The Center For Inquiry's latest statement continues to push anti-trans bigotry

After several secular groups affirmed their support for LGBTQ rights, CFI has chosen to criticize them with more misinformation

This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!

---

The Center For Inquiry is doubling down on its anti-transgender rhetoric following the release of a statement from more than a dozen other atheist/Humanist organizations defending LGBTQ+ rights.

There’s a lot happening here so let’s try to make sense of it.

What started this?

In early November, the Freedom From Religion Foundation published an article by former intern Kat Grant about how much of our society’s views on gender are steeped in religious traditions. Those views are still perpetuated today, Grant wrote, by right-wing groups and anti-trans people who “disregard both medical science and lived experience.”

That seems sensible. Who could have a problem with that?

Bigots, J.K. Rowling fans, and a whole bunch of “New Atheist” authors who think trans people are participating in a mass delusion. Jerry Coyne, who’s written multiple science books, asked FFRF to publish his rebuttal.

Oh no.

Don’t get ahead of me.

What did Coyne say in his piece?

In his essay titled “Biology is not bigotry,” Coyne wrongly insisted that sex is binary, that trans women are more likely to be sexual predators, that trans women shouldn’t be allowed to counsel women who have been physically abused, rejected the mere possibility of trans women playing women’s sports at any age, and said trans women shouldn’t be placed in women’s prisons (even though the alternative is disastrous).

Along the way, he just ignored the countless ways the trans community is under attack, largely by people making similar misguided arguments.

That sounds awful. Why would FFRF publish that?

Coyne was on FFRF’s “Honorary Board” of advisors along with people like Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, and several others who haven’t become national embarrassments. It’s a purely symbolic title, but Coyne felt that gave him an in. FFRF foolishly went along with it in the spirit of open debate.

And how did that go for them?

It was a disaster. A number of atheists who have worked with FFRF criticized the group for publishing the piece, an unknown number of FFRF supporters canceled their memberships, and FFRF soon removed Coyne’s piece from their website.

The group’s co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor also issued a statement expressing their explicit support for “LGBTQIA-plus” rights. They said publishing Coyne’s piece “was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values or principles.” They also promised to change their internal processes so that sort of thing doesn’t happen again.

It was a start, but it notably ignored some important details, like how this piece got approved despite its many flaws and what precisely was wrong with what Coyne wrote. Without explaining themselves, it allowed Coyne to pretend he was just punished for holding a contrarian and unpopular opinion.

And that was the end of this controversy, right?

Of course not. Coyne, Dawkins, and Pinker all resigned from that “honorary board” with public statements about how FFRF needed to stay in its lane, how “gender ideology” was “quasi-religious,” how FFRF was guilty of following a “new religion,” and how the group caved to “hysterical squeals from predictable quarters.”

(From L to R) Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne (screenshots via YouTube)

It all led to fawning coverage of the authors’ bigotry in right-wing and Christian publications and by individuals known for spreading misinformation.

They were at least embarrassed by that fawning coverage, right?

Nope. They promoted it on social media.

What have the other prominent atheist groups said about this?

This week, 16 organizations (including FFRF) issued a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to LGBTQ+ rights. The statement went right to the heart of the argument that these issues have nothing to do with atheism:

We will not permit religious extremists to foment a moral panic, encourage harassment or violence, and enact dangerous policies that seek to force LGBTQ+ Americans generally—and trans Americans in particular—out of public life and out of existence. Nor will we sit silently or ignore when the talking points, misinformation, and outright fabrications of anti-LGBTQ+ extremists are laundered and given a veneer of legitimacy or acceptability by those who hold themselves out as voices of reason or science.

It’s about damn time! So a mistake was made but it sounds like everything will be better now.

Who the hell refused to sign that statement?!

The Center For Inquiry… which merged with Dawkins’ foundation years ago.

What’s their deal?

In recent years, under the leadership of CEO Robyn Blumner, the organization has criticized LGBTQ rights in the name of science, condemned doctors who work with trans kids (“I hope their malpractice insurance is paid up,” Blumner recently wrote. “They are going to need it”), and downplayed racism in America because Barack Obama got elected and Clarence Thomas sits on the Supreme Court.

They said racism isn’t really a problem anymore because Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court?!

You heard me.

At least CFI’s board members are diverse, right?

I’ll ask the 10 men and 0 women who sit on their board and get back to you.

Yikes. So what did CFI do now?

This morning, they released a statement responding to that joint letter from 16 atheist/secular groups. (To be clear, it didn’t need a response.) I guess people noticed they weren’t part of it and they decided to explain themselves.

How many paragraphs into the letter do we have to read before things go off the rails?

Zero. The problems begin with the headline, which reads, “Response to Secular Groups that Claim Scientists Are Shills for Christian Nationalism.”

But that’s not what…

Why are you censoring them.

Ah. Sorry. What else do they say?

After a brief introduction in which CFI talks about how amazing CFI is, they get around to the “disagreement.”

Lately, there has been a disagreement among secular groups with regard to transgender activism. As disagreements go, this one is rather narrow, though it has been made to seem gigantic.

Biological science indicates there are two biological sexes, a fact consistent throughout the animal world of which humans are a part. There is also a more fluid concept of gender that allows for a more complex picture of human sexuality. Both things can be true at the same time. There can be two biological sexes and multiple gender identities. And when public policy is enacted, it should be sensitive to the former as well as the latter.

…

Some secular groups are taking the position that any discussion of biological facts is transphobic and a denial of civil and human rights. They posit that giving reasons for understanding the natural world as a place divided into biological male and female members of species isn’t just a scientific discussion but a cover for full-on Christian nationalism.

Not a single group has taken the position that discussing biological facts is transphobic. Their issue is with people pretending to have facts when reality suggests otherwise.

The problem is that even scientists admit there are people outside the XX or XY mold and that the idea of a sexual binary is overly simplistic. It’s bimodal, not binary. And more to the point, the politicians who create policy don’t give a shit about any of that. Republicans (with far too many cowardly Democratic allies) want to discriminate against trans people, period, because that’s what they think their voters demand of them.

Discussing biology isn’t transphobic. Spreading misinformation about trans people under the guise of science, which is what Coyne did many times over, is extremely transphobic. And harmful. And I would hope secular scientists are smart enough to know when they’re being used to advance Christian Nationalism.

Did CFI at least acknowledge that Coyne lied about trans people being sexual predators? Or that it was discriminatory to say trans people shouldn’t be allowed to hold certain jobs?

You’ll be shocked to learn none of that even got a mention in CFI’s statement.

Then what the hell else did they say?!

After saying they oppose Christian Nationalism and “injecting religion into public policy,” they went on to parrot arguments you’d expect to hear from conservative commentators.

For instance, if there is a medical clinical trial for women to determine if a medication has a different impact on women than men, should transender women participate? If transgender women are to be considered the same as natal women, the answer is “yes” they should participate. However, science suggests otherwise, because they are not biologically the same.

Saying as much doesn’t make you a tool of Christian nationalism.

Yes, actually. If there’s a medical trial to learn about how medication works on different people, who may have different hormone levels, then transgender people should participate! (And “transender” women, too!) How broken must your brain be to argue that science is ever better off with less information?!

Christ. At least they didn’t get into sports.

Then they got into sports, essentially arguing that trans athletes should be forbidden from competing in high school and beyond.

There are other places where the biology of sex has a significant role to play. In sports, for instance. Once male puberty has occurred, it is no longer fair physiologically for whoever has benefited from it to compete in almost any category of women’s sports. At least that is what the science and evidence demonstrate.

If fairness is all that matters, than players who are obscenely tall should be banned from basketball and Michael Phelps wouldn’t be allowed to swim. If trans women had an unfair advantage in sports, then college and professional leagues would be dominated by them. They’re not. In fact, despite there being over 500,000 collegiate athletes in the NCAA, only 10 of them are openly transgender. In Utah, Republicans passed a bill banning trans athletes even though there was literally only one trans athlete affected by the ban. (Those leagues also tend to have strict rules about eligibility that aren’t as simple as “show me your chromosomes.”)

CFI ignores the fact that, at least at the high school level, the focus ought to be on playing more than winning, and that putting a trans athlete on a team almost never gives that team some competitive advantage, and that right-wing bigots have regularly used “fairness” and “protecting women’s sports” in defense of their crusade to eradicate trans people from public life entirely… even though they routinely make it clear they don’t actually give a damn about women’s sports.

Did this organization, with a commitment to science, even ask scientists for input on this statement?

I assume all scientists were busy today.

Well, at least that’s the end of—

Then CFI got around to discussing medical interventions for trans people. Or, as they like to call it, gender-affirming care pushed by “transgender activists.”

One of the most contested areas involves transitioning minors before they reach the age of majority. In light of the latest research and actions by several European countries that have stepped back from such medical interventions, the way “gender-affirming care” is practiced in the United States is no longer universally accepted as the most beneficial approach. There are increasing numbers of detransitioners, whether transgender activists want to believe it or not, and those stories can be just as heartbreaking as the stories of transgender-identifying children seeking medical intervention.

They offer no specifics here. They don’t say when transitioning is warranted. They don’t say that doctors should be involved in the decision instead of politicians with an agenda. They don’t mention how recent and better-informed research has concluded that trans people need more care that’s individualized. They don’t mention the deeply problematic claims made in the infamous Cass Review. They don’t mention the harm done by refusing to help trans kids. They don’t mention the harm caused by Republican-sponsored bathroom bills. They don’t make any note of how the outrage against these procedures is completely disproportionate with how many people are actually affected by them. They don’t mention that scientific studies have shown that virtually all the people who transition have no regrets about it at all and that the rate-of-regret is actually lower than people who get knee replacements. They don’t mention that people who do regret their decision often cite social and economic factors rather than anything involving their identity. They don’t mention that a handful of people regretting their decision shouldn’t stand in the way of the far larger number of people who benefit from transitioning or how those comments actually highlight why we need more comprehensive gender-affirming care and not less.

That section concludes with a plea: Why won’t anyone think about cis women?

To elide past these complex issues and claim that only one side involves civil and human rights is simply wrong. Natal women athletes have civil rights as well. Children have human rights that include not having permanent disabling surgeries before they truly understand the consequences.

That passage has all the subtlety of someone wondering when we’re going to celebrate White History Month.

Look: These are complex issues. And they deserve scrutiny. That’s why it’s so damn frustrating that an organization purporting to care about science and reason has decided it’ll ignore all the facts that overwhelmingly support the existence and rights of trans people. They seem to think that their ideological enemies want to force kids to have surgeries prematurely, which is absolutely not the case, and that we want to make women’s sports obsolete, which is also not true. (Indeed, some of the strongest proponents of trans rights are female athletes, many of whom have been on the receiving end of anti-trans slurs regardless of their gender identity.)

With that much misinformation, how the hell did CFI conclude its statement?

By pretending to act like they’re the only organization that cares about open debate.

But if the conversation is over before it even begins, if any crack of daylight between one’s point of view and that of the most extreme transgender activist is considered hateful bigotry and shall not be uttered without fear of cancellation, then that is a place where reason and science have disappeared and all that remains is vitriol, anger, and self-righteousness.

That won’t happen at CFI.

CFI will continue to promote the separation of church and state, the rights of nonbelievers here and around the world, and the end of pseudoscience wherever it arises. And we strongly disagree with people or groups who think discussion is dangerous, biology is bigotry, and science is Christian nationalism in disguise.

In their view, insisting that trans people aren’t predators and that trans people should be allowed to compete in sports and that trans people are people are all examples of “extreme” activism. And criticizing it amounts to “cancellation.”

CFI insists it will proudly defend misinformation in the name of science. And if that helps Christian Nationalists achieve their goals, well, it’s not their problem.

“Discussion” isn’t the issue. “Biology” isn’t the issue. The fact that this organization and its leadership don’t recognize any of this shows how they are actively refusing to listen to anyone outside their bubble. It’s frankly embarrassing.

Since CFI won’t speak with experts, what do better-informed people have to say about all this?

I spoke with several of them earlier today.

Kat Grant, who wrote that initial piece for FFRF, told me they’re not surprised by this at all and that CFI is just digging the hole deeper.

You also cannot engage in biological essentialism without playing directly into western Christian colonial concepts of gender, something I pointed out in my original blog and something that was never engaged in due to the intentional bad faith (pun intended) reading of my work.

(Update: You can read a lengthier response from Kat at their own newsletter.)

Gillian Broaddus, who was a co-plaintiff with CFI in a 2016 lawsuit over Illinois’ laws about secular celebrants, was far more blunt in an email:

On every level, Robyn Blumner has constructed a straw man of what other secular groups have stated, what transgender people have been fighting for, and frankly the science itself. CFI has embraced the same "junk science" that groups like American Atheists have decried, and yes, that means that, despite all the other stated opposition to the movement, CFI is contributing to the normalization of the same pseudoscience that Christian nationalists are using to justify further marginalizing trans people like me. If they wish not to be painted with the same brush, they should focus on getting their facts straight.

Aaron Rabinowitz, the ethics director of the Creator Accountability Network and host of philosophy podcasts Embrace the Void and Philosophers in Space, wrote a response to Coyne’s essay on this site. Reacting to Blumner’s post today, Aaron told me this:

CFI, like Coyne and Dawkins, refuse to even acknowledge the legitimate ethical criticisms of their position, instead continuing to claim that scientists are being silenced merely for discussing biology. They still have Coyne's original piece published on their site, even though Coyne himself has admitted it needs clarifications. This is not about greater understanding through disagreement for CFI, it’s about signaling they’re a safe space for the anti-woke.

He added that FFRF deserves criticism for putting up Coyne’s piece in the first place.

So what do we do now?!

If I were a member of CFI, I would make my views known with their leadership and give my dues instead to groups that do the work without trying to appease bad-faith bigots who not only get the science wrong but don’t seem to care how Christian Nationalists are using their misguided talking points to harm LGBTQ people.

And I would also complain about sending out a thoughtless press release on the Friday before a holiday weekend.

---