• 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?

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Organization by weight class or time trials or other performance-based evaluation tells you way more than your chromosome and your pronouns.
When it comes to numerous sports competitions, we can think of the body as a machine. For any trans-woman who transitioned after a male puberty, this is problematic as it does create an unfair advantage through the skeletal structure and muscles they probably didn't quit using and thus never lost. Men do tend to excel in certain events while women excel in others. There aren't many like shooting where the puberty you went through is utterly irrelevant, and few where a gendered advantage can be rendered useless.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
In my opinion the ACA jumped the gun. Rationality Rules may have been wrong, and it appears that he was in several ways, but he is far from transphobic. I have inadvertently offended some of our trans members here due to my ignorance. I was perfectly willing to learn how I was wrong and I am sure that Steve would do the same. Putting him down without a fair hearing reeks of what atheists hate and that is dogma. They also knew about this controversy before he was a guest. They should have worked this out before he was a guest rather than throwing him under the bus.

Right now the ACA looks far worse than Steven does in my opinion.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
When it comes to numerous sports competitions, we can think of the body as a machine. For any trans-woman who transitioned after a male puberty, this is problematic as it does create an unfair advantage through the skeletal structure and muscles they probably didn't quit using and thus never lost. Men do tend to excel in certain events while women excel in others. There aren't many like shooting where the puberty you went through is utterly irrelevant, and few where a gendered advantage can be rendered useless.
Hence why I think purely performance, not genders and sexes, should set the standards for weightclasses, leagues, etc. Then those who don't conform to the expectation aren't punished by it. It might mean that lower leagues are primarily occupied by CIS women for certain sports, but that's pretty much where we are already, as male dominated sports leagues are by in large invested in and followed more than their female equivalents. Women's sports is already a ****ty place for women to be in (comparably).
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
This does not pan out in most sports nor even in routine testing in police and firefighters.
It pans out in biology and Olympic records. 100%, no, but not 100% of men are taller than women, though they generally are.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
It pans out in biology and Olympic records. 100%, no, but not 100% of men are taller than women, though they generally are.

Which records would that be? A tiny minority in low popularity sports which proves the exception to the rule thus validate what I said? Events which are not an actual sport?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Aren't most pedophiles heterosexuals?
If they are attracted to same sex then they clearly are not hetrosexual. Personally I think it's an apple and oranges thing givin it's a sexually deviant behavior no matter what the orientation is.
 

meritcoba

New Member
"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.

That is something that he and you concluded. I can't say one way or another.

"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.

Yes, as you stated before: you assume so. I cannot say one way or another.


"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."

I must have missed these arguments in your first post. I think your post came down to two statements that you did not otherwise argue. Which is my point.

"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".

Can you provide a link? This would be very helpful when you are arguing a case.

"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.


If you just throw out statements like you did in your first post it just comes over as ill considered. I am still unconvinced that it wasn't. Arguing your case in hindsight is just that and you are still basing most of your arguments on assumptions. You assume what Matt's position is. You assume what ACA thinks. You assume what Woodfords altered views are. And that is the thing. Aside from the lack or any arguments in your initial post you still base yourself on assumptions in this one. And even to go further. You argue the case that the Board of Directors of ACA labelled Woodford as transphobe, which I can't find from their statement.

I agree with you that on the face of it the Board of Directors of ACA did not handle the case well. If I had been them I would have called Stephen Woodford and talked to him about his video. Not as to make him change his mind, but to make sure that we are both in agreement in what his vision is. If at that point there was a disagreement then I would perhaps made a statement about that. I also think that the way ACA handled things feels like backstabbing Stephen Woodford. Even besides all this is not something he deserves. As far as I know he is a honest person trying to do his best. Even if he is mistaken he should have been cut some slack cause he is a nice guy..
 

meritcoba

New Member
Sorry.. I wrote an extensive reply but it got blocked for reasons I do not know.

It is very annoying to write a reply to a post and then on the moment you post it loose it all because of unknown reasons. I don't even have the reply saved.
 

meritcoba

New Member
Seems I cannot edit any post I made without getting a notice that it cannot be change as my edit is seen as inappropriate or spam. My excuse for any issues..
 

shane

New Member
If you just throw out statements like you did in your first post it just comes over as ill considered. I am still unconvinced that it wasn't. Arguing your case in hindsight is just that and you are still basing most of your arguments on assumptions. You assume what Matt's position is. You assume what ACA thinks. You assume what Woodfords altered views are. And that is the thing. Aside from the lack or any arguments in your initial post you still base yourself on assumptions in this one. And even to go further. You argue the case that the Board of Directors of ACA labelled Woodford as transphobe, which I can't find from their statement.

I agree with you that on the face of it the Board of Directors of ACA did not handle the case well. If I had been them I would have called Stephen Woodford and talked to him about his video. Not as to make him change his mind, but to make sure that we are both in agreement in what his vision is. If at that point there was a disagreement then I would perhaps made a statement about that. I also think that the way ACA handled things feels like backstabbing Stephen Woodford. Even besides all this is not something he deserves. As far as I know he is a honest person trying to do his best. Even if he is mistaken he should have been cut some slack cause he is a nice guy..

I assume what matt's position is when he posted to his own facebook that he agrees with stephen? Ok.

If you just throw out statements like you just did in your post it just comes over as ill considered.
 

Prestor John

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?
Well, there is a NBA and a WNBA, why not a TNBA?

Men that believe they are women (MtF Transgender) should only play with/against other men that believe they are women (MtF Transgender).

Same goes for women who believe they are men (FtM Transgender).

Problem solved.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Well, there is a NBA and a WNBA, why not a TNBA?

Men that believe they are women (MtF Transgender) should only play with/against other men that believe they are women (MtF Transgender).

Same goes for women who believe they are men (FtM Transgender).

Problem solved.
That would hardly help in integrating people, now would it?
 
Top