Richard Dawkins has resigned from an atheism foundation over its “imposition” of a “new religion” of transgender ideology.
The renowned evolutionary biologist and vocal atheist announced his departure from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) board on Saturday, citing the group’s decision to censor an article defending the biological basis of gender.
Dawkins called the removal of the article from FFRF’s website a response to the “hysterical squeals” of cancel culture and criticised the organisation for abandoning its principles of free thought and reason.
This move follows the resignations of fellow scientists Jerry Coyne and Steven Pinker, who similarly criticised the FFRF of imposing an ideology with the “dogma, blasphemy, and heretics” of a religion.
The controversy erupted last month when FFRF’s ‘Freethought Now!’ website published an article by non-binary author Kat Grant titled “What is a Woman?” The piece argued that defining womanhood based solely on biological terms is inadequate and that “a woman is whoever she says she is”.
In the November article, Grant argued a woman cannot be defined as someone with a vagina, uterus or the ability to conceive, as this would exclude intersex people, women who have hysterectomies and those who have gone through menopause.
Grant went on to claim that using biology to define female identity is “inadequate”, and that those individuals and groups who dissent from the basic tenets of gender ideology “disregard both medical science and lived experience”.
The article concludes by stating: “A woman is whoever she says she is.”
In response, Prof Coyne, an FFRF board member and biologist, wrote a counter-article, “Biology is not Bigotry”, which defended the biological definition of gender based on gamete types – or reproductive cells – and observed that very few people fail to adhere to the sex binary.
While acknowledging that “there is a tiny fraction of exceptions, including intersex individuals, who defy classification (estimates range between 1/5,600 and 1/20,000),” Prof Coyne emphasised that such “exceptions to the gametic view are surely interesting” but “do not undermine the generality of the sex binary.
“Nowhere else in biology would deviations this rare undermine a fundamental concept,” he added.
However, the FFRF later removed Prof Coyne’s article after a backlash, issuing a public apology for the “distress” caused by his article’s explication of the biological definition of sex
“Despite our best efforts to champion reason and equality, mistakes can happen,” co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote in their statement. “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.”
Following the atheist foundation’s decision to unpublish his article, Prof Coyne accused the group of failing to uphold its commitment to free inquiry. In an email, he wrote: “I was simply promoting a biological rather than psychological definition of sex. The gender ideology that led to the removal of my article is itself quasi-religious, ignoring science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.”
“That is a censorious behaviour I cannot abide,” he continued. “I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex, and I do not understand why you would consider that ‘distressing’ and also an attempt to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, which I would never do.”
“The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (‘a woman is whoever she says she is’), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.”
Announcing his resignation from FFRF’s board, Prof Pinker echoed these sentiments, lamenting that the organisation was no longer defending freedom from religion but instead imposing “a new religion, complete with dogma and blasphemy.” He went on to say that this shift marked a significant departure from the organisation’s mission to promote secularism and reason.
Dawkins characterised Grant’s article as “silly and unscientific” but reserved his harshest criticism for the FFRF’s decision to remove Coyne’s rebuttal. He described the action as “an act of unseemly panic” and criticised the foundation for failing to notify Coyne before taking down his article. “To summarily remove it without even informing the author was a lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own advisory board. A board which I now leave with regret,” Dawkins wrote in his resignation letter.
Grant, a non-binary author and FFRF fellow specialising in LGBTQ+ issues, argued that a woman cannot be defined as someone with a vagina, uterus or the ability to conceive, as this would exclude intersex people, women who have hysterectomies and those who have gone through menopause.
According to Grant, using biology to define female identity is “inadequate”, and the views of groups who dissent from gender ideology “disregard both medical science and lived experience”.
Coyne’s rebuttal accused Grant of “forcing ideology onto nature” in order to “concoct a new definition of ‘woman.’”
“Why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot?”, he wrote. “Feelings don’t create reality. In biology, ‘sex’ is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells. 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 while supporting trans rights.”
Founded in 1976, the FFRF is a US non-profit that advocates secular values and promotes the separation of church and state.
Following the resignations, the foundation’s co-president, Laurie Gaylor, said: “We have had the greatest respect for Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, and are grateful that they sat on our honorary board for so many years.
“We do not feel that support for LGBTQ rights against the religious backlash in the United States is mission creep. This growing difference of opinion probably made such a parting inevitable.”
