Thank you Rev Budde

“At the inaugural prayer service, the Right Rev. Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, made a direct appeal to President Donald Trump to have mercy on the LGBTQ+ community and undocumented migrant workers.” – Associated Press reporter Darlene Superville

In response, Trump demanded an apology, “for embarrassing him by … deliver[ing] a rare rebuke to his face”. No apology was offered.

Subsequent fallout included conservatives criticising her and calling for her deportation.

Here is my response, sent to her by email:

Dear Reverend Budde,

I am writing from Australia to thank you for your recent appeal to President Trump to show kindness and compassion towards marginalised peoples.

I personally know people in Africa who have been accepted as genuine refugees for resettlement in the USA, and they have now been advised that their resettlement has been cancelled by President Trump.

In the darkness and despair of their current situation, your words have given them hope that there are kind and compassionate people with the courage to stand up for decency and humanity.

I also know LGBT+ people in the USA and elsewhere who are indeed scared, and I want to thank you for acknowledging this reality and challenging those in power to consider the human consequences of their attitudes and actions.

I am an atheist and I share your concern for social justice, compassion and human rights. We both admire the principles of the refugee who is the central character of your religion.

Thank you for speaking up for those who have no voice. Thank you for lighting a candle in the darkness.

Yours most respectfully,

Geoff Allshorn
Melbourne, AUSTRALIA.

©2025 Geoff Allshorn

Richard Dawkins is Unhappy

Although Richard Dawkins was previously married to Lalla Ward (an actor formerly from Doctor Who), he reminds me of certain privileged white male viewers who, in recent years, protested bitterly that the Doctor had been recast as a woman (and later as a queer Rwandan-Scottish actor), thereby no longer reflecting their privilege as white men. Dawkins recently publicly spat the dummy over the withdrawal of an article that misrepresented trans issues. The previously esteemed academic and atheist is in danger of alienating himself from mainstream atheist and scientific communities and, in promoting transphobic bigotry, risks emboldening religious bigots and undoing decades of his own work to promote secular reasoning.

The news recently hit the Murdoch press in the United Kingdom: Richard Dawkins publicly quit his voluntary role within the Freedom From Religion Foundation after they withdrew an article written by Jerry Coyne. Dawkins’ resignation from FFRF was accompanied by those of Jerry Coyne and Stephen Pinker; Dawkins chose to publicly express his vehement outrage and created a media storm for certain elements of the tabloid press.

Disclaimer: As an atheist and supporter of human rights, I concede that I am unqualified to debate the science of trans issues. Fortunately, the material that Dawkins defends appears to be equally ignorant of trans science, and presents ethical discussion that would fail a high school essay; and as a teacher for nearly thirty years, I am suitably qualified to analyse such material. Accordingly, I critically analyse the inherent flaws in Coyne’s arguments, and defer where possible to suitable scientific and ethical experts so that we can all participate in informed and rational debate instead of wallowing in retrograde transphobic waffle. I also include a list of reference material (below) which informed me of the situation and its background. If I have, in my own ignorance, somehow misinterpreted this material or misrepresented the facts, I welcome corrections.

Background

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is a US organisation with husband and wife Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor as Co-Presidents among a large Board and staff. FFRF conducts successful activism promoting secular values and the separation of church and state. On 7 November 2024, the organisation published an article entitled “What Is A Woman?“, in which the author, Kat Grant, discussed biological and chromosomal considerations surrounding trans people, and then summarised contemporary moral arguments:

“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.”

Problematic Response

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

In response, FFRF volunteer Board member Professor Jerry Coyne, wrote an article entitled, “Biology is Not Bigotry” that was published by FFRF on 26 December. In his article, he began with a mention of inferred similarities and stated differences between trans people and those who perceive themselves to be a horse, or Asian (“transracialism”). The purpose of this conflation is unclear, and does not provide a confident start for his writing.

Coyne then states, “In all animals and vascular plants there are exactly two sexes and no more,” which not only contradicts science as explored elsewhere, but he conflates sex and gender, which is apparently both scientifically and anthropologically questioned. He dismisses intersex people as being statistically insignificant (ignoring the ethical underpinning that human rights apply equally to cohorts regardless of whether they comprise 1% or 99%).

Coyne then implies that a more relevant analogue for trans people would be polydactyl people, a much more statistically common cohort of people who, in this case, do not have ten fingers: “Nevertheless…” he states, “Nobody talks about a spectrum of digit number.” He implies that people with genetic variations (causing extra digits) are somehow comparable to those with gender variation – but he ignores the fact that they have never (to my knowledge) faced legal or moral sanction, been oppressed, culturally discriminated against, and even been murdered over the centuries (and continue to be victims of such violent behaviours and hatreds to this day) as have trans people. Hey Professor Coyne, has US President-elect Trump vowed to remove human rights for polydactyl people, to ban them from the military, and to deny such children the right to relevant affirming care, legal protections and counselling in schools, as he has indicated regarding trans people? Do you want polydactyl people to be banned from public bathrooms or sporting competitions? Do governments in Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Russia, or half the countries of the Commonwealth, criminalise or imprison or execute polydactyl people?

Coyne infers that trans people are ideologues because, “Feelings don’t create reality” and he tries to rebut Kat Grant using questionable evidence:

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.

His attempted rebuttal ignores and misrepresents Grant’s original point: in talking about “sex offenders”, she was clearly discussing the fictitious stereotype that trans women are simply men who cross dress so they can rape women in public toilets. In response, Coyne used unverified statistics (from a group that has been accused of using misleading material) to, in this case, propose that trans people are disproportionately overrepresented in overall sexual offender statistics. He provides no analysis to verify, clarify or contextualise his claim. I have Ugandan trans friends, who by sheer definition of the law in their country, are all sex offenders simply for being themselves. Coyne makes no attempt to consider such nuance.

Coyne’s Most Dubious Evidence

Another piece of evidence that Coyne offers would initially seem to be a very strong point in support of his anti-trans arguments:

“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”.”

This rather startling statistic comes from no less than the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls. Our natural instinct might be to automatically accept the authority of the report and seek to pursue justice and redress for these women and girls around the world. However, there are problems.

For a start, the alleged statistics were supplied to the UN Special Rapporteur by a transphobic organisation, and Coyne makes no attempt to verify these statistics; nor does he reference other, independent and credible sources (e.g. IOC, Australian Institute of Sport, Amnesty International, human rights networks, other UN agencies, etc), none of whom seem to be aware of these statistics, and whose positions on trans participation in sport contradicts Coyne’s.

Worse, independent research shows that the current UN Special Rapporteur’s reports are flawed and unreliable. An international study of a 2023 UN report stated:

“The authors of this document (the “Analysis”) carefully reviewed the Report and found many misleading statements, extensive misinformation, blatant errors, use of science denial techniques, and deliberate misrepresentations of the current state of peer-reviewed published research, scientific inquiry, and case law support for the family dynamic of parental alienation. These errors are so egregious that we believe they constitute a deliberate attempt to mislead mental health professionals, legal professionals, and policy makers, such as the Human Rights Council and other components of the United Nations.

“The Report of the Special Rapporteur is unreliable and dangerous; the misinformation contained in this Report is likely to cause irreparable harm to children and families. Therefore, after conducting our Analysis, we recommend that the Human Rights Council immediately withdraw the Report from publication and prohibit any component of the
United Nations from relying on it…” (p. 9).

The current UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls has been criticised for producing erroneous and transphobic material. The Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) has published a 2023 letter signed by 550 human rights groups and 844 individuals that calls for a review of her mandate:

“We express grave concerns over the series of harmful statements made and actions1 taken by the current UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, Reem Alsalem. To our dismay, the Special Rapporteur has persistently advocated for additional obstacles and conditions to legal gender recognition that undermine the rights protections of trans people, rather than calling for bodily autonomy for all…

“We reject the co-optation of the human rights framework, particularly the notion put forward by the Special Rapporteur that the fulfillment of the rights of trans women and cis women is or can be conflicting and incompatible…

“The Special Rapporteur must guarantee the mandate’s independence, accountability to rights-holders. We believe that the harmful position taken by the Special Rapporteur undermines the integrity, independence, and credibility of the Special Procedures mechanism as a whole. As feminists, we demand accountability for and a halt to the Special Rapporteur’s harmful practices. We insist that the UN system ensures voices and concerns of feminists, women’s rights, and LGBTIQ+ movements – particularly trans-led groups, are at the center rather than the margins.”

It is significant that Coyne, while claiming to present “science” and “free speech” on trans issues, merely provides unverified, flawed and unscientific evidence, and he ‘cancels’ the legion of verified, documented and independent sources that contradict his claims. It is interesting that Dawkins and Pinker also apparently support Coyne’s right to publish potentially misleading material without themselves making any effort to verify or confirm its accuracy. While Dawkins has previously stated that, ““If you only get exposed to ideas you believe in… what kind of university would that be?”, his current stand on trans issues appears to be an example of a closed mind seeking confirmation bias.

Coyne’s Conclusions

In Coyne’s conclusion, he posited two assertions:

“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.”

Although he talks of “scientific reality”, Coyne’s first concluding point ignores the very clear science that demonstrates the non-binary nature of gender and sex as comprising different aspects of human identity, and while Dawkins claims that “sex really is binary”, atheist biologist Forrest Valkai appears to have a much greater understanding of the biological science than either of these men.

In alleging that sex is a binary, Coyne actually ignores the reality of scientific data. A blogger from Scientific American states that, “Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary” and calls upon such proponents to “Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia”.

Coyne continues:

“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!”

Coyne’s second concluding remark is to question why atheists would wish to participate in social justice activism, failing to understand that (apart from the implicit call by basic human decency), opposing entrenched bigotry and injustice imposed by religious traditions would surely be part of the imprimatur of organisations like the FFRF. The lies, hatred and bigotry directed at trans people today is in no small part the legacy of centuries of religious hatred, and it is surely incumbent upon us all to actively work against such injustice instead of aiding it through writing misleading articles. Although Coyne claims to self identify as a “liberal atheist”, his actions here would appear to suggest otherwise. Genuinely liberal atheists or sceptics can be found on YouTube channels such as Essence of Thought, Emma Thorne, and The Trans Atlantic Call in Show, which not only defer to science and critical thought, but empower people from the affected community – which my own decades of work in the HIV/AIDS community testifies is essential to empowerment and saving lives.

Photo by Alexander Grey: https://www.pexels.com/photo/cubes-spelling-the-word-transgender-3868990/

Reader Backlash

Following an apparent backlash by LGBT+ readers, the FFRF quickly withdrew Coyne’s article and stated:

“Recently, we published a guest blog post as part of an effort to provide a forum for various voices within the framework of our mission. Although we included a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed within the post were not necessarily reflective of the organization, it has wrongfully been perceived as such.

“Despite our best efforts to champion reason and equality, we recognize mistakes can happen, and this incident is a reminder of the importance of constant reflection and growth. Publishing this post was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values or principles. We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.”

It was this withdrawal of a published paper that appears to have aroused the ire of the three men. While I agree with them on principle that the paper could have been left online (in my case, so that readers could see how weak, academically untenable, misrepresentative, and incoherent it really is), I do question why the FRFF allowed such material to be published in the first place. Don’t they have an editorial team that oversees scientific or ethical quality control? As another atheist critic notes:

“While it is good that FFRF removed Coyne’s article, their statement regarding the controversy was unfortunately deficient on several fronts. Most notably, it lacked any explanation of the ethical flaws in Coyne’s piece that should have prevented it being published and necessitated taking it down.”

If Dawkins and Pinker wanted to fight a public battle for free speech and scientific debate, Coyne’s unscientific and inadequate article was not the hill for them to die upon.

This dummy spit and mass resignation was not, as suggested, a principled stand taken by three scientists protesting that either free speech or the scientific perspective had been “cancelled” in favour of “wokeism”, but it appears to be a reflection of personal bigotry, ignorance, lack of human empathy, or paternalistic privilege. In having a public dummy spit and resigning loudly and belligerently, they are people who seek to use their privilege to “cancel” the voices of trans people and their allies whose perspective differs from their own.

Dawkins elsewhere refers to trans rights as a modern, trendy, empty-headed form of activism: “the vogue for women with penises and men who give birth.” He has asserted that trans rights activism is a cult of backing transgender ‘religion’, and this perspective was rather gleefully regurgitated on at least one religious website after his departure from the FFRF.

Ongoing Bigotry

This controversy is reflective of a similar scandal that nearly destroyed the Atheist Community of Austin about five years ago – when transphobic elements fought against trans and other queer people, and, by extension, other minorities, to entrench privilege regarding the free speech of heterosexual, transphobic, cis gendered white males. (Fortunately, the final result of the scandal seems to have been the emergence of a stronger, and more queer friendly organisation.)

Such a controversy is demonstrative of attitudes and behaviours found across some atheist communities, such as some online atheist individuals: “Often online atheists like to play the card that “science says there are only two genders” despite the fact that their understanding of biology has very clearly not advanced since the 9th grade”; plugging into transmisia that has been actively promoted by religious extremists since they lost the marriage equality battle.

Entrenched Privilege versus Our Better Angels

One of the obvious problems with these three men speaking on trans issues is their apparent lack of known or verified personal connection with trans individuals, communities, or science. They appear to be simply three old, white, privileged, affluent, heterosexual, cis gendered men who should not be accepted as experts on trans issues any more than they might be considered experts on women’s rights or the racist oppression of African Americans. (Ironically, Pinker has been publicly criticised for speaking on behalf of both those other issues in arguably problematic ways).

Worse, they risk becoming aligned with what has been termed “The Intellectual Dark Web“, viz:

“Chief among these antiscientific sentiments, the IDW cites the rising visibility of transgender civil rights demands. To the IDW, trans people and their advocates are destroying the pillars of our society with such free-speech–suppressing, postmodern concepts as: “trans women are women,” “gender-neutral pronouns,” or “there are more than two genders.” Asserting “basic biology” will not be ignored, the IDW proclaims, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

“The irony in all this is that these “protectors of enlightenment” are guilty of the very behavior this phrase derides. Though often dismissed as just a fringe internet movement, they espouse unscientific claims that have infected our politics and culture. Especially alarming is that these “intellectual” assertions are used by nonscientists to claim a scientific basis for the dehumanization of trans people. The real-world consequences are stacking up: the trans military ban, bathroom bills, and removal of workplace and medical discrimination protections, a 41-51 percent suicide attempt rate and targeted fatal violence. It’s not just internet trolling anymore.”

In 2010, Dawkins referred to the principles of “objective morality” being discussion, reason, debate, and reaching an informed conclusion; what a pity that he doesn’t follow that course today. Equally disappointing is Stephen Pinker, whose definitive books (“The Better Angels of Our Nature” and “Enlightenment Now”) present discussion about the social evolution of humanity towards a kinder, more empathic society – and yet his stand against trans people resists that trend. Jerry Coyne is presumably an accomplished academic who needs to bring his talents of academic verisimilitude to the human rights debate for trans people, instead of producing material that appears misinformed. They are all capable of better.

By all means, let Dawkins, Coyne and Pinker speak publicly – and have their opinions accepted and respected appropriately – within their verified areas of expertise, but let them defer to others regarding issues on which they are ignorant, intolerant, or misinformed.

Dawkins has previously caused outrage with his alleged comments about rape and child abuse; Islamophobia; and suggesting that babies with Down Syndrome should be aborted. In 2021, he was stripped of an award from the American Humanists because of alleged anti-trans and anti-Black statements. While he holds eminence as an evolutionary biologist, his frequent intemperate remarks about other issues suggest that he is neither extensively knowledgeable nor prudent. Rather than behaving like a snowflake and having a temper tantrum about his latest confrontation with diversity, perhaps it is time for him to quietly retire from public life.

Atheists are often humanists – they combine science and rationality with a compassionate approach to human affairs. I call upon Dawkins and his mates to adopt a humanistic approach rather than dehumanise trans people or other minorities. Otherwise, he risks alienating himself from the younger base of secularists, atheists and sceptics, and reinforcing the difference between privileged, tired, white baby boomers and the majority of the population.

Reference Material:

Aichenbaum, Bernet, Brzosowski, Cedervall, Hellstern, Korosi, Ludmer, Marcus, and Mendoza-Amaro, “An Analysis of the Report by the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, Its Causes and Consequences to the United Nations Human Rights Council”, Parental Alienation Study Group (USA) and Global Action for Research Integrity in Parental Alienation (México), Nashville, TN, USA, June 2023.

Claire Ainsworth & Nature magazine, “Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic”, Scientific American, 22 October 2018

Paul Aufiero and Ryan Thoreson, “Interview: Trump Poses More Threats to Rights of LGBT People”, Human Rights Watch, 19 November 2024.

Australian Sports Commission, “Transgender & Gender-Diverse Inclusion Guidelines for HP Sport”, Australian Institute of Sport, May 2023.

AWID, “There Is No Place for Anti-Trans Agendas in the UN”, AWID, 18 May 2023.

Dan Barker & Annie Laurie Gaynor, “Freedom From Religion Foundation supports LGBTQIA-plus rights”, FFRF, 27 December 2024.

BBC, “Richard Dawkins’ Berkeley event cancelled for ‘Islamophobia'”, BBC, 25 July 2017.

Harriet Brewis, “Richard Dawkins reignites pain and fury with comments about babies with Down’s Syndrome”, indy100, 16 May 16 2021.

Jerry Coyne, “”Biology Is Not Bigotry”, republished on “Archive Today” website, 26 December 2024.

Richard Dawkins, “The myth of the God-shaped hole”, The Spectator, 3 January 2025, reprinted at Archive Today.

Daily Telegraph NZ, “Richard Dawkins resigns from atheist group after censorship of biology-based gender article”, Daily Telegraph NZ, 4 January 2025.

Essence of Thought, “The Death Of The Atheist Community Of Austin – Testimonies From Volunteers & Service Users”, YouTube, 20 Jul 2019.

Agustín Fuentes, “Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary”, Scientific American, 1 May 2023

FPFW, “Half of all transgender prisoners are sex offenders or dangerous category A inmates”, Wayback Machine, 9 November 2017.

GATE, “Trans, Gender Diverse and Intersex Inclusion in Sports is a Human Right”, GATE – Global Action for Trans Equality, 3 October 2024.

Kat Grant, “What Is A Woman?”, Freethought Now blog, 7 November 2024.

Robert Hart, “Richard Dawkins Stripped Of Top Humanist Award For Using Science To ‘Demean Marginalized Groups’”, Forbes, 20 April 2021.

Gabriel Hays, “Richard Dawkins leaves atheist foundation after it unpublishes article saying gender based on biology”, Fox News, 3 January 2025.

Debbie Hayton, “How some atheists fell for the new religion of gender identity”, Spectator Australia, 31 December 2024.

Cameron Henderson, “Richard Dawkins quits atheism foundation for backing transgender ‘religion’”, The Telegraph, 30 December 2024; also reprinted on Anglican Mainstream, 31 December 2024.

I am a chinchilla, “Richard Dawkins on absolute morality”, YouTube, 3 May 2010.

FFRF et al, “Statement from secular groups affirming commitment to LGBTQ-plus rights”, Freedom From Religion Foundation, 14 January 2025.

IOC, “Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination in Olympic Sport”, International Olympic Committee, November 2021?

Tyler Kingkade, “Richard Dawkins: College Students Are Betraying The Free Speech Movement: Universities are supposed to expose you to ideas you disagree with, he declared”, HuffPost, 3 Oct 2015.

Sam Kintworth, “RE: Ensuring the inclusion of trans, gender diverse and intersex people in sport”, Amnesty International Australia, 29 June 2022.

Medical News Today, “Sex and gender: What is the difference?”, Medical News Today, last medically reviewed 11 May 2021.

Hemant Mehta, “Richard Dawkins has abandoned science to justify his transphobia”, Religion News, 1 August 2023.
– – – – – – – – , “Atheist group faces backlash after publishing, then removing, Jerry Coyne’s anti-trans article”, Friendly Atheist (YouTube), 30 December 2024.
– – – – – – – -, “Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and the intense fallout from their anti-trans bigotry”, Friendly Atheist (YouTube), 6 January 2025.

National Geographic, “How Science is Helping Us Understand Gender”, National Geographic Education, n.d.

Aaron Rabinowitz, “Biology is not ethics: A response to Jerry Coyne’s anti-trans essay”, Friendly Atheist, 3 January 2025.

Planned Parenthood, “What’s transphobia, also called transmisia?”, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., 2025.

CQ Quinan, “From criminalization to erasure: Project 2025 and anti-trans legislation in the US”, SAGE Journals, 9 January 2025.

Michael Powell (The New York Times), “How a famous Harvard professor became a target over his tweets”, Boston.com, 15 July 2020.

Allegra Ringo, “The Atheist Movement Needs to Disown Richard Dawkins”, VICE, 17 September 2014,

SBS, “Dawkins causes storm after tweeting ‘date rape is bad, stranger rape is worse'”, SBS News, 30 July 2014.

SDGS, “Pride Month: UN’s transgender rights campaign goes global”, UN News, 30 June 2023.

EJ Sorrell, “Is There Room in Atheism for Trans People?”, Center for Inquiry, 15 June 2018.

Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences: Violence against women and girls in sports” (A/79/325), Wayback Machine, 27 August 2024.

Steph, “22nd of April: Fair Play for Women and their Misleading Evidence”, TransLucent, 22 April 2021.

Simon(e) D Sun, “Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia, Scientific American, 13 June 2019.

UCLA School of Law, “Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime”, UCLA Williams School of Law, 23 March 2021.

Forrest Valkai and Secular Rarity, “The Surprising Truth: Gender Is Not The Same As Sex!”, The Atheist Experience, YouTube, 16 May 2024.

Natalie Venegas, “Rules for Transgender Olympic Athletes Explained”, Newsweek, 3 July 2024.

Wikipedia, “Women’s Liberation Front”, Wikipedia, last edited on 25 November 2024.

Rasha Younes, “Trans Day of Remembrance Marked with Grim Murder Data: More Than 5000 Killed in Past 16 Years due to Lack of Legal Protections”, Human Rights Watch, 20 November 2024.

= = =

©2025 Geoff Allshorn

Dreaming of a White Christmas?

Palestine then and now (artist unknown).

If Jesus had come to Australia, he would have been born a First Nations Aussie and, if lucky, he would have avoided his own Massacre of the Innocents as a member of the Stolen Generations.

If he was born in Palestine today, Israeli soldiers would have shot him in his cradle.

In Russia, he may have fallen victim to another Massacre of the Innocents by becoming cannon fodder in an egotistical politician’s war of self aggrandisement.

In Uganda, his family would have denounced his progressive declarations and the government would have sentenced him to death for advocating the human rights of LGBT+ people and other opppressed groups including women.

In the USA today, the MAGA cult would have declared him illegal for cross dressing in a galabaya; and deported him back to die, along with a million other black people.

Happy Christmas.

The lines of the old song declare:

“I’m dreaming of a white Christmas,
Just like the ones I used to know…”

That was a generation ago, before modern communication brought the world together. These days, we cannot be ignorant of the suffering of others across social media – unless we choose to.

These days, we see a clear divide between the western nations and others. Christmas in the west is often one of eating turkeys, ham, foodstuff and sweets, while exhanging gifts and excess. Christmas in most of the world is a time of deprivation, hunger, or ongoing suffering.

Any message of Christmas and deferral to the philosophies of that refugee from Nazareth, is lost in rabid consumerism and consumption and toxic capitalism. Santa is more important than peace on Earth. No room at the inn.

As I write this, I am mindful of the LGBT+ refugees I know across Africa. For Christmas, they are enduring the usual starvation, medical suffering, homelessness due to unpaid rent, detention due to outstanding medical expenses, or hungry children with no food. Seeking consolation in the very same faith that encourages their families and communities to reject or imprison them, they suffer on the one day of the year that possibly means the most to them.

Meanwhile, people in white nations enjoy excess, and overlook the suffering of others. Happy Xmas indeed.

The apartheid of Christmas emphasises the division during the rest of the year. White Christmas? Enjoy it if you are white and affluent.

But maybe ponder the suffering of others – and if humanity means anything to you, listen to your conscience and do something.

©2024 Geoff Allshorn

Unsung Heroes

Commemorating International Human Solidarity Day, 20 December

House after Cyclone Tracy, Christmas 1974. Photo by Bill Bradley on Wikipedia|cc-by-2.5

Our humanity sometimes most noticeably comes to the fore during times of crisis. This Christmas marks the significant anniversary of two such notable human tragedies – and their related stories of human resilience.

Fifty years ago this Christmas Day, a cyclone blew into Darwin and devastated the city, killing dozens and causing many millions of dollars damage. I can recall the Australian news mass media being full of stories of how ordinary Aussies with building or other skills gave up their holiday time in order to travel to Darwin and offer assistance to survivors whose stories – even fifty years later – recall resilience and heroism. Fundraising appeals were held across the country. Even a charity song, Santa Never Made It Into Darwin, contributed to the recovery and rebuilding cause, and as a child I pondered how this outpouring of selflessness seemed to contradict the capitalist spirit of amassing gifts and possessions courtesy of Santa and Christmas.

2004-tsunami.jpg: David Rydevik (email: david.rydevik at gmail dot com), Stockholm, Sweden. derivative work: Wilfredor, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Twenty years ago this Boxing Day, a much larger and literally Earth-tilting disaster occurred when an Asian earthquake and tsunami killed probably a quarter of a million people. News clips showing people being swept to their deaths amidst a floating city of debris can surely never be forgotten. What else I recall from this time is the outpouring among ordinary people to donate money and compassion to those affected: the charity telephones which I helped to staff rang non-stop for days; and I even recall a young man standing in a bank queue ahead of me – upon being told that the money for his car loan had been approved – immediately donated the lot to the Asian Tsunami appeal, “because they need it a lot more than I do”.

At such times, humans can be inspired and inspiring: they can cast aside (at least temporarily) the norms of capitalist consumerism and greed and selfishness, but focus instead on helping others. This is surely not only the most humane option, but also the most rational: as a social creature, we instinctively recognise that we need each other if we are to survive as a species.

But it should not take a crisis for us to recognise our common humanity and our common need for empathy and kindness: every religion and philosophy recognises “The Golden Rule” in some form or another, and it simply calls us to act and live in ways that are consistent with our humanity and our humanism. It is even reflected in a certain life insurance advertisement.

What must surely be one of the world’s most famous advertisements (and my favourite advertisement of all time) has enjoyed over 120 million views on YouTube alone. It is an advertisement for life insurance, and it thereby subliminally asks its viewers to ponder what difference their mortal lives might make during whatever short time we inhabit this cosmic pebble. Titled “Unsung Hero”, the ad celebrates the rewards of a humble, empathic, life that is generous to a fault – and the impact that can ripple into the lives of others, including people, animals and plants. Coming from a land where Buddhism is the dominant philosophy, it echoes with secular humanism because it quietly, almost subversively celebrates the agency and commonality of our human connection.

Our lives should demonstrate this same connection.

©2024 Geoff Allshorn