The Skeptic Community's Blind Spot for Gender Theory

[Mermoose]

One of the most disappointing aspects of the gender debate has been the response of the skeptic community. Apart from a few - Maria MacLachlan, Andy Lewis, Gia Milinovich - prominent skeptics have either been silent or supportive of gender theory. Which would be fine, if they could offer cogent arguments for it, but they can't. Robin Ince, who scoffs at people believing in homeopathy, disappears off Twitter when asked to explain his belief in gender essence.
I have a theory as to how this has happened.
I think I'm a skeptic but it's fairly common (and it's always annoyed me) to find skeptics not only debunking fallacies but sneering at those who believe them. One reason it annoys me is that I once believed in a lot of that stuff, and even though I've now changed my mind, I remember how it felt and why I believed in it. I don't think I was stupid, and likewise I don't think people who still believe in it are stupid. Also because I was wrong once, I know I will probably be wrong again, so I'm never 100% sure of my opinions.
Do a lot of skeptics - skeptics like Robin Ince, who can be quite condescending (albeit in a funny way) - believe that only stupid people get things wrong? That they, being clever, are sure to be right? Is that why they haven't put gender theory - something they want to believe in - to the same test they'd put some quack medicine?

Agree, it's bemused me too.

I've heard a lot of "what about the nice, lovely trans friends we have" from Skeptics. As if discussing the issues would be saying that their lovely, nice trans friends are anything other than lovely and nice.

And also, as if the trans people themselves are the issue, rather than the predatory men pretending to be trans in order to access female only spaces for nefarious reasons.

Or the question of who is benefiting from the sudden rise in young females IDing as trans.

Curious that they are not curious.

I know someone active in this community and he is as unthinkingly woke as the worst of them, if not more so.

Yes, when you see something like the video a Scottish kid took when he was thrown out of class for saying there are only two sexes (he said genders but was talking about male and female), you have to wonder how any self-respecting skeptic could remain comfortable with the way this is going.

@SadlyMissTaken is there any arguing with him? Is he at all open to discussing it or recognising where he's using logical fallacies?

I'm new to this but I think keeping schtum is the coward's way of dealing with the issue.

They don't believe TWAW, but dare not say so publicly for fear of reprisals.

If he believed TWAW he would say so loud and clear.

@SarahPickles Last I saw he was proudly brandishing a copy of Sally Hines' book.

Absolutely.

I listen to a sceptical podcast called The Scathing Atheist and it cracks me up. Very perceptive and funny until they get on to issues of gender identity, where suddenly all concept of critical thinking goes out the door. They would sneer all day at the concept of a soul, but don’t draw the obvious parallel between a soul and a gender identity, much less get as far as debating the merits of mandating such a belief on others. It’s maddening.

And also, as if the trans people themselves are the issue

Given the mooted links between AGP and other paraphilias and fetishes, and the number of in prison who are there for sexual or violent crimes, I think we have to stop pussyfooting around the fact that SOME men who identify as women are part of the issue.

Vis-a-vis the sceptics, I too find it shocking that they are behind gender theory. Having read a good deal of the science that is put forward as (so-called) proof, I find it enormously unconvicing.

To overturn such established science as that about chromosomal and physical sex should require something so solid that it can’t be ignored or explained away. And we are a million miles from having that, yet here we are.

It's fascinating. One of the supposed characteristics of people who refer to themselves as skeptics is that they consider every topic rationally, and on the basis of evidence. So they don't believe in God, and will mock people who believe stuff because their religion demands it of them rather than because they've thought it through rationally. And ditto, they reject homoeopathy etc because it's unscientific and not evidence-based.

What's happened with the gender stuff is they've stopped exercising their critical faculties. Just as religious people might believe in something entirely irrational because their religion demands it of them, they have chosen to believe in something entirely irrational because it is fashionable to do so. So-called "skeptics" are just as susceptible to external pressure as religious people, except in their case, it is the pressure to be progressive or "woke". The one thing you can say in favour of religion is that a lot of religious people admit that they are being guided by blind faith rather than reason; the sad (or possibly funny) thing about the skeptics is they genuinely believe they are guided by rationality.

Are most of the woke so called ‘sceptic’ community, that believe in this nonsense, male by any chance? I find that many men that push the TRA agenda are actually using it as a guise to get one over on women. Deep down, they don’t believe it, but it’s a good way of getting back at uppity women.

I’m an atheist, so I believe in material reality, therefore I would be a hypocrite if I said that people could change sex. This is why I don’t understand why so many people are being caught up in this ideology, as many of those same believers are atheists.

Steve Novella is my biggest disappointment. He’s a bloody Harvard educated neurologist, ffs!

Mind you, the atheist/sceptic/skeptic community has show. Itself time and again to be deeply misogynist, so I suppose it’s not a surprise.

And also, as if the trans people themselves are the issue, rather than the predatory men pretending to be trans in order to access female only spaces for nefarious reasons.

I've seen this or something similar posted a hundred times. I've probably done so myself.

But the truth is that being genuinely transgender (whatever that means) doesn't change the fact that men who transition continue to commit sex and violent crime at the same rate as other men. And to provide context of the dramatic difference between the sexes, there are 14,000 men in prison for sex offences, and 120 women.

The skeptics haven't been keeping schtum. Schtum I would understand. Many have been vocally supporting gender theory.

The worst one for me is Rational Wiki, which I'm terribly upset about as I usually love it. The stuff it has on this area is appallingly awful.

I think that one factor is that the skeptic community is pretty macho and used to dismissing feminists as stupid, and it has largely been feminists raising concerns in this area (although it shouldn't be, given that a lot of the trans activist stuff is just pseudoscience)

Also, there are often just personal links I think, as skeptics sometimes have autistic traits, and there seems to sometimes be a link between autism and gender dysphoria

Other than that, I've no idea. But it really shocks me, more than anything else in this area really.

It's not even just the safety aspect, although that is the most urgent part.

It's also that women have the right to define, organize, and advocate for ourselves without including or centering ANY male people. Even the nicest, loveliest male people. We have the right to privacy from male people and dignity in vulnerable situations. These rights do not depend on the relative worthiness or unworthiness of any individual male.

@BertrandRussell Yeah Steve Novella was a shock. The guy wrote a book on critical thinking and espouses a belief system which can't even be clearly stated without using circular definitions.

Also, there are often just personal links I think, as skeptics sometimes have autistic traits, and there seems to sometimes be a link between autism and gender dysphoria

this is certainly true in my personal experience

Also skeptical commentators are frequently atheist

I think that the atheist community is extremely open to taboo / transgressive aspects of sexuality because there is no sky pixie to tell people off about taboo / transgressive sexual activity

Also, and this is a centrally important issue, lots of socially awkward, lonely, depressed people on the autistic spectrum are learning a lot of money in tech industries.

Very often these people can become purchasers of sexual services from very highly paid sex workers who market themselves as providing girlfriend experience / tantric services / sacred sexual healing

This is a completely different aspect of the sex industry than most posters here will be familiar with.

Given that many criminal cults are using neo-tantra to exploit women and men (often highly educated / skilled women and men) in systems of prostitution as blackmailers and harvesters of sensitive intel, there is significant potential for extremely influential persons on the autistic spectrum who work in tech industries to become influenced and compromised by criminal networks.

I mention this because I read a lot on the boards about posters' perceptions about prostitution and many seem completely unaware of how the advent of the internet and the rise of cultic manipulation and social engineering have changed the way that the sex industry works.

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.

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.

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

- 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.

Yes the humanists were my first thought.

Alice Roberts really defended the ideology recently on twitter.

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.

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!

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