The Skeptic Community's Blind Spot for Gender Theory

It’s baffling to me.

I watch/listen to a show called The Atheist Experience and for all the hosts’ apparent belief in science and evidence, they absolutely scrabble over themselves to agree that TWAW.

Another skeptic called Rationality Rules recently made a video about TW in sport and how it was unfair. He was HAMMERED by the ACA (Atheist Community of Austin) who produce the Atheist Experience. They actually expelled him I think.

So he caved and made a follow up “Why I was wrong” video.

And it isn’t just the Male AE hosts who have succumbed to the trans bullshit - Tracie Harris and Jen Peeples (a lesbian) have also swallowed it whole.

It actually leaves me open mouthed.

She seems to be trying her best to avoid engaging with the subject.

Her response to one person asking perfectly reasonable questions was to block them.

twitter.com/DelReneeXX/status/1131877903271190528

I’d take the Anglo-American analytic tradition over Continental Pomo bullshit any day.

It strikes me as very familiar how this kind of ideological lock-step works. Not by logically arguing for gender identity, but by tying it to other ‘good’ beliefs and linking disagreement to ‘bad’ beliefs.

Fundamentalist communities: “well you COULD question young-earth creationism. But if you did, you’d be rejecting the Bible. And God. And you’d be one of the atheists, who are evil and don’t care about morality.”

Genderists: “well you COULD question gender identity. But if you did, you’d be rejecting LGBTQ+ equality. And saying you hate trans people. And you’d be one of the TERFs, who think wombs are more important than brains and want all trans people to die.”

So people believe in YEC even though it is obviously ridiculous because they’ve had it hammered home to them that you can’t just reject that without also rejecting everything and everyone else you care about.

The other thing to throw into the mix is that many sceptics come from a philosophical background rooted in the Anglo-American analytic tradition (see recent thread on sexism in academic philosophy). Philosophy is typically the only department in your average UK arts faculty with more men than women at every level. It isn't a sexist activity per se, but it is a very male dominated activity, and in my experience, with male dominance comes entrenched sexism and a tolerance for misogyny.

So I suspect a lot of sceptics are happy to embrace "lady brains" and "lady souls" because it props up their pre-existing engrained prejudices about "women know your limits", "women shouldn't be doing ultra-rational, hard-core intellectual activities".

Just because someone's day job is arguing about things supposedly rationally doesn't mean they're not just as prone as the rest of us to confirmation bias, selectively using evidence, arguing from authority, deciding on the conclusion they "feel" is right then tailoring the rest of their argument to reach their confusion.

I find my attitude to men, all men, has hardened since being exposed to this bullshit. 😥 I don't care how nice any trans person is, I view them as colonists now, a threat to women. Equally, where before it simply didn't matter to me whether someone is gay, so many gay men have revealed themselves to be hostile to women, don't give a shit about women including lesbians.

Surely she understands how it works?

She seems to be trying her best to avoid engaging with the subject.

The problem is that a greater understanding of hormones, chromosomes etc. would not lead to 'nice, compassionate' answers because objectively pinning down what it means to be 'trans' is antithetical to self ID and the whole inclusive Stonewall umbrella.

only stupid people get things wrong? That they, being clever, are sure to be right?

Yes. See also: “only baddies get things wrong, I am on the side of the goodies, so I must be right”.

I remember a big spat on one big discussion forum in the skeptic community back years and years ago, about whether theists could consider themselves ‘free thinkers’ if they’d used some kind of logical argument to arrive at their position, even if some of their starting premises were wrong. There were decent arguments on both sides but also a very loud cohort saying: NO, this could NEVER happen, because no theist even believes they have a valid argument in the rational sense, it is ALL fear/emotion/stupidity.”

When you start thinking like that, of course you’re never going to question your own metaphysical worldview about things like gender identity. After all, you know you’d never argue out of emotion rather than logic, so you can’t possibly be promoting something that is effectively a religious belief. That’s just for stupid people!

I can actually understand why some public figures are keeping quiet. I’m disappointed, but I understand. What I can’t understand is the people speaking out in support.

I don't think people keep quiet because they support gender theory. I think they keep quiet because they don't want abuse.

If they really, really believed in gender theory, at least one of them would be able to make a rational argument explaining it.

It's just easier not to rock the boat.

I don't understand the Alice Roberts thread at all. Isn't she a biologist? Surely she understands how it works?

I suspect that many so-called 'great thinkers' are merely parrots who have outsourced their reasoning to others.

You can learn to recite pseudofacts and repeat complicated mantra, and pass convincingly to many as a critical thinker for quite some time.

But if you are unable to engage your own brain in the reasoning process, you are exposed as soon as the current dogma no longer stands up to rationality.

If you can't handle the most basic logic, or spot a circular argument, you are revealed as a competent parrot, rather than a critical thinker. Neither a sceptic not a philosopher. Just a person with a decent memory.

If all swans are birds, are all birds swans?

How do you prove?
How do you disprove?
First define the terms.
Then reason.

Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of sex, and logic, can reason this out quite easily.
It's impossible to identify as a thing if that thing has no definition nor characteristics to identify with. That should be the enormous red flag that stops every critical thinker in their tracks and gets them retracing their steps to see where their logic failed.

'A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman' is a circular argument, a logical fallacy, an abject failure of critical thinking in everyone who endorses such meaningless guff.

Alice Roberts really defended the ideology recently on twitter.

So disappointed to read that. I just had a look and found this thread that she's on.

twitter.com/theAliceRoberts/status/1130938224770211845

Brainwashed? Or just worried about her income from the BBC?

He hasn’t said anything either way, has he?

I think he made one nerdy joke about optical isomers and then shut up on the subject when the Twitter-verse came after him.

I think the big disappointment is Alice Roberts. The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being is a great introduction to evolutionary and developmental biology and the chapter on the ‘gonads, genitals and gestation’ is one I’ve drawn on regularly.

I literally have my copy beside me right now.

You’ll also find a lot of skeptics on less savoury - but necessary - places like KiwiFarms.

“It was interesting to me that Brian Cox has not backed up Gia at all

He hasn’t said anything either way, has he? I wonder if they agreed that he wouldn't because school fees?

Dawkins said something blitheringly idiotic about how "transwomen are women" just means calling them "she" so it is fine (and so all of the feminists are SO STUPID huh. They don't get that it's just a LINGUISTIC issue). But I've never been a fan of Dawkins. He's an arrogant tit

Very sorry to hear about Dennett's cancer though. I do like Dennett.

The militant atheists are a specific sub-set of the sceptics though

I've often wondered this.

Ive got friends who are pretty strongly into taking the piss out of "woo" and particularly despise anti-vaxers.

Yet somehow they all think transing kids if just fine and dandy, and that it's possible to actually change your sex.

I think that there's probably more rational scientific basis to be antivax than there is to believe humans can change sex*

I wonder if it's to do with the TRA movement being all about mens rights whereas the people who tend to be antivax are mothers and therefore women [ugh]

*I'm not an antivaxer btw, just have an eye for a bit of hypocrisy!

I’ve been part of the skeptical community and I saw the takeover first hand. It’s as if we were deliberately targeted. If you can take out the hardcore skeptics mopping up the media and the humanities is a doddle.

It’s not a complete route, however. Jerry Coyne publishes a lot of criticism of this on his website (he hates if you call it a blog) Why Evolution is True.

Plus there’s the so-called ‘intellectual dark web’ who might not align with everyone here on everything, but they are having none of the transgender nonsense.

Some of the older skeptics have took a bit of a backseat. Daniel Dennett has terminal cancer and Richard Dawkins has had a serious stroke and I’m not sure either have the energy for a new battle after fending off the creationists for decades.

Sam Harris is still game though. And don’t forget Ophelia Benson and her blog, Butterflies and Wheels. Benson is one of the few to survive the collapse of FreeThoughtBlogs decent into insanity.

Yes the humanists were my first thought.

Alice Roberts really defended the ideology recently on twitter.

- believe that only stupid people get things wrong? That they, being clever, are sure to be right?
This in spades - I have been told, 'If I'm not sure myself, I know my friends, who are also Oxford-educated have opinions that can be trusted and I believe firmly in science' and 'most people are stupid' by someone who classes them self as a skeptic.
Someone who went I point out how many times expert opinion has been later reversed comes back with the highly perceptive response 'but that was back in history, things are much more advanced now' as though the clever ones in society cannot possibly be getting it wrong now.

I have been horrified by the skeptic/humanist support for trans beliefs when they should have been the most prominent debunkers!

My thoughts were that it is a mix of reasons. A lot of prominent skeptics are male. And I dont think it really matters to them very much as they see no impact. And they want to avoid the hassle. And they want to maintain their public profile of being a nice guy.

It was interesting to me that Brian Cox has not backed up Gia at all.

There are definitely elements of misogyny and I am sure one prominent humanist I dealt with does not like women very much especially non handmaiden types. It is noticeable that this prominent humanist seems much more comfortable with women in other countries who are grateful for support.

It has newly been interesting and pretty horrifying that the new President of Humanists UK Alice Roberts has also been handmaidenly in her approach. It is quite astonishing that her being a professor of biology hasnt made a blind bit of difference.

I do agree that a higher proportion of sceptic types than the general population have autistic traits. My own observation of autistic types in my family is that a lot decided that religion did make sense to them and gave them a sense of purpose. They also ascribed their relatively good middle class lives to Gods personal intervention. Once they decided that their autism helped to stop them ever wanting to change and overrode any logical doubts that came up. It may be that the evidence of some men passing as women and being happy about this did persuade some sceptics to support the trans movement. hard to tell. It certainly seems socially and academically advantageous to do so at present which should never be underestimated as a factor.

As a humanist the whole trans ideology horrifies me and wish this view was more widespread

For those with strong stomachs there is a very tabloid, unpleasant documentary series on Channel 5 called "Sex Business"

Series 2 episode 3 depicts men (2 of whom are known to me and are involved in very abusive sex cults) who provide sexual services to women.

In both cases re the men known to me they claim to be offering healing / therapy / tantric massage

Women and men are vulnerable to abuse, compromise and blackmail when they make use of such services.

The situation is incredibly complex because both service providers and consumers can be exploited and can exploit, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously.

This element of the sex industry has blurred lines (a common theme) re categories with psychotherapy, body psychotherapy and new age so called alternative medicine.

This new age aspect the sex industry is all "love and light" on the surface but deeply abusive when you start to dig a little.

The scene is full of useful idiots and well meaning brainwashed people, men and women, who believe they are helping people but who are (very often without knowing it) passing on sensitive information to sinister actors.

Possibly the reason skeptics remain schtum is that they believe trans people are particularly emotionally fragile?

I've only know 3 or 4 trans people in my life but they were all so fragile and/or volatile that I would never have directly challenged or questioned them on their beliefs.