Creationism and genderism

[InspiralCoalescenceRingdown]

So I saw this on Maya Forstater's Twitter feed today: mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1415237869808111616

It reminded me of something I've been thinking about lately.

Years ago, I used to read a lot of atheist-y, science-y blogs/forums. Every so often, you'd get someone who was an evangelical Christian and/or Creationist turn up to spread the good news.

Almost every time, they had the exact same things to say. The same arguments, the same mantras, as if learnt and repeated by rote, rather than understanding.

Depending on the place/time/frequency, this would either get a response of carefully criticising the same old arguments yet again, or a round of eye-rolling, before the would-be missionary retreated.

It strikes me that reading FWR is basically the same. Every so often a new TRA turns up with the exact same by-rote arguments and mantras. They'll post the same old stuff, FWR regulars will respond with critique, exasperation or both. Then eventually the TRA will get bored of repeating themselves and disappear.

There's at least one of these threads going on right now - the same nonsense retreaded once more.

Helen Joyce's comparison of the Forstater case with the Scopes Monkey Trial just struck me that there's more than one similarity between genderists and creationists.

You've used abbreviations without explaining them. What is FWR and TRA? Who are these people - Helen, Maya? What is your point?

I love it when TRAs turn up because it gives the wonderful GC feminists on here yet more opportunities to calmly and articulately debunk the tranagenda type argument.
Own goals for the TRAs, generally, and more sunlight on what is a totally irrational idealism.

I'm quite new to Mumsnet. I see what you mean about the ongoing thread.

It's not a debate when responses are circular, fact-free mantras. It's not worth spending the time to engage.

Is it allowed to post "@xxx is a total chump*" or will it get deleted?

insert handle and *preferred terms of abuse as required

It strikes me that reading FWR is basically the same. Every so often a new TRA turns up with the exact same by-rote arguments and mantras. They'll post the same old stuff, FWR regulars will respond with critique, exasperation or both. Then eventually the TRA will get bored of repeating themselves and disappear

There's at least one of these threads going on right now - the same nonsense retreaded once more.

I agree, it's like Groundhog Day.

@larkstar

You've used abbreviations without explaining them. What is FWR and TRA? Who are these people - Helen, Maya? What is your point?

FWR is short for Feminism & Women's Rights, TRA is short for Trans Rights Activist. These are common abbreviations on this board.

Maya Forstater is a feminist activist who was effectively fired for her views.

Helen Joyce is a journalist who's written a book (quoted in the Twitter link) on the sex & gender debate.

I'm not sure I have a point. Maybe just musing on the similarities.

Who are these people - Helen, Maya?
Since both surnames are there in the OP, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find out. But I don't get the impression you are really looking for information, larkstar

I was looking at the Venn diagram of irrational nonsense today and wondered where Trans ideology would fit in.
It mentions Creationism which is listed in 'quasi-religious bollocks' and the 'born in the wrong body' narrative might fit in there.
Then there is 'psudoscientific bollocks'- the mermaids gender gingerberead chart, 100 genders etc. Quackery bollocks (boys who like pink are girls) paranormal bollocks to cover all categories.

crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-venn-diagram-of-irrational-nonsense.html

One lead to the other. As more religious people became secular, they took on many social justice ideas as a replacement for religion.

Hence public shaming, Sins of the father, iconoclastic behaviour, confessions, arbitrary rules, gendered souls, repeating of ideological phrases.

Another similarity, at the start of my teaching career Biology teachers were having to deal with creationists trying to interfere with the teaching of science. Now it's genderists, although they mostly seem to just be targeting PSHE lessons I can't imagine it will be long before they make a play for science lessons too.

This article may be of interest
4w.pub/refugees-from-reality-religious-trauma-and-gender-identity/

However OP it seems that a lot of the athiesty sciencey blogs have a massive blind spot with this particular issue.

Definitely lots of parallels between creationism and genderism. Creationists love to say there are 'scientific studies' to prove intelligent design, Noah's ark etc.

The irony is that many of the smug 'atheists' these days are blind worshippers at the gender altar. They seem incapable of seeing their own blind faith and refuse to use logic and rationality at their own beliefs while sneering at religious people.

I was looking at the Venn diagram of irrational nonsense today and wondered where Trans ideology would fit in.

I imagine it would sit comfortably next to Anthroposophy - although on the face of it, surely it's not really a religion?

There was always a risk with atheists that they would throw the baby out with the bath water.

By refusing to acknowledge all the important complex functions that religion plays, and all the intellectual thought contained within religion over thousands of years, they left themselves and people exiting religion who believed them very vulnerable to being taken in by other ideologies.

You can live a really great and fulfilling life without religion, but it takes effort to put together all that culture, meaning, purpose, community, shared tradition, inner reflection, meditation and moral thought in other ways.

And many people didn’t put that effort in. So they get sucked into things which are essentially new religions without any of the understanding and caution people would usually apply when approaching religious ideas.

If religion is/was the opiate of the masses, then secularism has left a lot of people incredibly desperate for a fix. Social justice and identity politics seems to work as a substitute for many.

Just a word of note, many evangelical Christians who some of you are so scathing about are campaigning tirelessly against the TWAW mantra. You don't have to agree on everything but know that you have allies where you might not always expect it.

Apart from the gendered soul idea, one of the most religious elements of it is the notion that some people have recently gone through some kind of awakening and can therefore say that any idea or cultural pattern that happened prior to 2010 is immoral, incorrect and to be discarded. That is very common and very much a religious idea.

Another similarly between creationism/fundamentalism and genderism is the way they draw a distinction between humans and other animals.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with evolutionary biology understands that human beings are simply animals, no more no less.

Creationists believe humans are different, and special, compared to animals. They believe, literally, that we were made by God "in his image". They believe we, unlike animals, have a soul and that this soul is what makes us humans.

Genderists reject, it seems, the idea that humans are simply animals. They say that "man" and "woman" are social constructs, whereas they'd presumably accept "stallion" and "mare" are physical realities. They think humans, unlike animals, have an inner essence they call gender identity and that this soul is what makes us humans.

@EndoplasmicReticulum

However OP it seems that a lot of the athiesty sciencey blogs have a massive blind spot with this particular issue.

They absolutely do. More than a blind spot in many cases - an abandonment of core values.

Thinking especially of Science-Based Medicine and the omnishambles over the recent review of Abigail Shrier's book.

I stopped reading a lot of those blogs when the woke takeover was stirring, although my main reason was that they seemed to be forming into a sort of quasi-religion in themselves, which I wasn't interested in.

I do recognise some names in the GC sphere, though - like Andy Lewis of Quackometer.

Fascinating! It's so hard to find people irl who'll have these kind of conversations.

@Secondbellini I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying, although I would add the caveat that some genderists are religious.

They think humans, unlike animals, have an inner essence they call gender identity and that this soul is what makes us humans.

I think some of the really nutty ones think animals have gender identities too. There's been calls to not assume animals are merely male/female. 🙄

@horseymum

Just a word of note, many evangelical Christians who some of you are so scathing about are campaigning tirelessly against the TWAW mantra. You don't have to agree on everything but know that you have allies where you might not always expect it.

I've definitely enjoyed the irony of it. It must be terrible for GC people in the US where the sex & gender debate is so tied up in political polarization.

@NonnyMouse1337

They think humans, unlike animals, have an inner essence they call gender identity and that this soul is what makes us humans.

I think some of the really nutty ones think animals have gender identities too. There's been calls to not assume animals are merely male/female. 🙄

That made me think of this: mobile.twitter.com/MatHempell/status/1209100440727642117

@horseymum

Just a word of note, many evangelical Christians who some of you are so scathing about are campaigning tirelessly against the TWAW mantra. You don't have to agree on everything but know that you have allies where you might not always expect it.

Is that because they think men should be 'proper' men and women should be 'proper' women with separate but complimentary 'roles' in life?

I support their right to oppose gender ideology and we may certainly agree on some things like children not being medicalised or subjected to surgery, but doesn't mean I won't criticise beliefs and practices. I tend not to give people a free pass - I'm quite critical of atheists who blindly follow genderism. Beliefs should never be above criticism.