I'm going to Women in Secularism 3 this weekend, and I feel like this is a good time to get
into something relevant: my experiences as a woman in the secular community.
Particularly, my experiences as a woman whose gender is often considered debatable.
When Dave Silverman went to this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, the secular community
raised a lot of questions about some of the statements he made: Why, exactly, would the
president of American Atheists suggest that abortion is the one human right that there's
a secular argument against?
But during the much-needed uproar over this, Silverman's other statements were largely
ignored.
Yes, he implied that opposing reproductive rights can be a valid difference of opinion
within the atheist movement.
And that's really not okay.
But he also gave the impression that, unlike abortion, the issue of gay marriage was a
settled and "clean cut" question for atheists.
Silverman later defended this on Twitter, saying: "How many anti gay atheists do you
know?
I can't name any off top of my head.
I know a few anti choice atheists."
He continued: "School prayer, Death with Dignity, LGBT equality are 100% religious.
That was my contrast."
There weren't quite so many secular voices pushing back against the idea that opposition
to LGBT equality is "100% religious".
Chris Stedman, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard, was one of the few to respond to this, saying:
"I've heard from atheists who say that I'm too "effeminate," that my being gay makes
atheists seem "like freaks," or that my "obvious homosexuality" makes me an ineffectual voice
for atheists."
It would be easy to think that support for the LGBT community is nearly universal among
atheists.
What reason would they have to dislike us, when they're free of any religious dogma marking
us as an abomination?
And polling data would seem to confirm this.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that 88% of those with "no religious identity" supported the
legality of same-sex marriage.
A 2014 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute similarly found that 73% of the
"religiously unaffiliated" were in favor of legalizing gay marriage.
And the internet-based Secular Census, consisting of a self-selected convenience sample of secular
Americans who volunteered to respond, found even higher rates of support: 97.3% of those
who participated said that gay couples should be allowed to marry.
It does look pretty open-and-shut: support for marriage equality is apparently the norm
among non-religious people, and most of that demographic has indeed settled on this as
their answer.
There's just one little problem.
"Marriage equality" and "LGBT equality" are not synonyms.
Believe it or not, equality for LGBT people does not begin and end with marriage.
And a person's support for marriage equality tells us nothing about their views on employment
nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, housing nondiscrimination protections for
LGBT people, LGBT inclusion in the armed forces, the competence of LGBT people as parents,
the parental rights of LGBT people, the reproductive rights of LGBT people, the adoption rights
of LGBT people, so-called "reparative therapy" for LGBT people, hate crime laws protecting
LGBT people, anti-bullying policies protecting LGBT students, public accommodations protections
for transgender people, the right of trans people to have their identity documents updated
without undergoing invasive surgeries, the coverage of transition-related procedures
under healthcare plans, the right of trans students to present and be recognized as their
gender in schools, the right of trans people to be free from police harassment and profiling,
the right of trans people to be treated as their gender in homeless and domestic violence
shelters, the right of trans people to be housed according to their gender in prisons,
the right of trans people to receive appropriate medical treatment in prisons, or gender norms
and gender variance in general.
While there are plenty of polls focusing on marriage equality and the opinions of different
demographics on that issue, far less attention is given to these other areas.
And that's a pretty serious gap, because many of these issues are of far more immediate
importance to us than marriage.
Certainly, marriage does matter - my partner and I are getting married this summer.
But living in this society as a trans woman is something I have to deal with every day.
One thing I've often had to deal with is the opinions of other atheists on just about every
aspect of my existence.
Chris Stedman is far from the only one who's faced hostility from atheists for what they
perceive as a deviation from gender norms.
Long before I came out, before I transitioned - before I ever talked about trans issues
at all - just about the only thing I covered was atheism, and atheists comprised most of
my audience.
But even back then, plenty of people were already under the impression that I was trans.
Here's what some atheists had to say about my earlier work: "Stop lying to yourself and
admit you're a man."
"Why are you dressed like a girl?"
"Denying your own gender is called being delusional."
"You're a transexual?
Now you make athiests look bad."
"Zinnia Jones creeps me out too.
... Flamers creep me out.
A lot.
I could never take a guy seriously if he wore makeup and had a girly voice, etc."
"I honestly think he makes an ugly woman."
"This guy is brilliant, and always very well spoken, but I can never use him as reference
for helping me make a point."
"This chick has the golden voice of Ted Williams."
"why i can't say out loud that someone looks like a freak, if he/she really does?"
"all he needs is boobs now and I'd hit it... not" You can clearly see that these atheists
have very positive attitudes toward the LGBT community - assuming the T stands for Thunderf00t.
Really, what is going on here?
From what I've been told, atheists should have no reason to treat us this way.
And yet, here they are.
So, does this mean that their transphobia is due to some failure to let go of religious
views on trans people?
Is it just a Judeo-Christian cultural value that they've absorbed, and haven't yet overcome?
I don't think so.
When you look at what these atheists are actually saying, their claims have nothing to do with
religion.
If you're wondering how they can be transphobic despite being atheists, you're asking precisely
the wrong question.
They aren't transphobic in spite of their atheism.
They're transphobic because of their atheism.
And I don't mean that their atheism has made them merely indifferent.
No - it's actively made their transphobia worse.
As unlikely as that might sound, it's pretty obvious from the way they structure their
arguments.
It's not an appeal to faith - far from it.
They appeal to the values of science, observation, and reality, because they feel that these
values support their transphobia.
In many cases, they actually compare being trans to believing in God.
They're not speaking the language of religion, they're speaking the language of secularism.
Here's a really good example of this - from my YouTube comments, naturally: "The odd thing
about having a transgender identity is that your mind does not match your biology.
If you think you're a dolphin but you're not, your belief does not match reality and you're
delusional.
If you think you're a man and you have XY chromosomes, testes, and a penis, then your
identity matches reality.
How can you have disdain for the religious having no proof of the Divine and yet defend
those with no evidence that their gender doesn't match their genitals?"
And another one: "I understand that people can perceive gender and sex to be different.
But like an anorexic's self image vs. her actual body, one is merely in the mind with
no empirical evidence to back it up.
When your belief crosses the line where you are willing to mutilate yourself because of
it, it's usually called a disease."
And then there's this person: "THERE ARE TWO SEXES; MALE AND FEMALE.
SOMEONE WHO THINKS THEY ARE THE OPPOSITE SEX IS CALLED MENTALLY ILL."
Notice how this is closely related to the tendency to conflate religious belief with
"delusion" or "mental illness".
That itself is a problem - do these people not realize that atheists can have mental
illnesses too, and that this isn't anything like being religious?
It's not like I can just pick up a Dawkins book and decide to deconvert from having depression
and anxiety.
This alone shows that these people don't have a very good grasp of what mental illness even
is.
So it's not surprising that they're prepared to dismiss just about anything that they label
a "mental illness" - in this case, being trans.
But when they go on and on about this, it comes off as more of an expression of a stigmatizing
attitude, not an articulation of some uncomfortable truth.
They're not rocking the boat here.
They're not being edgy, they're not upsetting the status quo.
Instead, the sheer redundancy of such a declaration exposes their total unfamiliarity with the
medical consensus.
Since 1980, three editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
have included some kind of diagnosis related to being trans, under names like transsexualism,
gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria.
"What the hell is the diagnostic manual of whatever?", my bewildered atheist YouTube
commenters might ask.
Oh, it's just a little book by the American Psychiatric Association.
It's generally considered authoritative by doctors, researchers, insurance companies,
and other delusional folks like that.
So, let's say you've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
What happens now that you've been diagnosed with this "mental illness", as my friends
in the comments put it?
Well, I already know what happens, because I've actually been diagnosed with this!
Spoiler alert: I transitioned.
And this wasn't some original idea of mine that I had to convince anyone to go along
with.
There are millions of trans people around the world - it's so common that there's an
established treatment protocol for us.
It's called the Standards of Care, published by the World Professional Association for
Transgender Health.
Here's what it has to say about our condition: "Some people experience gender dysphoria at
such a level that the distress meets criteria for a formal diagnosis that might be classified
as a mental disorder.
Such a diagnosis is not a license for stigmatization or for the deprivation of civil and human
rights.
... Thus, transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming individuals are not inherently disordered.
Rather, the distress of gender dysphoria, when present, is the concern that might be
diagnosable and for which various treatment options are available."
"Stigmatization" - how about that.
Maybe it's not such a good idea to spout off about how we must be "delusional"?
I assume that all the decent people out there already understand this, but apparently some
of you need it spelled out.
And what about those various treatment options?
Let's take a look at section VIII: "Medical Necessity of Hormone Therapy - Feminizing/masculinizing
hormone therapy - the administration of exogenous endocrine agents to induce feminizing or masculinizing
changes - is a medically necessary intervention for many transsexual, transgender, and gender
nonconforming individuals with gender dysphoria."
And section XI: "Sex Reassignment Surgery Is Effective and Medically Necessary - ... While
many transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming individuals find comfort with their gender
identity, role, and expression without surgery, for many others surgery is essential and medically
necessary to alleviate their gender dysphoria.
For the latter group, relief from gender dysphoria cannot be achieved without modification of
their primary and/or secondary sex characteristics to establish greater congruence with their
gender identity.
... Follow-up studies have shown an undeniable beneficial effect of sex reassignment surgery
on postoperative outcomes such as subjective well-being, cosmesis, and sexual function."
"A medically necessary intervention".
"Effective and medically necessary".
"An undeniable beneficial effect".
And now you know how this particular "mental illness" is treated.
By the way, that's from version 7 of the Standards of Care.
There were six editions that came before it, dating back to 1979.
This is not experimental - it's an everyday medical treatment.
So I really don't know what these people expect from me when they start yelling about how
I'm "mentally ill".
I already saw a therapist about this.
And then they referred me to a gynecologist.
And pretty soon they'll refer me to some surgeons.
On the one hand, there's the constellation of medical professionals who are working with
me on this little upgrade, and the hundreds more who've worked to develop protocols for
this over several decades.
On the other hand, there's FluffyFeralMarmot, esteemed YouTube commenter.
Tell me again who I should be taking medical advice from?
Transphobes call us mentally ill because they think it's an easy way to try and shame us
for who we are.
The problem is that they didn't give a moment's thought to what would come after that.
They didn't bother spending five minutes learning about how this is treated, because they were
too busy calling us "delusional".
We don't need medicine to certify who we already know we are, any more than cis people do - but
if you're going to bring science into this, you should make sure the science actually
says what you think it does.
Again and again, I see this pattern being repeated by atheists who think they're equipped
to debate trans issues.
They assume that science and evidence support their position, when actually this most often
supports the exact opposite of their position.
I've seen atheists argue that trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's restrooms,
public facilities, or other spaces, because we're supposedly going to rape everyone.
After all, nothing says "rapist" like testosterone blockers, suppressed libido, genital atrophy,
and erectile dysfunction.
In reality, a majority of trans people have been harassed just for trying to use public
restrooms.
Have a majority of cis people been harassed by trans people in restrooms?
I haven't seen any studies suggesting that this is the case.
Do you know of any?
55% of trans people in homeless shelters or domestic violence shelters have been harassed
while residing there.
Have 55% of cis people been harassed by trans women in shelters?
I'm not sure if there are any studies on that either, but feel free to find them, if you
can.
I've seen atheists argue that it's unfair for trans women to be allowed to compete as
women in professional sports, or that this gives them a competitive advantage.
Actually, the Association of Boxing Commissions, the NCAA, USA Track & Field, the UK Football
Association, and the International Olympic Committee all allow trans people to compete
as their declared gender after medically transitioning.
Obviously the International Olympic Committee has to ensure that no one has an unfair advantage
- but have they consulted that dude on Facebook who won't shut up about trans women's "bone
structure"?
And in the midst of all this, it's practically a cliché for them to say "it's 8th grade
biology!"
whenever they're enlightening us with yet another tautology about chromosomes.
I guess the American Psychiatric Association just needs to go back to middle school, right?
You'd think that these science enthusiasts would realize that early education isn't a
core of foundational truths upon which all later knowledge is built.
It's a rough approximation designed to be understandable to grade schoolers, and it
becomes progressively more nuanced as students advance.
But instead, they're doing the equivalent of citing "4th grade science" to claim that
plasma isn't real, the sun is a myth, and who are fluorescent bulbs trying to fool,
anyway?
Personally, I'm glad that the surgeon who's going to cut my balls off decided to stay
in school after junior high.
So, why would people who engage in this transparent nonsense claim that they have science behind
them?
They don't exhibit any honest interest in the process of science and its actual findings
about reality.
They only seem to have a selective interest in the idea of something concrete that would
back up their preconceived beliefs.
If I didn't know these people were atheists, I don't think I would have been able to tell.
What else do you call it when someone knows nothing about science and thinks they can
blather on and on about it anyway?
What do you call it when someone refuses to change their beliefs when faced with evidence?
What do you call it when they try to tell us there's some nonexistent "controversy"
to be debated?
What do you call it when they think their own intuition and baseless conjecture are
more reliable than any research?
And what do you call it when they don't even care that this lack of acceptance makes life
so much worse for trans people?
I sure wouldn't call that a secular value.
How is believing I'm a woman any different from believing in God?
Really?
Here's a question: How is believing that transitioning is "mutilation" any different from believing
that vaccines cause brain damage?
How is believing that trans people have an unfair advantage in sports any different from
believing the earth is 6,000 years old?
How is believing in an epidemic of transgender rapists any different from believing in "irreducible
complexity"?
And how is believing that trans people are "deluded" any different from believing that
atheists are just angry at God?
Sorry, but you're not Neil deGrasse Tyson giving a science lesson to middle America.
You're Ken Ham telling an audience of faithfully ignorant sycophants how Adam and Eve rode
around on a T. rex.
Science and observation and reality should matter to everyone, and I hope they matter
to you.
But if you're leaving out the science, the observation, and the reality, you suck at
being a skeptic.