As so-called "transgender" activists and others on the left continue to champion the insane notion that a human being can be "born in the wrong body," rational, objective people, supported by biological science, beg to differ, arguing that the transgender movement is irreparably harmful to children.
In a recent example of the fierce debate, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) came under fire after it censored board member Jerry Coyne, a leading scientist and professor emeritus of ecology at the University of Chicago.
The FFRF took down a Coyne column titled “Biology Is not Bigotry,” a harsh critique of an earlier pro-transgender column posted by the organization. Despite receiving approval for publication, Coyne’s scientifically grounded critique was unpublished after the FFRF deemed it inconsistent with their values and worried it may cause readers “distress.” In response, biologist Richard Dawkins and Harvard University Professor Steven Pinker resigned from the organization in support of Coyle.
As law professor, author, and political commenter Jonathan Turley put it:
The FFRF board has decided to ring in the New Year by reinventing itself as a freedom from free speech foundation.
Nicely played.
Coyne's column was hardly controversial — to the rational among us.
In the "Freethought Now article “What is a woman?” author Kat Grant struggles at length to define the word, rejecting one definition after another as flawed or incomplete. Grant finally settles on a definition based on self-identity: “A woman is whoever she says she is.”
This of course is a tautology, and still leaves open the question of what a woman really is.
And the remarkable redefinition of a term with a long biological history can be seen only as an attempt to force ideology onto nature. Because some nonbinary people—or men who identify as women (“transwomen”)—feel that their identity is not adequately recognized by biology, they choose to impose ideology onto biology and concoct a new definition of “woman.”
Two salient points.
First, the FFRF noted at the time it posted Coyne’s column that it was doing so as a courtesy to an honorary board member and that the views did not necessarily reflect the organization. Second, While Coyne supports equal rights for transgender people, he argued that, as a scientist, “feelings don’t create reality.”
"That was not good enough," wrote Turley (emphasis, mine).
The transgender community and others on the left responded with an all-too-familiar cancel campaign and demanded that Coyne be censored. Figures like Evan Clark, Executive Director of Atheists United, said, “If you still support FFRF, I’d encourage you to pull your donations and talk to their leadership about the importance of trans rights in the battle against white Christian nationalism.”
Lemme fix that.
"The importance of biology over the left's insanity transgenderism and 'trans rights.'" There, that's better.
Coyne didn't take the removal of his column lying down. In response to FFRF co-presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, he wrote:
The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (“a woman is whoever she says she is”), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.
Bingo.
Anything valid that contradicts the left's various narratives — particularly including indisputable facts — must not be published or reported by the media. Censorship is king because the left fears the truth perhaps more than anything else on the planet.
Simply, the transgender debate, which couldn't be more polarized, is nuts — on the left, that is. While "Harry Potter" author and women's activist J.K. Rowling recently declared "there's no such thing as trans kids," ABC's "The View" co-host Joy Behar absurdly and obscenely compared opposition to "gender-affirming care" — including mastectomies and castrations — to "Nazism."
READ MORE:
MSNBC's Joy Reid Compares Opposition to 'Gender-Affirming Care' for 'Trans' Kids to Nazism
Clearly, the gap between science and the left's sick narrative couldn't be wider.
'The Intolerance of Opposing Views'
Turley nicely put the left's mantra into proper perspective.
The intolerance for opposing views is so great that the FFRF is willing to engage in atheist orthodoxy, which not long ago would have been viewed as a contradiction in terms. It is a disgraceful position for a group that once defended those banned or canceled for their views.
It is a moment that reminds one of what Robert Oppenheimer said about physicists, but it is particularly poignant for these atheists who have joined a mob to silence: they “have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.”
True. Yet, sin matters not to the far left. That is except for the "sin" of reality.
