• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What can we learn from the recent dispute between the ACA and Rationality Rules?

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
(@shane may want to jump in)

A quick primer:

Very recently, ACA, the Atheist Community of Austin, expressed its disapproval of a video in Stephen Woodford's YouTube channel "Rationality Rules" due to presumed transphobic content.

This seems to be a good summary, from a source with good reputation.

Freedom of Speech and Offence: The ACA and Rationality Rules

This video is a response from Woodford.


My take on it is that there is no easy solution to the dilemma of transgenders in sports. There are good arguments for both sides, and it is ultimately an arbitrary call.

I do however think that it has become a bit too automatic to call strong criticism "phobic". In that respect, I think that the ACA was well intentioned, but still ultimately in this wrong this time.

Personally, it seems to me that the matter of Trans in sports will not be resolved for a while, and that is probably ok. We may need some more time to consider the pros and cons.

I find the use of the word "transphobic" of somewhat more urgent interest, mainly because it is a good example of how often similar words are used to attempt to censure honest, even vital criticism.

What do you think?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
(@shane may want to jump in)

A quick primer:

Very recently, ACA, the Atheist Community of Austin, expressed its disapproval of a video in Stephen Woodford's YouTube channel "Rationality Rules" due to presumed transphobic content.

This seems to be a good summary, from a source with good reputation.

Freedom of Speech and Offence: The ACA and Rationality Rules

This video is a response from Woodford.


My take on it is that there is no easy solution to the dilemma of transgenders in sports. There are good arguments for both sides, and it is ultimately an arbitrary call.

I do however think that it has become a bit too automatic to call strong criticism "phobic". In that respect, I think that the ACA was well intentioned, but still ultimately in this wrong this time.

Personally, it seems to me that the matter of Trans in sports will not be resolved for a while, and that is probably ok. We may need some more time to consider the pros and cons.

I find the use of the word "transphobic" of somewhat more urgent interest, mainly because it is a good example of how often similar words are used to attempt to censure honest, even vital criticism.

What do you think?

I remember the story of a woman who gave racism awareness trainings and a video of her was put on the internet...the video showed her proving examples of racist interactions and was shown out of context of the fact that these examples were part of a training about how to recognize racism. The video went viral and within quick order the government agency fired her. But a couple days later when it was realized what the context was she was reinstated.

The point being is that if you have a trust relationship (someone you hire, someone you collaborate with) and someone you trust is shown doing something that is against your values the first thing you should do is open up lines of communication with that person and figure out what is going on. It is not denounce that person without so much as an effort at investigation.

In fact, that is probably a sign that the organization in question at its highest levels needs anti-bias training as this should be the number one thing anyone comes away with from such a training...if someone in a relationship of trust (fellow citizen, fellow employee) does something you think is wrong or you think they are wrong for who they are, then you need to check your judgments and get yourself some education. If you just respond to how you immediately feel then you are operating under your bias.

Additionally I grant that someone may raise a question that is hurtful to some but once it is pointed out realizes their error then they too should not be punished. They have been educated, your trust is maintained and you have participated in a moment in which the world just got a little bit better without anyone having to be denounced or thrown under the bus.

I hope the ACA releases an apology for their over-reaction and unconsidered, biased response.
 

shane

New Member
I remember the story of a woman who gave racism awareness trainings and a video of her was put on the internet...the video showed her proving examples of racist interactions and was shown out of context of the fact that these examples were part of a training about how to recognize racism. The video went viral and within quick order the government agency fired her. But a couple days later when it was realized what the context was she was reinstated.

The point being is that if you have a trust relationship (someone you hire, someone you collaborate with) and someone you trust is shown doing something that is against your values the first thing you should do is open up lines of communication with that person and figure out what is going on. It is not denounce that person without so much as an effort at investigation.

In fact, that is probably a sign that the organization in question at its highest levels needs anti-bias training as this should be the number one thing anyone comes away with from such a training...if someone in a relationship of trust (fellow citizen, fellow employee) does something you think is wrong or you think they are wrong for who they are, then you need to check your judgments and get yourself some education. If you just respond to how you immediately feel then you are operating under your bias.

Additionally I grant that someone may raise a question that is hurtful to some but once it is pointed out realizes their error then they too should not be punished. They have been educated, your trust is maintained and you have participated in a moment in which the world just got a little bit better without anyone having to be denounced or thrown under the bus.

I hope the ACA releases an apology for their over-reaction and unconsidered, biased response.

Couldn't agree more. The way the ACA is acting is absurd. If you even try to talk about trans people on their facebook page then they don't allow it and say you're "marginalizing trans people". They're acting like a religion themselves almost.

There's outrage towards them from the fans and rightfully so.

I wish Dillahunty would leave the show now and just make his own show.
 

meritcoba

New Member
I would like to make some observations without trying be obnoxious, but it is important for considered judgment.

In the above post it is mentioned that the Board of Directors from ACA denounced Stephen Woodford for a specific you tube movie.
However that is not quite in their official statement. The statement does not give examples.
This is what it reads:
"Recently, the ACA Board of Directors was made aware that guest co-host Stephen Woodford (YouTuber “Rationality Rules”) had made ignorant and transphobic videos and statements on his social media platforms in the weeks leading up to his appearances on ACA shows."

The link is made by Stephen Woodford in his you tube movie: I have been denounced by the ACA.

There is no further explanation from the side of the ACA to this date, which, by the way, is not strange as I read on their website that on the 18th of May there will be an election for the Board.

What I miss in all of this is some kind of communication from both sides.
Did ACA contact Woodford before making the formal statement?
It doesn't say so in the statement.
It seems to me that this would be a fitting thing to do, just to make sure that he is indeed what they claim him to be. I mean, it is quite something to first invite someone to co-host your show and then denounce him soon after by stating that they would not have invited him in the first place, if they had known his alleged views on transgenders.

The reaction from the side of Woodford mystifies too.
He goes to youtube to make a reaction movie. Again at no time does he state that he asked the ACA why they denounced him. Would he not want to know what videos and what statements? As he says himself, the only one he can recall is the one video on transgender athletics. And this is what he thinks they are upset about, not what they tell him they are upset about.

I find the above reaction from Shane illustrative for the climate.
He finds ACA's reaction absurd and then wishes Matt Dillahunty to leave the Atheist Experience and make his own show.
One absurd reaction is denounced and then another is proposed.
Do we know what Matt's opinions are? Maybe he agrees with the Board?
Did people consider that Matt was a member of the board himself? Did he check?
Or perhaps the Board of Directors of ACA has a very good reason for their denouncement?
Perhaps Woodford has made statements and videos we do not know anything about?
In any event, Woodford himself states that he has reconsidered some of his views:

" I want to make very clear that I made a few major mistakes within this video, and that due to this I've demonetized it and have added to the title "Please Note That This Video Contains Errors". I'll be publishing a new video relatively soon in which I correct these mistakes and express my altered views. To be clear, I haven’t done a complete u-turn, but my views have indeed changed in very important ways. "

I would not know what to think but apparently a lot of people do for spurious reasons.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not familiar with these particular groups or this particular controversy but I still think it's funny noting that trans athletes only came into the discussion again recently after an incident that involved zero trans people. As Caster Semenya is a cis female at birth, with some intersex hormone presentation, it should be obvious that the sex and gender presentation is a spectrum, not a binary.
As such (and because I'm a big proponent of merit over gender and sex) I don't really agree with sex segregated sports anyway. Imo there should be physical trials open to all regardless of sex or gender. Organization by weight class or time trials or other performance based evaluation tells you way more than your chromosome and your pronouns.
 

shane

New Member
I would like to make some observations without trying be obnoxious, but it is important for considered judgment.

In the above post it is mentioned that the Board of Directors from ACA denounced Stephen Woodford for a specific you tube movie.
However that is not quite in their official statement. The statement does not give examples.
This is what it reads:
"Recently, the ACA Board of Directors was made aware that guest co-host Stephen Woodford (YouTuber “Rationality Rules”) had made ignorant and transphobic videos and statements on his social media platforms in the weeks leading up to his appearances on ACA shows."

The link is made by Stephen Woodford in his you tube movie: I have been denounced by the ACA.

There is no further explanation from the side of the ACA to this date, which, by the way, is not strange as I read on their website that on the 18th of May there will be an election for the Board.

What I miss in all of this is some kind of communication from both sides.
Did ACA contact Woodford before making the formal statement?
It doesn't say so in the statement.
It seems to me that this would be a fitting thing to do, just to make sure that he is indeed what they claim him to be. I mean, it is quite something to first invite someone to co-host your show and then denounce him soon after by stating that they would not have invited him in the first place, if they had known his alleged views on transgenders.

The reaction from the side of Woodford mystifies too.
He goes to youtube to make a reaction movie. Again at no time does he state that he asked the ACA why they denounced him. Would he not want to know what videos and what statements? As he says himself, the only one he can recall is the one video on transgender athletics. And this is what he thinks they are upset about, not what they tell him they are upset about.

I find the above reaction from Shane illustrative for the climate.
He finds ACA's reaction absurd and then wishes Matt Dillahunty to leave the Atheist Experience and make his own show.
One absurd reaction is denounced and then another is proposed.
Do we know what Matt's opinions are? Maybe he agrees with the Board?
Did people consider that Matt was a member of the board himself? Did he check?
Or perhaps the Board of Directors of ACA has a very good reason for their denouncement?
Perhaps Woodford has made statements and videos we do not know anything about?
In any event, Woodford himself states that he has reconsidered some of his views:

" I want to make very clear that I made a few major mistakes within this video, and that due to this I've demonetized it and have added to the title "Please Note That This Video Contains Errors". I'll be publishing a new video relatively soon in which I correct these mistakes and express my altered views. To be clear, I haven’t done a complete u-turn, but my views have indeed changed in very important ways. "

I would not know what to think but apparently a lot of people do for spurious reasons.

"In the above post it is mentioned that the Board of Directors from ACA denounced Stephen Woodford for a specific you tube movie.
However that is not quite in their official statement. The statement does not give examples."

Well I think due to the timing and I think there's only one video that could have been the culprit which was this video released recently before his appearance on the atheist experience show:

"What I miss in all of this is some kind of communication from both sides.
Did ACA contact Woodford before making the formal statement?
It doesn't say so in the statement.
It seems to me that this would be a fitting thing to do, just to make sure that he is indeed what they claim him to be. I mean, it is quite something to first invite someone to co-host your show and then denounce him soon after by stating that they would not have invited him in the first place, if they had known his alleged views on transgenders."

That's the issue. They found out about his video but they didn't talk to him, and instead condemned him as a trans-phobic. But he's not even close to that.

"The reaction from the side of Woodford mystifies too.
He goes to youtube to make a reaction movie. Again at no time does he state that he asked the ACA why they denounced him. Would he not want to know what videos and what statements? As he says himself, the only one he can recall is the one video on transgender athletics. And this is what he thinks they are upset about, not what they tell him they are upset about."

Again I think that video due to timing and content is the only video that could've caused the issue.

"I find the above reaction from Shane illustrative for the climate.
He finds ACA's reaction absurd and then wishes Matt Dillahunty to leave the Atheist Experience and make his own show.
One absurd reaction is denounced and then another is proposed."

That's not absurd IMO. The ACA is now shutting out all talks about trans people. They don't care about critical thinking and logical discourse they are just behaving like a religion and shutting up any talk that doesn't go with their agenda. They sent me this message: "The ACA has made a decision to be an inclusive organisation. This means that we don’t allow any negativity or marginalisation of already marginalised groups. their feelings of comfort and safety take priority."

"A trans woman is a woman. Contrasting her to a regular woman is contributing to marginalisation and therefore a violation.
Should have said "regular woman" in quotes. Because there's no such thing. As long as you contrast trans women from "regular women", you will not be able to participate in the group."

That's alarming that they're not letting people talk about what they want. But it's not much related to atheism anyway, the real issue is how they shut out the RR guy because he didn't align with their beliefs. And they didn't talk to him. They mistreated him that's the issue.

"Do we know what Matt's opinions are? Maybe he agrees with the Board?
Did people consider that Matt was a member of the board himself? Did he check?"

No Matt's not on the board. He clarified that on his fbook page and said he agrees with Rationality Rules video about the ACA denouncing him.

"As a reminder:
I'm not the Atheist Community of Austin (ACA).
I'm not the president, I'm not on the board, I make no decisions, I'm not on the official Facebook page, I'm not a moderator...
I'm a member and a host on our show.
My statements shouldn't ever be construed as representing that organization... and vice versa."

and then he later posted Stephens video and said "Agreed".


"Or perhaps the Board of Directors of ACA has a very good reason for their denouncement?"
I think it's clear the trans video is the reason for their denouncement. They consider is trans phobic and "marginalizing" to even talk about trans people competing against regular women. If you try to talk about trans women competing against cis women on their fbook page they will block the comment.

"In any event, Woodford himself states that he has reconsidered some of his views"

Yeah but he didn't change any major views, and again, the problem was he simply gave an opinion, but was then inappropriately labelled a transphobe and then shut out. The ACA doesn't want to hear you talk about it at all. Stephen says in his video how he should've been treated and he's right. People should be allowed to give an opinion about trans people. They shouldn't be condemned and labelled a transphobe. That's the type of thinking the ACA is supposed to be against and that's why it's so alarming that they would take that stance.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The catholic church is basically a child sex ring so I'd have no problem attacking them lol.

They pretend there's a god to take your money, and then they rape kids, get caught, hide the rapists, rinse and repeat.

They condemn gay people when they are running an underground gay network of child rapists.

Aren't most pedophiles heterosexuals?
 

shane

New Member
Aren't most pedophiles heterosexuals?

Yeah maybe.

I should've split those two up. I think the child rape is one thing, and the underground gay parties they have are another thing.

I saw this documentary a few years back where a guy pretends to join their group and then he shows videos of them having gay dance parties and then some of them go bang after. It was a funny video. They condemn gays but many are gay themselves just like in Islam. I can't remember the documentary. Who knows how legit it was really, but the child rape thing is unreal. So many cases. I don't get how they're allowed to carry on.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Sports are segregated by sex not "gender". The backlash to this fact and basic biology is just whining. Next!
Granted, I am no expert on the difference between sex and gender, but I think that there is more to that.

For one thing, sex is not always easy to determine. Very often, certainly, but not always. And athletes are supposed to be selected from the exceptional, are they not?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Granted, I am no expert on the difference between sex and gender, but I think that there is more to that.

Not really. Most woman in sports now wouldn't be if sports wasn't separated based on sex. How many grand slams do you think Williams would win if she was competing in the men's division? Playing 5 matches instead of 3?

Sex is biology. Gender was biology as of 5 minutes ago.

For one thing, sex is not always easy to determine.

99% of the time it is very easy.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Not really. Most woman in sports now wouldn't be if sports wasn't separated based on sex. How many grand slams do you think Williams would win if she was competing in the men's division? Playing 5 matches instead of 3?



99% of the time it is very easy.
My point exactly. 99% of everything is unremarkable.
 
Top