“So I think as a biologist I would like us to focus on this planet and finding solutions to sustaining humanity, to improving people’s lives globally, but doing our absolute utmost to preserve as much biodiversity as we can, knowing that we have already been responsible for the loss of thousands of species.”
– Alice Roberts.
The four characteristics of humanism are curiosity, a free mind, belief in good taste, and belief in the human race.” – EM Forster.
“Humanism is a way of thinking and living that emphasizes the agency of human beings. Humanism stresses the fact that we, human beings, are capable of changing the world.”
– Leo Igwe.
In my younger days, I was proud of my human rights activism and my achievements in that forum. One of my guiding principles came from what was attributed as being an old Chinese proverb: “It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness”. Today, as we live through an era of increasing darkness and uncertainty, I believe that it is important to be fully mindful of the candle adage. In my experience, an optimal way of expressing that principle in practical terms cannot be found within an organised religion – which is usually exclusive and elitist – but through a recognition of our common humanity. This, to me, comprises humanism.
A fair definition of humanism – across time and culture – is that it is a philosophy which acknowledges the capacity and responsibility of human beings to think and act in ways that are reasoned, compassionate, humanitarian and responsible – especially in solving the world’s problems that we have caused. Placing humans at the centre of this focus does not, in any way, diminish the inherent value of other life on this planet, but commits us (as individuals and as a species) to respect and protect these other forms of life, and the biosphere upon which we co-exist.
As a collective, humanists have a lot of which they can be proud. From the abolition of slavery to the establishment of human rights; from gender and sexual and racial equality to international conventions on rights for children and refugees and people with disability; from anti-discrimination laws all the way to animal and environmental rights; humanism has changed the world. As a philosophy that has influenced religions across space and time, it has engendered “The Golden Rule” into cultures everywhere with such confidence that religious adherents often believe their dogmas are responsible for inculcating this principle of universal human fraternity.
It might also be noted that secular humanism is currently under attack. With the decline of mainstream religions and cultural adherence to conformity, we have seen the widespread rise and acceptance of a multitude of alternatives to address the adage that nature abhors a vacuum. We now see an epidemic of fringe individualism, religious fundamentalism, conspiracy theories, science denialism, sovereign citizenship, political populism and dog whistling, social media celebrity, and a return to ideas that were long discarded: flat earthism, racism, Nazism, warmongering, rejection of refugees, the ‘othering’ of foreigners and immigrants and those from other races and cultures. Anyone who subscribes to universal human rights and the philosophy that all people are equal in worth and dignity, must take battle against such attacks upon human egalitarianism, knowledge and dignity.
In order to most strongly advocate for a universal philosophy of equitability and social justice, we must have the courage and honesty to explore humanism’s current weaknesses in practice, as well as its strengths in principle. Please come with me as we go on a journey to explore this nuanced and multifaceted human adventure
The History of Humanism
“Humanism is about the world, not about humanism.” – Harold Blackham
Humanism is often presented as a historical, academic and philosophical phenomenon that was inspired by writings from ancient Greece and Rome, reborn in Renaissance Europe, achieving its modern context late in the nineteenth century. Despite the reality that modern humanism is a more grassroots and less academic phenomenon, its practice is rooted in a perspective which highlights western culture (from academia to entertainment) instead of nurturing and sponsoring local African or Asian expressions of culture and perspective, such as that of Adastra:
Humanity emerged from Africa, so although much evidence of those past times has long been lost, our humanism clearly also emerged from that same source. Like humanity itself, humanism has spread across the globe, and its rudimentary philosophy can be found in cultures from long ago.
Humanist ideas were discussed in Ancient Greece, from Thales to Anaxagoras and Protagoras. The teachings of Zarathushtra and Lao Tzu had strong elements of humanism, and there are many other examples.
The writings of the ancient Greeks were studied in the 1400s during the Renaissance. However, in this period the term “humanism” came to mean educated in the humanities, a rather different kind of idea. Petrarch is often cited as the first modern humanist, but he pointed backwards to classical authors. The modern meaning of humanism is more to do with using science to make the world a better place. – Kiddle Encyclopedia
Chirag Patel and Rishabh Prasad clarify the protracted history regarding the origins of humanism:
The principle origins of humanist thinking are in India, Iran and China. In India around the 8th Century BCE, there was the emergence of Lokayata philosophy, which was itself a development of ideas in the Vedas, the core Hindu holy texts, written in around 1000 BCE. Lokayata philosophy is a system that is explicitly materialist, rejecting the concept of the soul and taking on philosophical scepticism…
Earlier still are the Gathas of Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, between 1000 and 600 BCE. The Gathas focus on the notion of individual choice and agency (Schmid, 1979). In China, there is the Tao Te Ching in the 6th century BCE, which combines elements of spiritualist abstraction with a clear focus on the mutable world and away from metaphysical rules and authoritarian approaches. This is contemporaneous with Buddhism, which begins with a rejection of the Gods while retaining the valuable aspects of religious behaviour within a human-centred frame.
In each of these cases, models of thought and behaviour are developed that focus around the human self and supreme wisdom as an ideal, rather than authoritarian theologies. In each case, there is also a vision of the ideal person, such as the enlightened Buddha (‘awakened one’), and the defining characteristic of this person is their focus upon the human and personal rather than metaphysical and hierarchical. (Patel and Prasad, n.d., 7)
The Confucians tried to replace traditional religious beliefs with an ethical system focused on responsibility to family and society. Confucianism emphasizes benevolence, respect for others, and reciprocity as the foundations of social order. An early expression of the Golden Rule of ethics is found in The Analects (the collected sayings) of Confucius: “Do not do to others what you would not like for yourself.”
Morimichi Kato notes that Ogyū Sorai (1666–1728) established a Japanese version of Confucian humanism.
Meanwhile, the African philosophy of Ubuntu epitomises the universal nature of humanist tenets: “Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu”— or “a person is a person through other people.” (see Felix).
Modern Humanism Around the World
Humanism has been used as the basis for exploring socialism and post-colonial politics across Africa, as demonstrated by the experiences of President Kenneth Kaunda from Zambia:
“He developed a left nationalist-socialist ideology, called Zambian Humanism. This was based on a combination of mid-20th-century ideas of central planning/state control and what he considered basic African values: mutual aid, trust, and loyalty to the community. Similar forms of African socialism were introduced inter alia in Ghana by Kwame Nkrumah (“Consciencism”) and Tanzania by Julius Nyerere (“Ujamaa” – Wikipedia).
One modern Humanist in Ghana, writes about human priorities, particularly the universal human need for family:
“Family to me is anyone who loves me almost unconditionally and wants the best for me. I grew up thinking that family is blood and I’m sure a lot of us have as well…
“I broadened my definition of family when life snatched my wig and came for my edges. I was a hot mess. Life said “you’re too cute or whatever, lemme throw in some trauma and spices”.
His biological family being unavailable to offer meaningful support, he found love and help from a friend:
“One day, we were sitting and chatting in a library and I jokingly told him that he’s been adopted as my brother and he smiled and said “you’ve been my brother from the time you opened your heart to me”.
“Since then my adopted family has increased. The most recent adopted members were the humanist family and I’m glad I have. Sometimes I wish we’d stop fighting on how bad religion is and just love humanity as is.” – The Boy Behind the Flowers, Ghana Humanists.
“Black humanism originates from the lived experiences of African Americans in a white hegemonic society. Viewed from this perspective, black humanist cultural expressions are a continuous push to imagine and make room for alternative life options in a racist society.” – Alexandra Hartmann (summary)
Humanism for the Future
Humanism underlies our lives, existence, and commonalities. It therefore has the potential to grow and evolve along with the human species.
However, in a world facing global crisis, I do feel it is time for western humanists to reconsider their opportunities. For example, if humanists were to lead a challenge to the current withdrawal of US overseas aid and lifesaving medicine as an immediate, short-term goal; and if they were to adopt and promote the eradication of global poverty as some of their long-term goals; they could literally help to save millions of lives and lead the world by ethical example. This would also do more than their current local patchwork efforts to confront theism and religiosity, and ultimately achieve the same ends on a more geographically and historically global scale.
Western humanists are among the world’s most affluent people, and are able to spend more personal time in hobbies and study, versus others who spend more time just doing what they need to do in order to survive and who have relatively little time available for self-reflective introspection. Hence the history and practice of modern humanism appears to be encased in a Eurocentric shell of predominantly affluent western philosophical culture that largely excludes other voices and perspectives, attracts adherents predominantly from similar backgrounds, and leans heavily towards introspection rather than encouraging pragmatic activism.
Modern humanism in the western sphere needs to use its influence to literally change the world instead of comprising the ‘Ladies Who Lunch‘ syndrome. By definition, humanists are people who are good at heart, so I challenge them to make the change.
Let’s see the next generation of humanists adopt the life experiences and wisdom of Opeyemi and Zola and Moussa and Feng alongside our past mentors Carl and Richard and Christopher and Madalyn.
Secular humanism has the potential – and the opportunity – to adopt a more inclusive, celebratory and pragmatic approach to its own underpinnings. Many younger non-believers are not currently attracted to secular humanism, but to sentientism, which they perceive as being a more broadly inclusive philosophy and the next evolutionary step of humanism as a philosophy. Do we ignore them – or join them?
Where to From Here? As humanist Gene Roddenberry asserted: The Human Adventure is Just Beginning. The journey promises to be exciting, but like Neil Armstrong and the other Apollo Moon walkers who made history, we must have the courage to step out of our safety zone and into the unknown.
Originally published: 2 March 2025.
Edited and republished: 3 March 2025 in order to streamline and rework some material.
With thanks to a humanist friend for his advice.
A Global Crisis:
The Impact of Harmful Policies on LGBTQ+ Rights and Healthcare
by Guest Blogger Joseph K.
Many policies have been introduced over the years that have left a lasting, often devastating impact on marginalized communities, particularly the LGBTQ+ community. The brutal and discriminatory actions against LGBTQ+ individuals, both within the United States and around the world, must not be forgotten. These policies sought to roll back rights, ban organizations that supported the LGBTQ+ cause, and mistreated the most vulnerable.
The Ban on LGBTQ+ Organizations and Movements
One of the most harmful actions has been the direct attack on LGBTQ+ rights. Certain administrations systematically undermined organizations and movements that supported the LGBTQ+ community, specifically by targeting those who provided essential resources, advocacy, and protection. Notably, policies aimed at banning LGBTQ+ flags, pride events, and organizations from participating in public life sent a message that discrimination was acceptable and even supported at the highest levels of government.
LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly those who are transgender, faced increasing violence and discrimination, not only in the workplace and public spaces but even in healthcare. These harmful policies made it harder for LGBTQ+ people to seek proper medical treatment or be respected for their gender identity. The mental and physical toll this took on LGBTQ+ individuals was immense, with many facing hostile environments at a time when they needed support the most.
The Harsh Impact on the Global LGBTQ+ Community
The repercussions of these policies have not been confined to the United States alone. The impact on LGBTQ+ people has been felt worldwide, particularly in Africa, where the situation was already dire. In countries ravaged by war, poverty, and disease, LGBTQ+ people, particularly those living with HIV/AIDS, found themselves even more marginalized and vulnerable. The global community watched in horror as individuals who had already been ostracized were further left to die due to a lack of access to life-saving medications, healthcare, and the protection of organizations that were either closed or defunded.
The USAID Ban: A Catastrophic Blow to Health and Support Services
Among the most disastrous actions has been the recent decision to halt funding for USAID, a choice that has had a catastrophic impact on healthcare systems in many African nations. USAID, which was established in 1961, has been a crucial provider of support for minority and at-risk groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals, those living with HIV/AIDS, and women and children facing health crises. The withdrawal of support from USAID meant that thousands of individuals who relied on its services for life-saving treatment found themselves abandoned.
The closure of USAID programs directly impacted hospitals in many African countries, where the health infrastructure was already fragile. Hospitals that once relied on foreign aid for medicine, staff salaries, and essential services saw their operations drastically reduced or shut down altogether. For the LGBTQ+ community, particularly those living with HIV/AIDS, the results were deadly. Many may be forced to watch as their loved ones die from preventable diseases because of a lack of access to antiretroviral medications and basic healthcare.
As we reflect on the legacy of harm caused by these policies, it is clear that we must not sit idly by. The devastation caused by the ban on LGBTQ+ organizations, the closure of USAID programs, and the neglect of vulnerable communities calls for immediate action from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world.
We must unite in support of the LGBTQ+ community, especially those in countries where homophobia and transphobia still reign unchecked. The situation for LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly in Africa and war-torn regions, is dire. Lack of medical resources, the brutal treatment of LGBTQ+ people, and the absence of support networks have left many at risk of dying from preventable causes.
Now is the time to advocate for those whose voices have been silenced. We must call for governments and international organizations to reinstate vital support programs like USAID, ensuring that LGBTQ+ people, regardless of their location, have access to the healthcare, resources, and protection they deserve.
We cannot forget the LGBTQ+ people who are suffering and dying in silence. Their struggles are our struggles, and their survival depends on our collective action. Let us stand together in solidarity and work toward a future where all LGBTQ+ individuals are treated with dignity, respect, and equality—no matter where they live or who they love.
It’s time to keep our eyes open, support the LGBTQ+ community, and hold governments accountable for the choices they make. Their lives depend on our activism.
Written by Joseph.K (He/Him) an LGBTIQ+ Refugee and Writer based in Africa
“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.
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.
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.”
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).
“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.
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.
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.
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.
