Not that there’s anything good about this, but hearing that both Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins “resigned” from whatever honorary positions they had with the FFRF rather made my heart sink.

I was a linguistics student for a time, and Pinker’s books always had a sociolinguistic aspect to them, but I never saw transphobia. It was admittedly a while back, so it really wasn’t yet settling into the national consciousness.

I also admired Dawkins’ writing style; again, I saw nothing transphobic.

So for both of these guys to be like “nope, you should have totally kept a piece up that says transwomen should have fewer rights and options” is, maybe, the final insult of 2024.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 days ago

    There is no transphobia in Atheism.

    There are some individuals who ascribe to being Atheists, and who are also transphobic.

    But “Not believing in a god” says nothing about transphobia.

  • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    All atheism is is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Unfortunately, that means anyone can be an atheist, including shitty transphobic assholes. That doesn’t mean atheism itself has a serious transphobia issue.

  • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Witaf does atheism have to do with transphobia?

    One is a rejection of God beliefs, the other is about identity and people’s bodies. It’s like comparing a parking structure to a grapefruit.

  • yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    3 days ago

    As an atheist, I don’t follow a single famous atheist because then it feels like preaching and that just reminds me of religion

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      I can never remember which one between atheism and agnosticism is the one where you just don’t give a fuck, that’s the one I am.

        • FrederikNJS@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 days ago

          Agnosticism and gnosticism are actually not so much about doubt, but whether it is possible to know.

          An Agnostic says it’s not possible to know whether there is a god or not.

          A Gnostic says it’s possible to know whether there is a god or not

          An Atheist says they don’t believe a god exists

          A Theist says they believe a god exists.

          You can be an Agnostic Atheist. “I don’t believe in god, but I don’t think it can be proven god doesn’t exist.”

          Or a Gnostic Atheist. “I don’t believe in a god, and I think we can prove God doesn’t exist.”

          Or an Agnostic Theist. “I think God exists, but I don’t think we can prove it. You just have to believe”

          Or a Gnostic Theist. “I think God exists, and I think we can find proof.”

      • derek@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        That would be apatheism. It’s not an alternative to the other claims but a disinterest in the problem space itself.

        Atheism is a spectrum of opinion ranging from “I neither accept claims including gods nor put forward alternatives” to “I claim no gods can exist and here’s why” with some wiggle room on both sides as the arguments devolve or extremify.

        Agnosticism is a strange participant as it lacks a cohesive definition. It’s more like a spectrum of reasons “adherents” think the claims made by others aren’t valid. It’s the last port of call for participants embroiled in philosophically rigorous metaphysical tedium and first stop for apatheists so disaffected they’ve never read a relevant text.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I just don’t trust anyone who actively identifies themself as an Atheist. It’s not some lifestyle, cult, or movement - just the absence of religion.

    Feels more like Dawkins et al are trying to build a power base on a rather spurious commonality so they can tell other people what to do; who does that remind you of?

  • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    4 days ago

    This is not a part of atheism. These are old ass narcissistic bigots who needed a new grift as their old one wore thin.

  • within_epsilon@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    4 days ago

    “No gods, no masters” also applies to demagogues like Pinker or Dawkins. Disconnecting an idea from the people associated with bringing it into your life can be difficult.

  • Don Piano@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oh hey these three (Dawk, Coyne, Pinker) were disappointments/shitty back when the atheism movement of the Aughties split into those who combine it with social justice sentiments and those who just wanna be bigots without also going to church. That tracks.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I just don’t trust anyone who actively identifies themself as an Atheist. It’s not some lifestyle, cult, or movement - just the absence of religion.

    Feels more like Dawkins et al are trying to build a power base on a rather spurious commonality so they can tell other people what to do; who does that remind you of?

    • jansk@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      This makes no sense to me. What exactly do you have against atheists? Are you religious yourself?

  • millie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 days ago

    Next time could you post some kind of warning that this is literally just 20 minutes of this guy reading out transphobic posts? Thanks.

  • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 days ago

    Atheism was never related to gender politics in the first place. The title makes no sense

    • Given religion is often used as an excuse for misogyny and how much that crowd of atheists emphasis how backwards theists often are, it’s easy to see how people would have expected better from at least that sect of atheists. But then they turn out to be racist and misogynists just like the theists they criticize.

      Of course it has nothing to do with atheism itself just like religion doesn’t really have much to do with why people who use it as an excuse are actually misogynist.

  • Elise@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    Regarding athletes, aren’t there like different categories within the genders too? Where I live there’s some massive cisgender women, like they’re muscular, wide, and tall. I can’t see those competing against a smaller woman in certain sports.

    • VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Womens sports were never about protecting women, full stop. They were sold as such, sure (racist and transphobic moralizing fear campaigns have so often scored political offices).

      Women’s sports exist to protect (a faceless majority of) men’s egos from women’s excellence. The fact that FIDE still enforces women’s chess is a glaring example.

      To “cover all bases” though: When it comes to physiology, it would make so much more sense to have weight classes irregardless of sex or gender identity.

      Fact is we have entrenched, wealthy institutions with lots of bastards who refuse to see the humanity of another gender or skin tone other than their own, and until they croak they’ll drag out every backwards tradition they can force down our throats.

      • Randomguy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        The fact that FIDE still enforces women’s chess is a glaring example.

        There is no man’s chess, you know? Women can and do participate in open tournaments against men.

        Woman’s chess is a DEI program to incentivize woman’s participation in chess in a more inclusive environment, because, surprise surprise, chess has a misogyny problem. You can argue that this doesn’t work or something, but it definitely isn’t there to protect men’s egos (especially considering titles acquired in women’s chess tournaments are worth less than regular titles).

      • Elise@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Wait, so, you’re telling me men feel pain? 🤔

        All joking aside I feel so naive sometimes. Women’s chess? Like what the actual 🦆

        • jansk@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          VerticaGG is misrepresenting how this actually works. The main FIDE chess league is open to anyone, men or women or whatever. But because women tend to do worse in chess (for whatever reason, you can discuss why until the cows come home but it isn’t the point) exclusive women-only titles and tournaments were created in order to encourage more women to take part.

          For example there is the Woman Grand Master title which is significantly easier to achieve than regular Grand Master, but women can and have achieved both.

          It seems to have worked, too. The top women players today are fantastic, and have dramatically reduced the gap in the top rankings. We could yet see a woman as world champion for the first time.

    • derbis@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Where I live there’s some massive cisgender women, like they’re muscular, wide, and tall.

      Oh well um… Whereabouts is this, out of academic curiosity? 💦