREED !!!
Probably because religious bigotry enforced via legislation is often targeted at the LGBT+ community in general and recently at trans people.
Also agree. FFRF should be about freedom from religion - it should not be concerned with gender, race etc. Focus on the goal of helping people get out of religious dogma.
Because a Religion has and continues to play a major role in pushing society to reject lgbtqia persons. It's insidious such that we've seen it infect rational thought discussuoons too.
The gender binary is an invention of religion, a certain group of religions, that didn’t exist in most cultures before these religious spread, mostly through the sword. The majority of people trying to push the binary invention do so because of religious beliefs, cultural or religious, and use religion as the basis for the laws they push trying to take away rights and health care. FFRF have every reason to be involved as the anti queer movement is very much based in religion.
Giving a platform to anyone who engages in negative stereotyping, dehumanizing, scapegoating, and ostracising groups who are different with the intent to harm is disgraceful. Shame on FFRF!
many would say that was what atheists were doing, shame to see you're no different
How about having your organization publish a point by point rebuttal from an equally peer reviewed expert/scientist to Coyne’s article? Can we at least agree that definitions (male- female, man-woman) are not generally understood or agreed upon by the average lay person? Address the reality on the ground. It would seem education, debate, and advocacy through cogently written accessible articles would be one good way to advance accuracy and the public’s understanding of this issue.
The fact that those terms aren't well understood and agreed upon by the common lay person is exactly why the common lay person shouldn't have an opinion on the subject at all. Leave it to the professionals who research and study these things and let people live how they want. It's pretty simple.
You can't teach people who do not want to learn, nor should it be incumbent upon experts to debunk every time wasting imbecile with an axe to grind.
Why?
There are countless other places to get this info. It's all out there.
We shouldent platform bad work
@@Anonymoose0523 The average lay people cast the most votes in a democracy, frequently get elected to state and federal legislatures, and will heavily influence public policy.
Agreed - if they were going to publish, then they should have published their rebuttal _alongside_ it.
I suppose, ultimately, if Coyne’s perspective can be so easily refuted an invalidated, it’s a progressive order of events. 🤷♂️
I really appreciate how Matt is one of the last well known (white male) atheist that does not turn into be a bigot over time. Thank you Matt for staying true to reason and humanism principles!
It’s ridiculous that the expectation is that all atheists must somehow be progressive liberals. Well, some of us are social and fiscal conservatives and who don’t give one shit about woke lunatics, and yet still don’t believe in gods. Amazing! Dawkins and coyne are right.