The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is probably not on the radar of most people in the UK. It’s a US-based non-profit organisation that campaigns for the separation of church and state. Some years ago, the Telegraph reported on its campaign to remove Christianity from Christmas celebrations in American state schools.
But it seems that this association of ‘atheists, agnostics and skeptics of any pedigree’ has fallen hook line and sinker for gender identity ideology. Yesterday, it was reported that Richard Dawkins had quit the FFRF Board over its ‘imposition’ of a new religion
His departure followed two other scientists – Jerry Coyne and Steven Pinker – after the FFRF retracted a paper Coyne had written to counter an earlier piece that concluded, ‘a woman is whoever she says she is’. Those were the words of Kat Grant (pronouns: they/them) who has argued that ‘a gender diverse model allows womanhood to be defined on internal, personal terms, not outwardly visible characteristics’.
Personally I think that is nonsense, but it is an opinion that Grant is entitled to hold. However, ‘skeptics of any pedigree’ are likely to include those who take a different line. That’s where Coyne came in. He argued that Grant’s conclusion was a tautology, and went on to state that, ‘In biology… a woman can be simply defined in four words: “An adult human female.” ’
Coyne then questioned the FFRF’s incursion into gender activism, pointing out that tendentious arguments about the definition of sex are not part of the association’s mission to educate the public about atheism, and keeping religion out of government and social policies.
That could have been the end of it – a philosophical disagreement and mild criticism of the approach taken within a niche organisation – and Spectator readers would have been none the wiser. Dawkins described the decision to publish Grant’s ‘silly and unscientific’ article as a ‘minor error of judgment’. That’s hardly something for anyone to resign over.
The issue that is of wider concern is the censorious approach taken by those who hold to transgender ideology. The FFRF removed Coyne’s paper and posted a grovelling apology in its place:
‘Publishing this post was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values or principles. We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.’
The Freedom From Religion Foundation
It seems that those values and principles are no longer to keep the old religions out of schools and public institutions but to impose a new quasi-religious philosophy upon them. The idea that men and women are defined simply by who they say they are flies in the face not only of biological science but common sense. We all know what a man or a woman is when we see one. And, whatever Kat Grant might like to believe, those who claim to be non-binary still have a sex and that sex matters.
As a Christian, I take issue with the FFRF’s claim that ‘The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.’ The scientific enlightenment took place in a society rooted in Christian traditions. Those who are truly confident in their faith do not fear challenge, and certainly do not censor mere differences of opinion.
Gender identity ideology might well share the hallmarks of religion – ‘complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics’ according to Pinker – but it appears to offer neither confidence nor certainty to its adherents, if they cannot abide those who might think differently to them.
An atheistic organisation worth its salt would oppose these movements in the same way that it opposes established religion, so Coyne, Pinkner and Dawkins are right to walk away. But maybe the key lesson from this sorry debacle is that it is not so easy to expunge the need for religion from human beings than atheists might like to think. If there is a god-shaped hole in us then without established religion, something else is likely to take its place.
Debbie Hayton is a teacher and journalist.
Her book, Transsexual Apostate – My Journey Back to Reality is published by Forum
* This article was first published by The Spectator on 31 December 2024: How atheists fell for the new religion of gender identity.
Debbie Hayton 
6 replies on “How some atheists fell for the new religion of gender identity”
People like me are partly responsible for spreading the idea that transgenderism is a religion. I believe that all people choose their gender (sex) before birth, and sometimes they choose wrongly. If you choose to be a man for the umpteenth time, but you need to be a woman to further your spiritual growth, then the moment you are born you’ll feel drawn to being a woman. That doesn’t exactly make transgenderism a religion, but it gives them a religious excuse. And an “excuse” is all that it can be. Reality is still what it is in this physical environment, and people are simply acting silly to ignore their physical gender. To which I add that there is nothing wrong with being “a man who feels like a woman”.
This isn’t the first time that an atheist has been roped in by transgender ideology. Neil deGrasse Tyson is apparently a social liberal, and he has publicly bent over backwards to justify transgender ideas. It is quite a spectacle to see this scientist arguing in favor of nonsensical transgender ideas, like a man can become a “real” woman.
I do believe you agree with me on this, Debbie. If a man says he feels like a woman, or says he wants to BE a woman for whatever reason, it is not for anyone to judge him or tell him that his feelings are wrong. The feelings that lead him there are irrelevant, and society should accept him and his feelings without question. But when a person says, “I am a cat, but I feel like a dog, and that makes me a REAL dog,” that’s when the judgements start flowing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am happy for people to believe whatever they like, but they cannot compel others to share those beliefs.
LikeLike
Well, as the only atheist in the room, I think you’re both nuts. I feel compelled to point out that neither of your world views has a scrap of half-decent evidence supporting it.
You make so many assumptions here, Debbie. First, that atheists think it’s easy to expunge the need for religion. I don’t know if that survey has been done, but I for one know it’s damned difficult. Secondly, you’re assuming that the need is actually “for religion.” We do obviously crave understanding, or meaning, if you prefer, and – since none of us knows any of the biggest answers – we make them up to feel comfortable. On the biggest questions, some of those we call “religions.”
That, to my mind, means it is a serious begging of the question to go from “a need for religion” to “a god-shaped hole in us,” and this is a typical trope of the believer suggesting, “we have a god-shaped hole in us; therefore God must have put it there.”
Translating, then: irrational beliefs satisfy our desire to know things we don’t know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your insights! I can’t help but think, though, that human beings create religions for the benefit of society as a whole. The promise of paradise and the threat of enternal damnation mitigates the problem of individuals who would otherwise do as they please. Cultures with strong religious traditions certainly seem to prosper. It’s not so much as a search for meaning as a means of control.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some of those seem like good atheist arguments, and the others are more logical errors.
That “human beings create religions,” suggests we didn’t discover a true religion, but invented them all, many conflicting ones.
Whether a philosophy benefits individuals or society as a whole has no bearing on whether it is true or not – conversely, it should add weight to the hypothesis that its benefits are merely pragmatic or evolutionarily advantageous, and thus may be baseless.
The promises and threats may perhaps mitigate some immoral behaviour, but only in those who believe those claims, and there are all sorts of problems with that:- there is good evidence that many people pretend to believe their religion in order to fit in to society, but secretly don’t; moralizing based on untruths is a deep abuse of the congregation; people tend to discover lies, potentially leading to resentment; there is plenty of immorality among religious groups; the existence of different religions encourages disputes and violence.
The statement that cultures with strong religious traditions prosper overlooks the fact that pretty well all human cultures have had strong religious traditions, and thus, while it may be a causal factor, we have virtually no control group. But again, it commits the same logical fallacy – something that helped us survive doesn’t mean it is true or moral, or we’d have to make the same claim of cannibalism (central to many early religions) and the reproductive strategies of all the many parasites in the world. Velociraptors prospered until a cosmic accident wiped them out.
Waging war was central to many cultures’ religions, and those that preach peace indulged in it liberally too. Human tribes prospered, and still prosper, by slaughtering other tribes and taking their resources. And it’s usually their religious lies that help them find excuses.
LikeLike
In the days when most religions were founded people generally had no idea what was going on amongst their leaders but now a days with the internet and media we discover that many of these so called religious leaders are behaving as badly as the worst of us. The church of England is currently struggling to find a new archbishop who is without skeletons. We see the hatred between the Jews and Muslims in the middle east and the criminal behaviour of certain Muslims and Christian clergy in parts of the UK and we question the point of organised religion. Whose lives is it improving exactly?
LikeLike