Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 13/06/2023 08:53

I don't blame her. Always found the humanists oddly fervent, tbh.

BaronMunchausen · 13/06/2023 09:00

I was a member for quite some time. Met Copson a few times. Like many people, we've used their celebrants for secular funerals.

I don't know whether it's the gay men at the helm who are steering this course. Whatever the reason, the descent into faith-based irrationality and casual misogyny is very sad and must be difficult for Joan Smith

OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 13/06/2023 09:07

I attended a meeting once because it sounded like the kind of thing I wanted to get behind - secularity, etc.

I don't know if it was that particular group, but I've never felt more like I was in an evangelist church meeting than I did that evening!

I wonder if as a general group Humanists have a tendency to fall for a religious style of thinking - much as some atheists are incredibly tribal and narrow minded about their atheism?

RavingStone · 13/06/2023 11:23

ArabeIIaScott · 13/06/2023 08:53

I don't blame her. Always found the humanists oddly fervent, tbh.

Yes me too!

I'm a raging atheist. Humanists pushing this ideology that requires a leap of faith as big as any religion makes no rational sense.

The religion of genderism is missing the healthier parts of many organised religions eg being outward looking; feeling a sense of awe in the belief that there's something out there bigger and more important than you; tolerance.

off · 13/06/2023 12:44

I left in 2019, when it became clear to me that H-UK were taking a strongly pro-genderist stance which IMO is incompatible with the principles of secular humanism (particularly in the pseudo-spiritual and pseudo-scientific aspects). Even if you disagree, and think it is compatible, it's certainly not something that by necessity follows from secular humanist principles. Taking this position means they can't represent the views of all secular humanists on this issue, or even of all H-UK members. It would be like declaring that humanism means being vegan, and non-vegans aren't welcome.

I used to be a member of the national Humanists UK, and also an active member of my local group. I went to the local talks and social events, made friends there, and got peripherally involved in local campaigning on the RE curriculum. I even attended the charity's training course and became an accredited Humanists UK school speaker, and went into schools when they requested a Humanists UK speaker to give presentations to their students on what humanism is, as an example of a non-religious way of life/philosophical conviction.

I don't give myself for free to Humanists UK any more. Why would I give my time to an organisation fighting against my interests?

(The rest of this post is slightly tangential, and about my feelings on Humanists UK's approach to controversial issues more broadly, what it seems to feel its purpose is, and my opinion on that — might want to skip if that doesn't interest you.)

To be fair, it also makes me slightly uncomfortable that Humanists UK doesn't attempt to represent the "broad church" that is humanism when it comes to other controversial issues, even though it's meant to be the national charity for those with a humanist outlook.

For example, it takes an explicitly and unequivocally pro-choice organisational position on abortion, which, even though I personally am very strongly pro-choice too, makes me feel they're representing something more/other than simply secular humanism. Being pro-choice re: abortion does not necessarily and intrinsically follow from humanist principles, though for me it does.

I think it's possible to be a secular humanist, to believe in improving society for everyone by making public policy through rational and compassionate scientific and philosophical argument, to share all of the basic tenets of humanism — and yet be against abortion on demand, for entirely non-religious reasons. I very much disagree with those views, but I think that while Humanists UK should explain the (probably) majority pro-choice view of their members and of humanists in general (or those who think like humanists, but may not describe themselves as such), they should also represent the breadth of opinion among humanists on matters like this, which would include the opinions of people who've used the same humanist principles and come to different conclusions.

Non-religious people who take positions which argue against free availability of abortion are poorly represented in the media as it is. Whenever the media need someone from that side of things, the easy option is to grab a religious pro-lifer. This results in the general impression that the only antis are religious or conservative people — much like how (especially in the US, it seems) it's easy for people to assume the only reason anyone would question extremist genderism is that they're right-wing, extremely religious or both. There aren't many humanists who are as extreme as religious pro-lifers, but there are quite a few who express concerns.

I don't have a problem with Humanists UK accurately representing the majority view of those within the organisation or of humanists in general, and the arguments made for that position, but recognising the pluralism within humanism and the fact that different humanists can come to different conclusions based on the same principles and evidence is important IMO. It's kind of the whole point of the damn thing — to think independently, rationally and compassionately about issues, without having to follow an institutional line about what we're supposed to believe.

Humanists UK doesn't currently represent humanists — it represents a subset of humanists with a particular set of views. There aren't a whole lot of different humanist organisations to choose from so you can find one that fits your worldview, like joining a church, and I wouldn't want there to be. A humanist organisation should centre humanist values and principles, not dictate specific conclusions that humanists must agree upon — the starting-point and the navigation methods, not the destination.

ResisterRex · 13/06/2023 12:49

ArabeIIaScott · 13/06/2023 08:53

I don't blame her. Always found the humanists oddly fervent, tbh.

I agree. Went to a wedding with a humanist celebrant, and it wasn't a million miles off some religious ceremonies I've been to. They really rammed it home.

ArabeIIaScott · 13/06/2023 13:00

I'm sure it varies. I've been to some good humanist funerals/weddings, and some dreadful ones. One of them appeared to be an extended advert for humanist beliefs; clunky and inappropriate.

ResisterRex · 13/06/2023 13:05

extended advert for humanist beliefs; clunky and inappropriate.

That was my experience. But only been to one.

BigTedLittleTedCardboardBox · 13/06/2023 13:53

@off I totally agree. Their stance on home education is extreme too, and seems reactionary against those who might choose home education for religious reasons without any consideration for the many other reasons people choose home education. Totally illogical and based on prejudice.

All the religious fervour in the name of non-religion backing the new-religion of gender identity.

ArabeIIaScott · 13/06/2023 14:08

Yes, off, very sensible post.

BaronMunchausen · 13/06/2023 16:03

There was a thing years ago (possibly still is) in the USA called Atheism Plus. The + bit required belief in a full set of political principles in addition to the absence of belief in divinities. I suspect by the time it transmitted to Europe that it came with gender ideology in the box set.

In my experience, Skeptics in the Pub are even worse - even less critical thought given to the gender snake-oil, and more openly misogynistic male voices.

OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 13/06/2023 16:07

Ach, so many of these movements that sound good on the tin are spoiled by loud male voices. See also Stoicism.

SarahJane03 · 15/06/2023 09:11

This is all very odd... As in 25/30? years ago I was looking into a hunamist type celebrant to officiate my furneral, (I am a forward planner!) But their views on same sex relationships at the time was negative and I did not want to be associated with them in any way. Slowly things changed and I went to a same sex blessing around 23 years ago, (civil partnerships were still not available then.) And it now seems to have gone totally the other way. I.e is run by a group of extremists who want only their views foistered on the rest. No wonder she quit!

guinnessguzzler · 15/06/2023 09:57

I hadn't realised Ricky Gervais is a patron too. I wonder if he might also resign? Surprised they haven't kicked him out already tbh.

PriOn1 · 15/06/2023 10:25

”In legal terms the proposal would bar trans women from women’s hospital wards, and ban them from competing against biological women in sport, for example.”

Bit sloppy for the Times. This change would mean that men who claim they are women CAN be barred from women’s hospital wards and sports, but doesn’t mean they WOULD.

I feel the same as Arabella about so many of these groups. Scratch the surface and they’re full of misogyny, arrogance and woo.

DemiColon · 15/06/2023 10:44

I think secular humanism has always been a strongly faith based position, in some sense more so than some of the major religions. Mainly because humanism developed as an ideology based on a platonic Christian framework, which it then just ripped away or ignored.

So it seems unsurprising to me that they would find other areas where they took the same approach, but I imagine it's frustrating if you thought they were committed to an evidence base in their beliefs.

BaronMunchausen · 15/06/2023 12:03

SarahJane03 · 15/06/2023 09:11

This is all very odd... As in 25/30? years ago I was looking into a hunamist type celebrant to officiate my furneral, (I am a forward planner!) But their views on same sex relationships at the time was negative and I did not want to be associated with them in any way. Slowly things changed and I went to a same sex blessing around 23 years ago, (civil partnerships were still not available then.) And it now seems to have gone totally the other way. I.e is run by a group of extremists who want only their views foistered on the rest. No wonder she quit!

It's now headed up by a gay man who sees support for trans identifying males as a tribal matter. Ironic, really.

I don't know who exactly was doing the canvassing or with what mandate (I don't recall any democratic decision making processes when I was a member), but I'd hazard a guess that chief executive Andrew Copson played a part.

OP posts:
FannyCann · 15/06/2023 12:04

guinnessguzzler · 15/06/2023 09:57

I hadn't realised Ricky Gervais is a patron too. I wonder if he might also resign? Surprised they haven't kicked him out already tbh.

They won't want to lose heavy weight celebrity members.
Richard Dawkins is another who really ought to dump them over this.

TBH I expect they've forgotten they're members - they probably signed up years ago when it seemed a fashionable thing to do and haven't attended a meeting since.

Chersfrozenface · 15/06/2023 13:16

So they're now Transhumanists UK, yes?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page