This piece from the biologist Jerry Coyne original appeared on the Freedom from Religion blog FreeThought now, but was later removed for dogmatic reasons. Critical Mass subscribers can read it here
In one article I read, it said that one of the reasons that the FFRF administrators removed Jerry Coyne's article was concern that it caused "distress" to some of their LGBTQIA+ staff. I would like to liken this situation to the old adage of "If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach him how to fish, he will eat for a lifetime." New adage: "If you shield a person from a distressing event, you protect them for a day. If you teach them resilience, you protect them for a lifetime." I believe that FFRF owes it to their staff to be honest and to explain that the world is not always a kind and gentle place and everyone will be frequently be exposed to distressing events. When people learn to be resilient, their chances of survival are much enhanced. I was a woman in science in the 1960s. I know whereof I speak.
As George Orwell observed, speech that offends no one, needs no protection. In Coddling of the American Mind, Lukianoff & Haidt cite the Eastern admonition that parents should prepare the child for the road rather than the road for the child…
Even if one believed that shielding people from this kind of distress was a good thing, that just isn't a game you can ever win. Clearly this action itself distressed three board members enough to resign.
For me, the asymmetry in the debate about transgender rights, i.e., the fact that it focuses on or originates from transwomen and requires biological women to define their womanhood is indicative of covert misogyny, perpetrated even by those who expound their transgender rights credentials. I do not see articles asking "what is a man?" or answering "I do not know what is a man". Some of the transactivist language towards biological women conceals an effort to denigrate or erase them and is consistent with male behavior towards females. It betrays the very masculinity they want to deny. Of course, I support transgender rights. But I do not want to have women erased. Transgender persons should also support women's rights and personhood. Women's rights are threatened by obscuring biology, because pregnancy is an asymmetric biological handicap. Yes, handicap.
Free speech is gone at FFRF, as with so many "Left" organizations and so many college campuses. It is a tragedy for a liberal society. But the decline of support for free speech is now widespread, polls show, and it is only one manifestation of a broader disease.
The multiple manifestations of the "Woke" phenomenon force us to grapple with an endless array of related tragedies, of which loss of free speech is just one. This "Woke-a-Mole" generates an exhausting diversity of claimed oppression by our society, each demanding attention while others persist in the background, waiting to resurface.
The Woke mole phenomenon pops up in countless ways. Supposedly, society is hopelessly impacted by systemic racism, portraying white individuals as inherently oppressive and our society as dominated by white supremacy. Another Woke mole is pervasive misogyny, with claims of vicious sexual harassment, assault, and rape culture. Similarly, Woke pops up with claims of bias against LGBTQ+ individuals and accusations of transphobia. Squeezing into Wokeness lately are claims of rampant antisemitism on college campuses. And a perennial Woke winner is outrage over the colonial foundations of Western Civilization. Claims of Woke victimhood are so widespread that prestigious universities install presidents who fit the "intersectional" victimhood qualifications: non-white male. Even plagiarism is secondary to having the right Woke qualifications.
Clearly these disparate Woke pop-ups are all part of one related psychological phenomenon.
The wildly different issues of racism, trans oppression, antisemitism, misogyny, and losing free speech all are connected. Clearly, there is a psychological association. The connection is a powerful attraction to victimhood. People who claim victimhood suddenly have a powerful voice. Feelings of insecurity (especially in a university setting) are common and ameliorated by claiming one's identity-related victimhood.
Similarly, people who do not fit within the identified categories of victims often feel guilty about their good fortune. If you are white, what do you do? If you are a heterosexual male, are you among the oppressors? How do you "Check your privilege"? The obvious route is to become a strong, vocal "ally" of the Woke victimhood crowd. Proclaim vociferously how terrible the oppressive white male heterosexuals are. That way your guilt is assuaged by association with the morally superior Woke team.
Freedom of Speech must be suppressed as secondary for those in the Victimhood camp. Dumping free speech is critically necessary for those for whom declaring and defending their oppression and victimhood looms as vital for their self-esteem, dogma, and self-image, including as an "Ally". Freedom of Speech cannot be allowed to compromise one's self-esteem, after all. Woke victimhood is a powerful psychological attractor, which is why so many disparate Woke causes rise together, and are nearly impossible to eliminate.
Alas, even the Unitarian Universalist Association appears to have succumbed to the tantrums of those on the Lunatic Left (not to be confused with those of us who assert our Liberal leanings despite the risk of also being identified as loonies.)
Kat Grant's essay, with its forced rejection of any definition of "woman", will undoubtedly be seen by many readers as an attempt to frame a specific identity group, trans women, within the stale narrative of victimhood. She claims that other cultures (notably non-Western) reject designations of "male" and "female" and instead accept the reality of gender fluidity. For example, she states, "In various Arab cultures, the term 'mukhannath' is used to refer to transgender and nonbinary people." Her arguments clang like "Queers for Palestine". Ms. Grant may not fully grasp the influence her writing will exert on her most of her readers.
In one article I read, it said that one of the reasons that the FFRF administrators removed Jerry Coyne's article was concern that it caused "distress" to some of their LGBTQIA+ staff. I would like to liken this situation to the old adage of "If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach him how to fish, he will eat for a lifetime." New adage: "If you shield a person from a distressing event, you protect them for a day. If you teach them resilience, you protect them for a lifetime." I believe that FFRF owes it to their staff to be honest and to explain that the world is not always a kind and gentle place and everyone will be frequently be exposed to distressing events. When people learn to be resilient, their chances of survival are much enhanced. I was a woman in science in the 1960s. I know whereof I speak.
As George Orwell observed, speech that offends no one, needs no protection. In Coddling of the American Mind, Lukianoff & Haidt cite the Eastern admonition that parents should prepare the child for the road rather than the road for the child…
Even if one believed that shielding people from this kind of distress was a good thing, that just isn't a game you can ever win. Clearly this action itself distressed three board members enough to resign.
For me, the asymmetry in the debate about transgender rights, i.e., the fact that it focuses on or originates from transwomen and requires biological women to define their womanhood is indicative of covert misogyny, perpetrated even by those who expound their transgender rights credentials. I do not see articles asking "what is a man?" or answering "I do not know what is a man". Some of the transactivist language towards biological women conceals an effort to denigrate or erase them and is consistent with male behavior towards females. It betrays the very masculinity they want to deny. Of course, I support transgender rights. But I do not want to have women erased. Transgender persons should also support women's rights and personhood. Women's rights are threatened by obscuring biology, because pregnancy is an asymmetric biological handicap. Yes, handicap.
Free speech is gone at FFRF, as with so many "Left" organizations and so many college campuses. It is a tragedy for a liberal society. But the decline of support for free speech is now widespread, polls show, and it is only one manifestation of a broader disease.
The multiple manifestations of the "Woke" phenomenon force us to grapple with an endless array of related tragedies, of which loss of free speech is just one. This "Woke-a-Mole" generates an exhausting diversity of claimed oppression by our society, each demanding attention while others persist in the background, waiting to resurface.
The Woke mole phenomenon pops up in countless ways. Supposedly, society is hopelessly impacted by systemic racism, portraying white individuals as inherently oppressive and our society as dominated by white supremacy. Another Woke mole is pervasive misogyny, with claims of vicious sexual harassment, assault, and rape culture. Similarly, Woke pops up with claims of bias against LGBTQ+ individuals and accusations of transphobia. Squeezing into Wokeness lately are claims of rampant antisemitism on college campuses. And a perennial Woke winner is outrage over the colonial foundations of Western Civilization. Claims of Woke victimhood are so widespread that prestigious universities install presidents who fit the "intersectional" victimhood qualifications: non-white male. Even plagiarism is secondary to having the right Woke qualifications.
Clearly these disparate Woke pop-ups are all part of one related psychological phenomenon.
The wildly different issues of racism, trans oppression, antisemitism, misogyny, and losing free speech all are connected. Clearly, there is a psychological association. The connection is a powerful attraction to victimhood. People who claim victimhood suddenly have a powerful voice. Feelings of insecurity (especially in a university setting) are common and ameliorated by claiming one's identity-related victimhood.
Similarly, people who do not fit within the identified categories of victims often feel guilty about their good fortune. If you are white, what do you do? If you are a heterosexual male, are you among the oppressors? How do you "Check your privilege"? The obvious route is to become a strong, vocal "ally" of the Woke victimhood crowd. Proclaim vociferously how terrible the oppressive white male heterosexuals are. That way your guilt is assuaged by association with the morally superior Woke team.
Freedom of Speech must be suppressed as secondary for those in the Victimhood camp. Dumping free speech is critically necessary for those for whom declaring and defending their oppression and victimhood looms as vital for their self-esteem, dogma, and self-image, including as an "Ally". Freedom of Speech cannot be allowed to compromise one's self-esteem, after all. Woke victimhood is a powerful psychological attractor, which is why so many disparate Woke causes rise together, and are nearly impossible to eliminate.
Alas, even the Unitarian Universalist Association appears to have succumbed to the tantrums of those on the Lunatic Left (not to be confused with those of us who assert our Liberal leanings despite the risk of also being identified as loonies.)
https://news.fairforall.org/p/the-ideological-takeover-of-the-church
Kat Grant's essay, with its forced rejection of any definition of "woman", will undoubtedly be seen by many readers as an attempt to frame a specific identity group, trans women, within the stale narrative of victimhood. She claims that other cultures (notably non-Western) reject designations of "male" and "female" and instead accept the reality of gender fluidity. For example, she states, "In various Arab cultures, the term 'mukhannath' is used to refer to transgender and nonbinary people." Her arguments clang like "Queers for Palestine". Ms. Grant may not fully grasp the influence her writing will exert on her most of her readers.