The Age of Cowardice
Trouble at the Freedom From Religion Foundation: A parable for our time
This is a story about an organization set up to promote freethinking getting sucked into the opposite. It contains a stark warning: if you are serious about freethinking, you need to be able to tell the difference between freethinkers and fanatics – and between critical thought and indoctrination. You also need to develop a backbone.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is a non-profit (founded 1976) whose mission includes “advocating for the rights of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, and skeptics.” That sounds lovely. Quite noble, really, in an age in which freethinkers and skeptics are being hounded left, right, and center. It requires real courage.
The present fracas started with a piece by Kat Grant, an intern at FFRF, entitled “What is a Woman?” in the organization’s outlet Freethought Today. The piece makes a whistle-stop tour to “Two Spirit” people, intersex, and the supposed imposition of binary sex by European colonials, casually defames “TERFS” as people who “claim that transgender women are rapists” before concluding – as if solving the riddle posed in the title: “A woman is whoever she says she is.”(1)
Grant had produced similarly inane pieces before, but this one was so cringeworthy that it moved the FFRF Honorary Board Member Jerry A. Coyne, emeritus professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, to write a rebuttal in the form of a guest blog entitled “Biology is not Bigotry.” Coyne points out that the author repeatedly commits the error of conflating sex with “gender” (which he defines as “sex roles”). He observes that “sex” is defined in biology by gamete size and mobility: males have small, mobile gametes (sperm) while females have large, immobile gametes (eggs). He is dismissive of self-identification: “feelings don’t create reality.” As for intersex conditions, he observes that rare physical anomalies do not undermine the generality of sexual dimorphism. After citing some similarly unwelcome statistics about sport and about sex offenders, he concludes by expressing concern that “the FFRF’s “incursion into gender activism takes it far outside its historically twofold mission: educating the public about nontheism and keeping religion out of government and social policies.” He refers to “mission creep” at organizations such as the ACLU and SPLC and says he would be distressed if the FFRF were to go the same way.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation was to be applauded for publishing this authoritative, comprehensive rebuttal on its website. Briefly. Until it removed it.
The attempt by FFRF co-presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker to justify the removal of Coyne’s piece from its website touches on a few themes with which many of us have become familiar: advocating for “LGBTQIA+ rights is an indirect component of [its] mission; many attacks on those rights are “rooted in attempts to impose religious doctrines on our secular government”; “Christian nationalists have cynically manipulated the LGBTQIA+ issues.”
Gaylor and Barker were elected co-presidents of the FFRF back in 2004, before belief in the supremacy of “gender identity” had become de rigueur throughout American academia and all unbelievers were branded hateful bigots. Like many of today’s incompetent and cowardly leaders, they appear unaware of having been co-opted into an intolerant ideology.
When they add in their statement that they have recently donated $50,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, they are clearly unaware that they are saying anything controversial in the arena of gay rights. Amusingly, they conclude by expressing their determination to fight Trump’s announced policy that “there are only two genders, male and female.” (Yes, Trump also conflates sex and gender).
Finally, we get the mea culpa and the promise to do better in future. Gaylor and Barker apologize for publishing Coyne’s guest blog post in a classic of what we have come to recognize as a hostage statement. It’s worth quoting this part in full:
“Despite our best efforts to champion reason and equality, we recognize mistakes can happen, and this incident is a reminder of the importance of constant reflection and growth. Publishing this post was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values or principles. We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.”
“Moving forward, we are reviewing our content guidelines and internal processes to ensure our public messaging consistently reflects our values. We are committed to learning from this experience.”
“We stand firmly with the LGBTQIA-plus community and their allies in advocating for equality, dignity and the freedom to live without fear of religiously motivated discrimination. Our mission to keep religion out of government is inextricably linked to preserving and advancing these fundamental rights.”
“Together, we will continue to champion a society where all people — no matter their sexual orientation, gender identity, beliefs or nonbeliefs — are treated equally under the law.”
In consequence of Gaylor and Barker’s abysmal actions, in removing the blog post and producing this insulting statement, Coyne resigned as a member of the advisory board, as did Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins.
Appalled by this censorship, Coyne wrote in his letter of resignation: "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." (2)
Steven Pinker wrote that the Board had “shown contempt for the reasoned advice of its own board members.” Appalled by the Board’s censorship of Coyne and its decision to slander him “as an opponent of LGBTQIA+ rights,” he wrote, like Coyne himself: “With this action, the Foundation is no longer a defender of freedom from religion but the imposer of a new religion, complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics.” (3)
Dawkins deplored the censorship and the discourtesy of removing Coyne’s rebuttal without even notifying him beforehand.(4) He too has described “transgenderism” (elsewhere) as “the new religion.”
I want to highlight two other points that interest me as an LGB rights advocate.
First, American liberals constantly fall into the logical fallacy of assuming that if Christian nationalists oppose something, anyone who opposes it is a Christian nationalist. In particular, many people who reject the notion that it is possible to change sex, or that some people are “born in the wrong body,” have nothing to do with the Evangelical lobby – and are in fact atheists like these eminent scientists.
Second, the constant use of the meaningless collection of letters “LGBTQIA+” grates on the ears of many lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. LGB people are under fierce attack from two flanks in Western countries. Cowardly organizations such as the FFRF see only one flank: the attack from religious fanatics. They are completely unaware that LGB people are also under attack from a second flank: the gender identity fanatics who practice censorship, cancellation, and defamation. I have written elsewhere (see my paper “The Gay Rights Movement and Medical Intervention: The Good, the Bad and the Diabolical”) on this incoherent jumble of letters. The rights of lesbians, in particular, are incompatible with the demands of the TQ+ lobby. The Board has no knowledge of this – which is clear from its boast that it donated money to the Human Rights Campaign – an organization that campaigns for “gender non-conforming” teens (mostly lesbians) to have access to drugs that will cause a range of serious increased health risks and eventually render them infertile.
In short, the Board of the FFRF has shown itself to be ignorant, weak, and cowardly. Like so many organizations that once did good work, it is in thrall to a doctrine that is currently tyrannizing Western society. The main irony, of course, is that this organization, which supposedly champions secularism and freethinking, has demonstrated its rigid adherence to the intolerant doctrine of gender identity and its cowardice in the face of zealots.
In the words of Steven Pinker, “It has turned the names Freethought Today and Freethought Now into sad jokes.”
That was 2024. Let’s make 2025 – whatever else may happen – the dawning of a new Age of Reason!
Notes
1. https://freethoughtnow.org/what-is-a-woman/
2. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/12/29/i-resign-from-the-freedom-from-religion-foundation/
4. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/12/29/a-third-one-leaves-the-fold-richard-dawkins-resigns-from-the-freedom-from-religion-foundation/
First, Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker's removal of Coyne’s piece from FFRF's website is NOT advocating for lgbTQIA+ rights. The first letter in the ever-expanding alphabet soup is L. Lesbians are female people. As females, we are oppressed by males who originally claimed all they want is to be accepted (and to pee) but who now invade female showers, female prisons, rape crisis centers, even lesbian dating apps. Heterosexual men who have decided to call themselves women and therefore conclude that they are lesbians because they want to screw women are sadly incorrect. If anything, their claims that actual lesbians are bigots for not wanting to have sex with them have driven us even farther from their cause.
Second, I wouldn't say the ACLU has suffered mission creep. They actively work against women's sex-based rights. That's a reversal, as Biden's “minor rule changes to Title IX” were actually a reversal of the intent and plain reading of the text of that law. Why any woman still gives the ACLU donations is a mystery. If you'd prefer to donate to a group that truly helps women, I suggest LGB or find us in a few weeks at XxFemaleAthletics.com or choose any other group that won't EVER get co-opted by transgender ideology.
You know who is actually advocating for lesbian rights? US Republicans who've written and passed laws keeping males out of female sports and showers. Imagine that. Right wing laws are pro-lesbian. So readers, please don't ever say anti-lgbTQIA2S+ again. When you hear newscasters or your friends or politicians using that expression, ask them to stop. Tell them policies that protect women are NOT anti-LGBT. They are pro-lesbian because we are female. And any policies that help lesbians probably help gay men too. After all, we were the primary blood donors to gay men during the AIDS crisis. Today, men also need the right to privacy and dignity in showers and other sex-segregated spaces.
Finally, lets dig in this year and completely divorce the LGB from the TQ+. They've ridden far too long on the good work we've done over the decades in the fight for gay and lesbian rights. Without the name we built fighting the good fight for same sex marriage, they'd have nothing. The best way to stop them from degrading women's rights even more is to separate ourselves in the minds of the public. Whenever you comment online, if you use the lowercase lgb you'll remind everyone that we are oppressed by the very groups we spent our lives building. We need LGB organizations in every US state and all over Europe. The more we distinguish ourselves from those who tread on our rights, the faster we'll end this travesty of human rights organizations destroying our rights.
2025 is going to be a great year!
I’m so glad you wrote about this, and so incisively, as always. As I watched this play out, I was struck by a couple things: first, that the original article was written by an intern, and second, how Dawkins responded to that in his resignation letter:
“Publishing the silly and unscientific “What is a Woman” article by Kat Grant was a minor error of judgment, redeemed by the decision to publish a rebuttal by a distinguished scientist from the relevant field, namely Biology, Jerry Coyne. But alas, the sequel was an act of unseemly panic when you caved in to hysterical squeals from predictable quarters and retrospectively censored that excellent rebuttal.”
I recently witnessed something similar from a US magazine that is particularly good at economic analysis from a progressive (in the old-time, non-extreme-identitarian sense) perspective. In the midst of a number of excellent articles in its most recent issue, one article laid a great, big rotten egg. The subtitle was “After Donald Trump’s transphobic campaign, will Democrats continue to support transgender people?” All the unevidenced tropes were there, starting early on with a quote from Chase Strangio. The two writers were young interns, likely left to their own devices in writing this.
Much as you pithily describe the co-presidents of FFRF, the senior editors of the magazine appear to be wholly “unaware of having been co-opted into an intolerant ideology” in offering such an article. Also, much the same as it is astounding to see FFRF fail to recognize that it is in thrall to a belief system, these editors fail to recognize that their interns turned in a completely unevidenced, advocacy driven article in a magazine that prides itself on deep-dive research. (As an aside, I did not leave this lie, but wrote to them about the problems with the article.)
I think it comes down, in both cases, to exactly what you note:
> “First, American liberals constantly fall into the logical fallacy of assuming that if Christian nationalists oppose something, anyone who opposes it is a Christian nationalist.” (I would only add that many who style themselves “progressives” fall into this trap as well, and some, like AOC, are among the worst offenders.)
Your second point is also spot-on, and allied to the first.
> “organizations such as the FFRF see only one flank: the attack from religious fanatics.”
I thought Coyne’s point, that FFRF has strayed far from its core mission with this, important, too. (The same holds for the magazine I describe.) It is mind-boggling that organizations like these fail to grasp how much they are undermining their credibility. Good on Coyne, Pinker, and the ever gracious Dawkins, for resigning.
Goodness, I hope you will forgive the length of this comment! Your excellent article just got me thinking about all this more.