This morning I woke to the news that the organisation laughingly known as the American Humanist Association (AHA) has withdrawn the ‘Humanist of the Year Award’ given to Richard Dawkins in…wait for it…1996!
Here’s the backstory: Ten days ago, Richard Dawkins tweeted this.
I wasn’t irked by this comment as some were – including many on our side of the biggest cultural conflict of our time. We expect high-profile scientists to stand up for science against an ideology based on post-modernist pseudoscientific claptrap but we expect them to do so sooner rather than later. We have been disgusted by those – such as Alice Roberts, current President of Humanists UK – who’ve sold out and we’ve been dismayed by the silence of others, including Dawkins. Some responded irately on the belatedness of his intervention while others saw the framing of his comment as cowardly fence-sitting.
These two tweets were directed at me during a Twitter spat I had with James Billingham a couple of months ago. Yes, he really is one of those men who presume to adjudicate on what feminism is. I can’t in all seriousness believe he thinks I care what he would “love” to see me do. Rather, I think these tweets were intentionally condescending to me in order to virtue-signal to his followers, who will probably applaud the insufferable arrogance of a man telling a woman old enough to be his mother how she should be doing feminism.
But even as we grasp at victory, there’s a cancer, an evil tumour growing, spreading in our midst.
Shout it! SHOUT! Shout out his her name!
The title of this blog is inspired by a short piece entitled, J.K. Rowling Has Been Following Anti-Trans Activists and We Need an Explanation, written by one Alysia Stevenson who, “when she’s not writing, you can find her watching beauty tutorials on Youtube or Parks and Rec for the millionth time.”
An article by someone who, with all due respect (i.e. none at all), is a total no-mark in the world of journalism on trans-related topics, wouldn’t be worth commenting on, were it not for what it tells us about how someone who appears to be a typical trans ally ‘thinks’ (for want of a better word).
The article appears as a news item (seriously!) on an unbelievably crappy website called Femestelle.com. The ‘we’ who supposedly ‘need’ this explanation are, of course, the dim-witted despots of the trans cult who, just when I think they couldn’t get any more narcissistic, go out of their way prove me wrong.
One of the things I was somewhat hurt by in the weeks after I was assaulted at Speakers Corner was the lack of contact from Humanists UK. I was Facebook friends with the CEO and several other high profile humanists and the night after I was assaulted I posted an emotive rant, which was shared widely. A lot of people – including some humanists I consider to be dear friends – expressed sympathy and support but there wasn’t a peep from the leadership of the organisation I had been a member of for a quarter of a century. I’d also been a humanist funeral celebrant for eight years and, early this century, I had spent a couple of years there in full-time employment as a development officer.
I envisage any trans activists reading the above to be nodding approvingly at the lack of interest and compassion from Humanists UK. To trans activists I am a hate figure. I am the guilty party who instigated a violent attack on a poor innocent 25-year-old, 6-foot-plus “trans girl”. I am a liar, a hater, a bigot, a transphobe extraordinaire, a giant terrifying beast, a white supremacist, a Nazi.
This post is a follow-up to my last blog: Why I resigned from Humanists UK.
I have said repeatedly that the society we should be striving for is one where the whole thinking around “gender” changes. Let’s discard stereotypes, roles and expectations based on biological sex and let people be free to express themselves however they like as long as they don’t pretend to be what they are not. The truth matters and truths are discovered through the scientific method, evidence, and reason – at least that’s what Humanists UK say on their website.
My opinion on the subject of personal identity has been much the same for more than four decades and nothing I have heard or read in the year and a half since I’ve been immersed in transgender issues has changed my mind. On the contrary, having both seen and experienced some of the hurt and harm caused by those promoting transgender ideology, my opinions have, if anything, become more entrenched. Continue reading
What happened to Angelos Sofocleous is but another scary sign of our times and it really isn’t an exaggeration to call it an Orwellian nightmare.
I have always considered myself a humanist ever since I first had the word explained to me by my father when I was in my teens, though it was only after his death that I discovered the British Humanist Association and joined the organisation. That was some 25 years ago. A decade later, I became the BHA’s first full-time officer dedicated to developing their ceremonies network. Later still, after retiring from full-time work, I joined that network myself and began conducting humanist funerals.
Eleven years ago, my husband, Alan Henness, and I created Think Humanism. Re-reading what I wrote back then about Humanism, I don’t think I got anything wrong in my explanation of what humanism is supposed to be and how humanists are supposed to act. If I were to re-write that piece today, I would probably highlight two particular things that I see many humanists (and, indeed, many sceptics who may or may not identify as humanists) failing at.