Being skeptical and being a denialist are quite different things. Skepticism is a function of curiosity, while denialism is a function of the lack of curiosity. There are phenomena that we wish to be true or false because they fit in with our worldview. The skeptic is hesitant to believe or disbelieve claims on the reality of phenomena, at least until facts and interpretation have had some verification. The denialist will disbelieve claims and find and select the facts and interpretations that confirm a belief or worldview, and discard those that don’t. They will discard them even if it means grasping at straws or committing logical fallacies to maintain their beliefs.
When I first encountered transgender identifying males, it was within an atheist organization. As atheists, we mostly just assume that we are skeptics because we are conditional in our lack of belief of the existence of god(s,) meaning that it would require extraordinary evidence to change our stance on god(s.) But, change them we would after examination. But within that organization were two men who were in the process of physically transitioning to have the likeness of being women and they were fully accepted as women within the group.
No question.
I was careful not to misgender either of them. I asked them, and complied with their preferred pronouns when referring to them, out of consideration and politeness. The social pressure, although light, was noticeable within the organization to accept them as women, even to the point of counting them as women to fulfill our gender-balance requirements on the board.
I complied because I had not thought to apply skepticism towards whether or not a woman was actually a man, due to their genetic expression. There was no overt pressure on me, it just seemed like a natural phenomena that I could easily accept and furthermore it was accepted by the other atheists in my group with no objection and no question from anyone who consider themselves to be skeptical.
Accepting without question is not actually very skeptical, if we must be honest. It’s very much the opposite. So, if we flash forward a few years to when I reached “peak trans” and realized that’s a metaphysical claim without phenomenonalogical support I had by then observed the consequences of verbalizing such doubts in public. I see the who friends turn on each other for expressing such doubts, and people are accused of hatred and transphobia if they “debate my existence.” And once accused of transphobia, there is no recovery. It’s the perfect accusation because there is no accepted defense. Not accepting that transgendered souls are in conflict with the physical sex of the body they inhabit is considered hateful, even among atheists. And that’s surprising, because atheists tend not to believe in disembodiment of personalities.1
What’s more surprising is the widespread acceptance of the transgender claim among skeptics. Dr. Harriet Hall, who recently died and will be sorely missed as a skeptic, had published a post on the skeptical website she shared with Steven Novella and David Gorsky. Hall favorably reviewed Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage, on Science-Based Medicine, but her cohorts removed the post since it didn’t take the proper stance to refute Shrier’s claim that initiating medical transitioning on teen girls is dangerous. Jerry Coyne posted examinations of actions on his “website”2 (It’s definitely worth reading the post, but since that is not the topic of this article I’m not going to pull quotes over here.)
Gorsky and Novella pulled the post because it contained transphobic content, and mentioned transphobic topics without condemning them. And they allowed Hall no defense of her post, but simply removed it. They silenced her on this topic, not allowing debate on an issue that certainly requires a great deal of debate because of the social costs being asked of the LGB, and especially the costs being asked of women who are expected to accept on demand that men who believe themselves to have been born in the wrong body into their private spaces. It’s unprecedented among skeptics that transgender claims are not to be examined and in effect skeptics are turning the tables on my first paragraph above. They are implying that a failure to accept transgender claims is denialism, but rather than counter the denialism with supported evidence, they silence the people who don’t accept the claim.3
One of the great skeptics of the recent past is also now dead, but his contributions live on. Carl Sagan was quite outspoken on his worry that people don’t understand science well enough to make decisions based on their understanding of science. He spoke at length during an interview with Charlie Rose, and this was shortly before his death. I found a snippet of the transcript from this interview that is particularly relevant, thanks to Neal Umphred:
“WE HAVE ARRANGED A SOCIETY based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science and technology. And this combustable(sic) mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is gonna blow up in our faces.
If we are not able to ask skeptical questions—to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority—then we are up for grabs for the next charlatan—political or religious—who comes ambling along.
Right now, we are falling victim to an ideology because the skeptics do not examine it. They have bought into the “no debate” demand from transgender activists, and accuse those of us who are skeptical of transphobia. The governments of many countries, such as Canada, the U.S. Federal government, the Republic of Ireland, and many others are passing laws with no debate on the factual claims of the transgender lobby. The officials just blankly assume that one can be transgender and have the personal characteristics of the opposite sex, and will not listen to those who are asking questions or demanding that the governments respond to the many examples given of how this puts women, children, and LGB in danger.
It’s all very authoritarian in nature, and whether its driven by a desire to not be held in contempt for life as transphobic, or a sincere belief that man can be women or the reverse, is irrelevant. It is a direct denial of the skeptical inquiry into transgender claims, and the reason that transphobia is such an effective accusation is that it is a label that can’t be defended once its made. JK Rowling was accused, and now she can’t shake it no matter what she does. Her vows of support for the trans community are dismissed due to her active support of women and children.
I can’t say what Sagan would be thinking if he were alive. I would like to think that he would be reminding us of these words that he spoke to Charlie Rose so many years ago, but then so many skeptics have let us down. If we claim to follow Sagan without applying the principles he talked about, it’s not any better than hero worship. I’ve found that it’s easy to be a skeptic on the obvious topics such as cryptozoology and ghost hunters. It’s much more difficult on topics that are close to our hearts, and involve friends, or we ourselves find credible without examination.4
We can’t accept “no debate” on any topic, we can’t allow the prominent skeptics to get away with this. We need them to fulfill their roles and be skeptic, or those signs that people put in from of their houses that include “We believe the science” are pretty much meaningless. Sagan again, from the same interview:
And the second reason that I’m worried about this is that science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.
I say “tend” because atheism is by definition the disbelief in god(s.) Atheists sometimes believe in a spirit world and ghosts even though they don’t believe in god(s.) I’ve heard stories.
Coyne does not accept the term “blog” in relationship to his Why Evolution is True site.
Gender skeptics do not deny that there are many people who don’t fit into the gender structure, and infact respond to Non-Binary identification with the retort that “we’re all non-binary.”
Skeptics have gotten angry at me for questioning the automatic dismissal of GMOs, or for questioning the safety nd efficacy of the Keto and the alkaline diets. We create our own minefields.