It all began with the publication, on the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) web site, of an article by ‘non-binary’ author and FFRF fellow Kat Grant titled, ‘What is a Woman?’

After rejecting biology-based definitions, such as ‘a woman is someone with a vagina’, or ‘a woman is someone who has (or lacks) certain chromosomes’, Grant concludes that ‘a woman whoever she says she is’.

This article prompted a response, on the same web site, from distinguished biological scientist Jerry Coyne.  Coyne is (or was) also a member of FFRF.

The interesting thing is that Coyne’s rebuttal was promptly deleted from the web site following objections from pro-trans individuals.  The copresidents apologised, saying that the essay violated their values and principles and caused readers “distress.”

This act of censorship aroused the ire of none other than Professor Richard Dawkins, who complained that:

‘to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own Honorary Board. A Board which I now leave with regret.’

Thankfully, Coyne’s article has been published elsewhere   Coyne argues against the idea of self-identification:

‘You are not always fat if you feel fat (the problem with anorexia), not a horse if you feel you’re a horse (a class of people called “therians” psychologically identify as animals), and do not become Asian simply become you feel Asian (the issue of “transracialism”).’

He posits, instead, a definition based on gametes: males have sperm, and females have ova.  This definition, he says, has universality: almost all multicellular organisms conform to it.  Moreover, it has utility: it explains important evolutionary phenomena such as sexual selection, and it accounts for the many differences, physical and behavioural, between males and females.  Conversely,

‘Attempts to define sex by combining various traits associated with gamete type, like chromosomes, genitalia, hormones, body hair and so on, lead to messy and confusing multivariate models that lack both the universality and explanatory power of the gametic concept.’

An true intersex condition, writes Coyne, is actually very rare, and does not undermine the generality of the sex binary, any more that the (more common) condition of polydactyly suggests that we should think of a ‘spectrum of digit number’.

But the main thing I want to highlight is the willingness of the copresidents of FFRF to jettison free enquiry, stifle debate, and ignore scientific evidence when it challenges their ideology.

Even some religions do better than that.

[Prompted by this article in Evangelical Times, by Mike Judge]