Culture I resign from the Freedom from Religion Foundation - It's because of trannies. It's always because of trannies

This is the result of a dispute I’ve explained before (see here). Because the FFRF has caved into to gender extremism, an area having nothing to do with its mission, and because, when they let me post an article on their website about this, they changed their mind and simply removed my post, I have decided I can no longer remain a member of their board of honorary directors. So be it. Everything is explained in this email I sent FFRF co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker about an hour ago, to wit:

Dear Annie Laurie and Dan,

As you probably expected, I am going resign my position on the honorary board of the FFRF. I do this with great sadness, for you know that I have been a big supporter of your organization for years, and was honored to receive not only your Emperor Has No Clothes Award, but also that position on your honorary board.

But because you took down my article that critiqued Kat Grant’s piece, which amounts to quashing discussion of a perfectly discuss-able issue, and in fact had previously agreed that I could publish that piece—not a small amount of work—and then put it up after a bit of editing, well, that is a censorious behavior I cannot abide. I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex, and I do not understand why you would consider that “distressing” and also an attempt to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, which I would never do.

As I said, I think these folks should have moral and legal rights identical to those of other groups, except in the rare cases in which LGBTQIA+ rights conflict with the rights of other groups, in which case some kind of adjudication is necessary. But your announcement about the “mistake” of publishing my piece also implies that what I wrote was transphobic.

Further, when I emailed Annie Laurie asking why my piece had disappeared (before the “official announcement” of revocation was issued), I didn’t even get the civility of a response. Is that the way you treat a member of the honorary board?

I always wanted to be on the board so I could help steer the FFRF: I didn’t think of it as a job without any remit. The only actions I’ve taken have been to write to both of you—sometimes in conjunction with Steve, Dan (Dennett), or Richard—warning of the dangers of mission creep, of violating your stated goals to adhere to “progressive” political or ideological positions. Mission creep was surely instantiated in your decision to cancel my piece when its discussion of biology and its relationship to sex in humans violated “progressive” gender ideology. This was in fact the third time that I and others have tried to warn the FFRF about the dangers of expanding its mission into political territory. But it is now clear that this is exactly what you intend to do. Our efforts have been fruitless, and if there are bad consequences I don’t want to be connected with them.

I will add one more thing. The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (“a woman is whoever she says she is”), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.

I will continue to struggle for the separation of church and state, and wish you well in that endeavor, which I know you will continue. But I cannot be part of an organization whose mission creep has led it to actually remove my words from the internet—words that I cannot see as harmful to any rational person. I am not out to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, and I hope you know that. But you have implied otherwise, and that is both shameful for you and hurtful for me.

Cordially
Jerry

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/12/29/i-resign-from-the-freedom-from-religion-foundation/ (Archive)

---

Another one leaves the fold: Steve Pinker resigns from the Freedom from Religion Foundation​

Like me, Steve Pinker has resigned from the Honorary Board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). His resignation was sent yesterday. Steve is a bigger macher than I. both intellectually and, in this case, because he was Honorary President of that Board. I put below his two emails, reproduced with permission.

The first one was sent yesterday to the co-Presidents of the FFRF as well as the editor of Freethought Today!, which originally published my piece and then removed it.

From: Pinker, Steven
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2024 11:49 AM
Subject: resignation

Dear Annie Laurie and Dan,

With sadness, I resign from my positions as Honorary President and member of the Honorary Board of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The reason is obvious: your decision, announced yesterday, to censor an article by fellow Board member Jerry Coyne, and to slander him as an opponent of LGBTQIA+ rights.

My letter to you last November (reproduced below) explains why I think these are grave errors. With this action, the Foundation is no longer a defender of freedom from religion but the imposer of a new religion, complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics. It has turned its back on reason: if your readers “wrongfully perceive” the opposite of a clear statement that you support the expression of contesting opinions, the appropriate response is to stand by your statement, not ratify their error. It has turned the names Freethought Today and Freethought Now into sad jokes, inviting ridicule from its worse foes. And it has shown contempt for the reasoned advice of its own board members.

There are not the values of not the organization I have supported for twenty years, and I can no longer be associated with it.

Sincerely,
Steve

*************

As Steve notes above, this second letter was sent over a month ago to the same people, with copies to me and Richard Dawkins, as all of us were discussing the issue of “mission creep” with the FFRF.

From: Pinker, Steven
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Comment for FFRF

Thanks, Annie Laurie. But I think it’s important to distinguish two things:

1. The right to bodily autonomy, an ethical issue.

2. The nature of sex in the living world, a scientific issue.

Some trans activists believe that the only way to ensure the first is to rewrite the second, imposing what we regard as fallacious and tendentious claims in defiance of our best scientific understanding. This is unfortunate for two reasons: it’s a conceptual error, confusing the moral and the empirical, and it’s counterproductive to force people to choose between trans rights and scientific reality. Those who favor scientific reality will be alienated from the cause of safeguarding trans rights.

I see FFRF as in the vanguard of separating key moral and political commitments from honest scientific inquiry (after all, a major impetus for enshrining religious doctrine such as creationism is that it is necessary for the preservation of moral values). Many people have noted that the radical factions of the trans movement have taken on some of the worst features of religion, such as the imposition of dogma and the excommunication and vilification of heretics. FFRF can be firmly on the side of trans rights without advancing tendentious (and almost certainly false) biological claims. Of course, it’s fine for views that we regard as tendentious to be expressed in FFRF forums, as long as respectful disagreements are allowed to be expressed as well.

Best,
Steve

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024...igns-from-the-freedom-of-religion-foundation/ (Archive)

---

A third one leaves the fold: Richard Dawkins resigns from the Freedom from Religion Foundation​

Well, that makes three of us. Steve Pinker, I, and now Richard Dawkins, have all decided independently to resign from the Honorary Board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The organization’s ideological capture, as instantiated in throwing in their lot with extreme gender activism and censoring any objection to their views—as well as in the increasing tendency of the FFRF to add Critical Social Justice to their mission alongside their original and admirable goal of keeping church and state separate, has motivated us in different degrees to part ways with the group. I emphasize again that the FFRF did and still does engage in important work on keeping religion from creeping into governmental activity.

Richard explains his decision in the email below, sent not long ago to the heads of the FFRF. I, for one, hope that these resignations might make the FFRF rethink its direction.

I reproduce Richard’s very civil resignation with his permission:

Dear Annie Laurie and Dan

It is with real sadness, because of my personal regard for you both, that I feel obliged to resign from the Advisory Board of FFRF. Publishing the silly and unscientific “What is a Woman” article by Kat Grant was a minor error of judgment, redeemed by the decision to publish a rebuttal by a distinguished scientist from the relevant field of Biology, Jerry Coyne. But alas, the sequel was an act of unseemly panic when you caved in to hysterical squeals from predictable quarters and retrospectively censored that excellent rebuttal. Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own Advisory Board. A Board which I now leave with regret.

Although I formally resign, I would like to remain on friendly terms with you, and I look forward to cooperating in the future. And to delightful musical evenings if the opportunity arises.

Yours sincerely
Richard

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024...ns-from-the-freedom-from-religion-foundation/ (Archive)

 

[Burd Turglar]

It was fun bucking the evangelical movements that controlled so much of this country back in the 90s and early 00s but ffs the militant atheists took the cringe too far. I don't look forward to a return to vaguely authoritarian religious shit but if it will bring back sanity by destroying the troon menace, so be it. My enemies enemy is my friend and all that.

 

[invisibult plus+]

It is with real sadness, because of my personal regard for you both, that I feel obliged to resign from the Advisory Board of FFRF. Publishing the silly and unscientific “What is a Woman” article by Kat Grant was a minor error of judgment, redeemed by the decision to publish a rebuttal by a distinguished scientist from the relevant field of Biology, Jerry Coyne. But alas, the sequel was an act of unseemly panic when you caved in to hysterical squeals from predictable quarters and retrospectively censored that excellent rebuttal. Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own Advisory Board. A Board which I now leave with regret.

Here's the original article in question.

Spoiler: Local archive.

One of my favorite stories from my classical philosophy college courses is a particular episode between Plato and Diogenes the Cynic, who were both attempting to define a man.

According to the tale, Plato had proffered the definition of “a featherless biped.” Upon hearing this, Diogenes, absolute chaos gremlin that he was, plucked a chicken, and took it to one of Plato’s lectures on the topic. When Plato gave his definition to the audience, Diogenes stood up, lifted the featherless chicken for the crowd to see, and shouted “Behold! A man!” Plato then amended his definition to “a featherless biped with broad, flat nails.”

This is one of my favorites for a lot of reasons. First off, it’s objectively hilarious. I can think of more than one person in my life who would attempt to pull off that type of stunt just to annoy an academic who has defined something in a way they dislike (minus the animal cruelty, of course). Second, it continues to resonate millennia later, but now instead of asking “What is a man” people are asking “What is a woman?”

Some people define a “woman” as someone with a vagina. This presents problems, as transgender women who receive bottom surgery have vaginas. So, then, perhaps it is someone born with a vagina? Well, what does that mean for intersex people, who are often given genital surgery at birth when their anatomy does not firmly meet criteria for a penis or vagina? It can’t be based on whether or not the person has a uterus, because not only does that present issues for intersex people, but also women who have hysterectomies. Even more issues arise if you attempt to define womanhood based on the ability to conceive children, or have a period, as it would also exclude women who have any number of medical conditions, or who have gone through menopause.

Maybe the issue is that there is simply too much potential variation in macrolevel anatomy. Instead, we should be looking at genetics. Does having two X chromosomes make you a woman? Or is it just that you do not possess a Y chromosome? Even more so, this approach to defining what a woman is does not work the moment that you remember intersex individuals exist. The chromosomal approach is also a deeply impractical one, as people can go their entire lives not knowing their chromosomal makeup.

Much like how Plato’s definition of a man was inadequate (as was his amended definition, but I suppose we can let that slide), any attempt to define womanhood on biological terms is inadequate. This is reflected in the history of gender in and of itself. Many cultures have historically recognized gender diversity and complexity throughout history. Throughout North America, indigenous cultures have long recognized identities that have come to be categorized under the “Two Spirit” umbrella. In various Arab cultures, the term “mukhannath” is used to refer to transgender and nonbinary people, the term deriving from a class of third gender people in the pre-Islamic era, who were assigned male at birth, but lived as women and often held roles as musicians or other performing artists. In parts of Indonesia, groups recognize three sexes (male, female and intersex) and five genders, all based on the interrelationship of sex and gender identity.

In much of the modern United States, gender is viewed through the lens of the religious traditions that were brought by European colonizers. Missionaries often viewed gender systems outside of the strict sexual binary to be a mark of a “less civilized” nation, and imposed views of both gender and presentation (such as forcing boys in residential schools to cut their hair) onto the indigenous communities. Catholic explorer Jacques Marquette wrote in 1674:

I do not know by what superstition some Illiniwek, as well as some Sioux, take on women’s clothing while still young, and keep it all their lives: there is some mystery, as they never get married, and lower themselves by doing everything that women do … they are called to the council, where nothing may be decided without their advice; finally, their claim of living an extraordinary life lets them pass for manitous, that is to say great spirits, or important people. (Translation by Hamish Copley)

While American society has shed some of its Christian colonial heritage, fears around the morality of sex and gender remain ever present. Groups like Moms4Liberty have made major claims that transgender people are all sexual perverts that are grooming children. Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, also known as TERFs, claim that transgender women are rapists who are attempting to take away opportunities from “real” women. Others still claim transgender identity is anti-woman because in their view, it reduces womanhood down to dresses and makeup.

Such views disregard both medical science and lived experience. Transgender people are no more likely to be sexual predators than other individuals, and transgender women actually face higher rates of violence than their cisgender counterparts. Transgender participation in sports is already highly regulated, and the idea that a man would go through the intense process of hormone replacement therapy and delaying an athletic career for at least a year in order to have roughly the same odds of winning a contest that they would have otherwise is frankly laughable. And in actuality, gender diversity does the opposite of reducing womanhood to sex stereotypes. A gender diverse model allows womanhood to be defined on internal, personal terms, not outwardly visible characteristics. Women can present as and behave in ways that are considered “feminine” or “masculine” or anything in between because those aren’t the things that make them a woman, just a man can explore those same concepts and still be a man. As a nonbinary person I play with gender expression in all sorts of ways, from my physical presentation to my art in ways that vary throughout the day. I’m not nonbinary because I don’t identify with femininity, I’m nonbinary because no particular gender matches my internal sense of self at all.

All of this is to say that there is an answer to the question “what is a woman,” that luckily does not involve plucking a chicken from its feathers. A woman is whoever she says she is.

Other site archived the rebuttal.

Spoiler: Local archive (my formatting).

In the Freethought Now article “What is a woman?”, author Kat Grant struggles at length to define the word, rejecting one definition after another as flawed or incomplete. Grant finally settles on a definition based on self-identity: “A woman is whoever she says she is.” This of course is a tautology, and still leaves open the question of what a woman really is. And the remarkable redefinition of a term with a long biological history can be seen only as an attempt to force ideology onto nature. Because some nonbinary people — or men who identify as women (“transwomen”) — feel that their identity is not adequately recognized by biology, they choose to impose ideology onto biology and concoct a new definition of “woman.”

Further, there are plenty of problems with the claim that self-identification maps directly onto empirical reality. You are not always fat if you feel fat (the problem with anorexia), not a horse if you feel you’re a horse (a class of people called “therians” psychologically identify as animals), and do not become Asian simply become you feel Asian (the issue of “transracialism”). But sex, Grant tells us, is different: It is the one biological feature of humans that can be changed solely by psychology.

But why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot? Feelings don’t create reality. Instead, in biology “sex” is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells (“gametes”). Males have small, mobile gametes (sperm in animals and pollen in plants); females have large, immobile gametes (ova in plants and eggs in animals). In all animals and vascular plants there are exactly two sexes and no more. Though a fair number of plants and a few species of animals combine both functions in a single individual (“hermaphrodites”), these are not a third sex because they produce the typical two gametes.

It’s important to recognize that, although this gametic idea is called a “definition” of sex, it is really a generalization — and thus a concept — based on a vast number of observations of diverse organisms. We know that, except for a few algae and fungi, all multicellular organisms and vertebrates, including us, adhere to this generalization. It is, then, nearly universal.

Besides its universality, the gametic concept has utility, for it is the distinction between gamete types that explains evolutionary phenomena like sexual selection. Differential investment in reproduction accounts for the many differences, both physical and behavioral, between males and females. No other concept of sex has such universality and utility. Attempts to define sex by combining various traits associated with gamete type, like chromosomes, genitalia, hormones, body hair and so on, lead to messy and confusing multivariate models that lack both the universality and explanatory power of the gametic concept.

Yes, there is a tiny fraction of exceptions, including intersex individuals, who defy classification (estimates range between 1/5,600 and 1/20,000). These exceptions to the gametic view are surely interesting, but do not undermine the generality of the sex binary. Nowhere else in biology would deviations this rare undermine a fundamental concept. To illustrate, as many as 1 in 300 people are born with some form of polydactyly — without the normal number of ten fingers. Nevertheless, nobody talks about a “spectrum of digit number.” (It’s important to recognize that only a very few nonbinary and transgender people are “intersex,” for nearly all are biologically male or female.)

In biology, then, a woman can be simply defined in four words: “An adult human female.”

Dismissal of trait-based concepts of sex leads to serious errors and misconceptions. I mention only a few. The biological concept of a woman does not, as Grant argues, depend on whether she can actually produce eggs. Nobody is claiming that postmenopausal females, or those who are sterile or had hysterectomies, are not “women,” for they were born with the reproductive apparatus that evolved to produce eggs. As for chromosomes, having two X chromosomes gives you a very high probability of being a woman, but a rearrangement of genetic information can decouple chromosome constitution from the gametic apparatus.

But the biggest error Grant makes is the repeated conflation of sex, a biological feature, with gender, the sex role one assumes in society. To all intents and purposes, sex is binary, but gender is more spectrum-like, though it still has two camel’s-hump modes around “male” and “female.” While most people enact gender roles associated with their biological sex (those camel humps), an appreciable number of people mix both roles or even reject male and female roles altogether. Grant says that “I play with gender expression” in “ways that vary throughout the day.” Fine, but this does not mean that Grant changes sex from hour to hour.

Under the biological concept of sex, then, it is impossible for humans to change sex — to be truly “transsexual” — for mammals cannot change their means of producing gametes. A more appropriate term is “transgender,” or, for transwomen, “men who identify as women.”
But even here Grant misleads the reader. They argue, for example, that “Transgender people are no more likely to be sexual predators than other individuals.” Yet the facts support the opposite of this claim, at least for transgender women. A cross-comparison of statistics from the U.K. Ministry of Justice and the U.K. Census shows that while almost 20 percent of male prisoners and a maximum of 3 percent of female prisoners have committed sex offenses, at least 41 percent of trans-identifying prisoners were convicted of these crimes. Transgender, then, appear to be twice as likely as natal males and at least 14 times as likely as natal females to be sex offenders. While these data are imperfect because they’re based only on those who are caught, or on some who declare their female gender only after conviction, they suggest that transgender women are far more sexually predatory than biological women and somewhat more predatory than biological men. There are suggestions of similar trends in Scotland, New Zealand, and Australia.

Biological sex affects who and what we are. Let’s look at the contentious area of sports participation. Here’s a summary of the current regulatory situation (from a link that Grant gives):
“For the Paris 2024 Olympics, the new guidelines require transgender women to have completed their transition before the age of 12 to be eligible to compete in the women’s category. This rule is intended to prevent any perceived unfair advantages that might arise from undergoing male puberty.”
“In addition, at least 10 Olympic sports have restricted the participation of transgender athletes. These include sports like athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby, rowing, and boxing.”
Completing transition before 12 is virtually unknown (26 American states ban childhood transition), and the International Olympic Committee has now asked each sport to devise its own rules. Further, the presence of “regulation” does not make the problem go away, for many regulations are insufficient to protect female athletes from male athletic advantage. According to a United Nations report on violence against women, “By 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals [to transgender women] in 29 different sports.”

I close with two points. The first is to insist that it is not “transphobic” to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology. One should never have to choose between scientific reality and trans rights. Transgender people should surely enjoy all the moral and legal rights of everyone else. But moral and legal rights do not extend to areas in which the “indelible stamp” of sex results in compromising the legal and moral rights of others. Transgender women, for example, should not compete athletically against biological women; should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters; or, if convicted of a crime, should not be placed in a women’s prison.

Finally, speaking as a member of the FFRF’s honorary board, I worry that the organization’s incursion into gender activism takes it far outside its historically twofold mission: educating the public about nontheism and keeping religion out of government and social policies. Tendentious arguments about the definition of sex are not part of either mission. Although some aspects of gender activism have assumed the worst aspects of religion (dogma, heresy, excommunication, etc.), sex and gender have little to do with theism or the First Amendment. I sincerely hope that the FFRF does not insist on adopting a “progressive” political stance, rationalizing it as part of its battle against “Christian Nationalism.” As a liberal atheist, I am about as far from Christian nationalism as one can get!
Issues of sex and gender cannot and should not be forced into that Procrustean bed. Mission creep has begun to erode other once-respected organizations like the ACLU and SPLC, and I would be distressed if this happened to the FFRF.

Skimming the articles over, Coyne's mistake was entertaining gender to begin with. Gender, as these people see it, is chicanery. Actual legal chicanery courtesy of people like RBG. They say gender when they mean sex, and vice versa. Gender was a linguistic concept first, and a Victorian euphemism second. In any case haha Reddit.

 

[The Hardest R]

Atheists being required to accept ideological dogma, which is much crazier than religious dogma, will never not be funny to me. These organizations never brought anything to the table so their destruction means nothing.

It was fun bucking the evangelical movements that controlled so much of this country back in the 90s and early 00s but ffs the militant atheists took the cringe too far. I don't look forward to a return to vaguely authoritarian religious shit but if it will bring back sanity by destroying the troon menace, so be it. My enemies enemy is my friend and all that.

The twist is that evangelicalism was not a significant force in the 90s. The FCC occasionally cracking down on Jewish perverts like Howard Stern didn’t mean Jerry Falwell ran the country. It’s time to put to rest once and for all that evangelicals were this major unstoppable force and were stopped by a plucky band of secular fedora tippers. The fedora tippers were just the useful idiots and have now been discarded as we see here.

 

[MadStan]

Science isn't a religion; nor is being an atheist about having a dogma at all.

But as you will find with the billions who have belief in Religion, there are thousands of views often contrary and at each others throats.

Even atheists have personal beliefs, like everyone else.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Wow, even Steven Pinker, one the biggest ideologues behind the Superior Future with his "muh science" worship, thinks the troon cult is too much. I knew Dick Dawkins wasn't a fan, but I would've thought Pinker would've been totally down with it. I guess the schism in the religion of science is intensifying.

 

[User names must be unique]

I feel like Dawkins in particular has always been a puppet for other peoples causes, it's interesting that the tranny shit finally made him cut some strings.

 

[Battlefield2142EU]

Listening to Dawkins talk these days, it's clear that he deeply regrets the wave of secularism he helped start.

Richard Dawkins directly blames Woke culture and Islamization of Europe on his new atheism movement.

 

[porkWellington]

Oh no no no Atheisisters

 

[FedPostalService]

I left the skeptic movement about a decade ago, when the third wave feminists were using “old, white men” as an insult and they started going full Judith Butler with the gender nonsense.

This shit has been infiltrating it for that long and I’m really surprised that it’s taken this long for them to notice.

They’ve been calling those guys rape apologists since Elevatorgate so things must be REALLY bad now.

Well done purple haired women. I hope you enjoy rape. Actual rape. Not the “I used my tits to get ahead in this movement but now that’s wrong since there’s younger and prettier women about, so I now withdraw consent from all the men I slept with to get here” you destroyed the movement complaining about.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

It must be really weird for these old guard new atheists, to see the atheist movement adopt a new fundamentalist religion, and resolutely start purung the movement of unbelievers.

 

[User names must be unique]

Oh no no no Atheisisters

he's always maintained this even back in the day when he was held up a chief fedora tipper

This is the kind of shit I meant. he's like some tickle me elmo toy people prod and poke till they get the quotes they want.

 

[FedPostalService]

It must be really weird for these old guard new atheists, to see the atheist movement adopt a new fundamentalist religion, and resolutely start purung the movement of unbelievers.

Some of the old guard the New Atheists are the worst. Look at how James Lindsay sucks up to evangelical Christian’s. It’s bitten him in the arse for a bit but he’s lucky there isn’t an afterlife as Christopher Hitchens would haunt the fuck out of him.

 

[MetokurGroomedMe]

Science isn't a religion; nor is being an atheist about having a dogma at all.

But as you will find with the billions who have belief in Religion, there are thousands of views often contrary and at each others throats.

Even atheists have personal beliefs, like everyone else.

if you hold a belief system that requires you to defend it, cannot be proven beyond faith, and has a structured dogma (IE i will not submit to any higher authority or even believe they exist, the science textbooks tell me all about how the world works, my scientist preachers have given me a sermon on trusting the process) you're following a religion.

 

[just Reading a post]

They killed god, so they had to replace it with something.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Richard Dawkins directly blames Woke culture and Islamization of Europe on his new atheism movement.

I guess he hadn't heard then nature abhors a vacuum.

 

[Mourning_Cloak]

It was fun bucking the evangelical movements that controlled so much of this country back in the 90s and early 00s but ffs the militant atheists took the cringe too far.

It's hilarious to me that so many people still insist "muh evangelicals" or "muh tea party" still hold any significant level of power in the federal government these days.

They probably still think this for the same reasons they still think they're the #resistance.

Richard Dawkins directly blames Woke culture and Islamization of Europe on his new atheism movement.

I generally dislike all these fedora-tipping fart-huffing atheism retards but I feel more positively towards Dawkins because he is the rare atheist that is brave enough to dunk on Islam.

Most of them claim to be "anti-religion" but will only ever whine about Christianity.

 

[FedPostalService]

if you hold a belief system that requires you to defend it, cannot be proven beyond faith, and has a structured dogma (IE i will not submit to any higher authority or even believe they exist, the science textbooks tell me all about how the world works, my scientist preachers have given me a sermon on trusting the process) you're following a religion.

Accepting the null hypothesis isn’t a dogma, bro.

I generally dislike all these fedora-tipping fart-huffing atheism retards but I feel more positively towards Dawkins because he is the rare atheist that is brave enough to dunk on Islam.

It used to be incredibly common, then the liberal white women took over. The people who used to push back against the “nothing to do with Islam” nonsense online used to be atheists.

Thank you Rebecca Watson and the Skepchicks. I hope it was worth it.

 

[Lazy Drei]

Trannies being trannies case #80953487.

I can't wait until the scales have completely tipped and we put these mentally deranged people in asylums once again.
Perhaps even lobotomize them, at least that does more than mutilating genitalia.

 

[SanctedElectromagnetism]

someone should really start tallying all of the communities that got ruined turned into valid heckin safespaces for valid transfolk by unchecked troon incursions. I swear this isn't the first time something like this happened

 

[The Lawgiver]

This is because the transgender movement is about forcing TRANSHUMANISM down our throats. Tech moguls and tech companies with their billions won't support any organization that doesn't suck up to TRANSHUMANISM. They also have a stranglehold on all internet platforms and media companies, obviously, so that means the tranny agenda will be forced on us regardless of what we do or don't do.

Back in the day transhumanism was stuff like becoming ai computer ghost or getting cool robot body shit. Still really fucking improbable if not entirely impossible but a lot cooler than "oh let's chop off your organs and pump you full of drugs woah so cool and cyberpunk uwu" Not understanding that the chopping off organs shit is barbaric and inhumane.
Troons really are like shittier versions of the OG cybermen lmao. The cybermen actually had a reason for what they did though. Inhospitable frozen world type conditions leading to being unable to sustain human life so they had to become something not quite human. Hell most transhumanist shit in media has a REASON behind it better than gender tickbox shit.