“Transphobia” is as nonsensical a term as “Islamophobia.” What’s next? “Fasciophobia” for when people decry being hauled away for criticizing irrational belief systems? I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating.
Disbelief isn’t belief. It’s the absence of belief. I disbelieve the claims of religion and quasi-religious systems. I don’t believe in things that are impossible or that are not proven or provable by reason or facts. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe there’s a god. No apologies. If you want to believe in a god, that’s fine (you don’t need my permission), just don’t force me to. I’m a civil libertarianism, which is a political philosophy that advocates for the individual’s right to believe in what he will or not to believe in what he won’t, to express what he wishes or not say anything at all.
How is a political philosophy that seeks the negative liberty situation of not being compelled to believe or say things others believe and say a form of bigotry? It can’t be. Yet I encounter people all the time believe that if you reject or criticize their beliefs, then you’re a bigot. This position indicates the habit of deploying a self-sealing fallacy where everything a person disagrees with becomes bigotry. If this fallacy becomes common practice, and unfortunately it has, it allows for compelling people to believe and say certain things or have them act in bad faith. There are words for this attitude. Do you know them? Think about it and I will share some of them at the conclusion of the essay.
The word bigotry is thrown about in a reckless manner. Words have meanings. Bigotry is defined as the stubborn and unreasonable attachment to a particular belief, opinion, or prejudice. Sometimes the definition includes discrimination, hatred, or intolerance against those who are perceived as different or who hold different viewpoints. Let’s accept the second part for the sake of argument, since those making accusations of bigotry often advance the latter while eschewing the former (that’s a matter of usage). However, the first part, the part about stubborn and unreasonable attachment to a particular belief, opinion, or prejudice is the operative definition.
I was recently asked whether bigotry against trans people is even possible. I am asked about this with respect to several other faith-beliefs, as well. Or at least the question is assumed in discourse. I have been accused of “Islamophobia,” for example, a term that intends to convey bigotry against Islam—as if this were possible for an atheist to do, since the atheist has no religious beliefs to which to stubbornly or unreasonably cling. It is of course possible for the Muslim to be a bigot, since he often presents with a stubborn and unreasonable attachment to a particular belief, opinion, or prejudice. Moreover, Muslims are often hateful towards and intolerant of those who hold other viewpoints.
Disbelief in religious and religious-like ideologies cannot represent stubborn and unreasonable attachment to a particular belief or opinion since disbelief is not a belief or an opinion, but the lack thereof. Disbelief is the refusal to accept something as true or real without a compelling reason to do so. Disbelief is an expression of doubt or skepticism, often in response to something that seems implausible or contrary to what one knows to be factual or reasonable. It is therefore reasonable to criticize all beliefs that are not confirmed or verified. Why should faith-belief be spared from unflinching criticism? It shouldn’t. Irreligious criticism is the opposite of bigotry. It is the mark of an open mind.
Do I prejudge believers? Of course I do. Why? Because believers come with beliefs I disbelieve or reject. I can expect a Christian to believe certain things. Humans are (usually) thought-bearers, and very often the thoughts they bear are false and irrational. Some of their beliefs I confess to hating, if by hate one means an intense reaction characterized by strong aversion or enmity towards belief or behavior. It is my natural right to hate things; it is innate constituent of my evolved emotional inventory. That’s freedom of conscience. Nonetheless, as a civil libertarian, I tolerate beliefs I reject and hate. People are free to believe what they will and express those beliefs. What I am not obliged to tolerate are behaviors or actions based on those beliefs that interfere with my freedom or harm others. Moreover, a free society requires tolerance of others beliefs so that there is a guarantee that my beliefs will be tolerated. Otherwise, it’s not a free society.
The short answer, then, is no, it is not possible to be bigoted towards people who believe in impossible things like that a man can be a woman or a man can be without gender (nonbinary), since the rational person disbelieves in impossible things, which these things are. Again, it is obligatory or vital in a free society to be tolerant towards those who believe in things like “gender identity,” “souls,” “therians,” “thetans,” etc, because, among other things, one would like to enjoy tolerance towards his own beliefs, such as belief in his right to be freedom from compelled belief. However, it is entirely reasonable for a free people to criticize and defend any belief. I’d say more than this: it’s obligatory to do so if people wish to keep their society free.
What about homosexuality? Is bigotry towards homosexuality even possible? For sure, just as bigotry towards women, i.e., misogyny, is not only possible but widespread. There are many men (and some women) who believe the woman’s place is in the home. There are men (and some women) who believe that women have no right to female-only activities and spaces. They have a stubborn and unreasonable attachment to this opinion. When misogyny is put into practice, we know it as sexism. The same is true with heterosexism, which is the institutionalize practice of denying homosexuals full equality. Heterosexism generates and is perpetuated by bigotry against gays and lesbians, such as the bigoted position that heterosexuality is the only acceptable form of romantic love.
Homosexuality is the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. It is one of the sexual orientations, alongside heterosexuality (attraction to the opposite sex) and bisexuality (attraction to both sexes). In a broader sense, homosexuality encompasses both the identity of individuals who experience same-sex attraction and the cultural and social practices associated with same-sex relationships. While the term “homosexual” is often used to describe people who are attracted to others of their own sex, some prefer terms like “gay,” “lesbian,” or “bi,”which can carry more positive and affirming connotations. I use these terms, too, but at the same time, there has always been a need to destigmatize the word “homosexual.” To put this another way, we should condemn anti-homosexual bigotry. Should we punish people for it? No, because bigots have a right to their bigotry.
Homosexuality is very different from the idea “gender identity,” found in queer theory, in that the latter is not a natural attraction or behavior but an ideological construct. Gender identity is analogous to the soul in Christianity or the thetan in Scientology. Whereas the words used to denote homosexuality refer to real things, the words used to denote gender identity as constructed by queer theory call things into existence that have no actual reality. This is why the smear “transphobia” does not describe an actual phobia but constitutes a thought-stopping device used to chill criticism of the ideology. Accusations of transphobia do the same work as accusations of “Islamophobia” when devotees of this ideology and their allies seek to shut down irreligious criticism. A disbeliever cannot be a bigot for denying the claims of queer theory anymore than he can be a bigot for denying the claims of Islam.
The view that all ideologies are legitimately subject to criticism, which is central to my style of sociological critique, is rooted in the principles of intellectual freedom, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth. No belief system or set of ideas should be immune from debate, doubting, questioning, or scrutiny. All ideologies, by their nature, represent particular interpretations of the world that are shaped by cultural, historical, and social contexts. As such, they are inherently fallible and open to challenge. To be sure, critics of this view often argue that ideologies play a crucial role in providing meaning, moral guidance, and social cohesion, and that constant criticism undermines these functions. But without the ability to critique ideologies, we risk of dogmatism, where ideas are accepted without question, which in turn leads to the suppression of dissent and the perpetuation of harmful beliefs. After all, racism provides meaning, moral guidance, and social cohesion. Should we not undermine these function with vigorous criticism of racist belief?
Irreligious criticism—and queer theory meets the anthropological and sociological definition of religion—closely aligns with the values of democratic societies, where freedom of thought and expression are protected, and where debate and dialogue are considered essential for the healthy functioning of public life. This is the ethos of the Enlightenment, which emphasizes reason, skepticism, and the continuous testing of ideas as a means to progress—and for sustaining freedom and making justice. By subjecting all ideologies to criticism, we better identify biases, uncover hidden assumptions, and refine or reject ideas that do not withstand scrutiny. This process is seen as vital for the advancement of knowledge and for the development of more just and equitable social systems. Should we not criticize Scientology because those who subscribe to these ideas will be offended or feel unsafe? If we do, are we bigots? Of course not. Not at all. It is a ridiculous charge.
The ideas of queer theory and its foundation in pseudoscientific tendencies in psychiatry and sexology are crackpot and not merely stand as legitimate objects of critique, but require vigorous critique because they are harmful to individuals and society. Homosexuality is not an ideology. Recognition of homosexuality is rooted not only in our commitment to individual freedom, but in admitting naturally occurring phenomenon. Trans genderism, in contrast, is a desire to manufacture simulated sexual identities, several orders down the precession of simulacra, things that have no basis in real world, indeed things that contradict observable and verifiable reality. A man can love another man and know him sexually. A man cannot be a woman in the same way that there is no thetan lurking inside each of us.
Discriminating against homosexuals is wrong because it violates fundamental principles of dignity, equality, and human rights. All individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, deserve to be treated with respect and afforded the same rights and opportunities as others. Discrimination based on sexual orientation perpetuates harm by reinforcing negative stereotypes, fostering social exclusion, and denying people the freedom to live authentically and openly. At its core, such discrimination is an unjust exercise of power that marginalizes individuals based on a characteristic that is integral to their identity. It undermines the social fabric by promoting division and intolerance, which can lead to further prejudice and violence. Recognizing the humanity and worth of every person, irrespective of whom they love, is essential for building a fair and inclusive society where everyone has the chance to thrive. Discrimination against homosexuals has no rational basis; it often stems from unfounded fears, cultural biases, or outdated moral beliefs that have been challenged and debunked over time.
Discriminating against people based on their religious or ideological beliefs is wrong, as well, because it infringes on their fundamental rights to freedom of conscience, expression, and thought. These freedoms are cornerstones of a just and democratic society, allowing individuals to form and express their beliefs without fear of exclusion or persecution. When people are discriminated against for their beliefs, it not only denies them the right to live in accordance with their values, but it also undermines the principle of pluralism that is essential to a free and democratic society. Discrimination can lead to the marginalization of individuals and groups, fostering division and hostility rather than mutual understanding and respect. By denying people the opportunity to practice their religion or express their ideology freely, society risks creating an environment of conformity and oppression, where diversity of thought is stifled and innovation is hindered.
Limiting homosexuality in some way greater than limiting heterosexuality is discriminatory. But is the same true with religion? Religious liberty is undeniably a cornerstone of the American system, enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution as a fundamental right. This recognition is also found in international law. It reflects the commitment to allowing individuals the freedom to practice their faith without undue interference from the state. However, this commitment to religious liberty must be balanced with the responsibility to protect the rights and well-being of others, particularly vulnerable populations such as children.
Not all religions are equal in their impact on society. Some religious practices may involve rituals that are harmful, either physically or psychologically, to children and other members of society. In such cases, the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens may justifiably override the free exercise of certain religious practices. For example, practices that involve physical harm, such as alteration of genitalia, or indoctrination that severely impairs critical thinking challenge the boundaries of what religious liberty should protect. In the case of physical harm, I have long argued for stopping the practice of genital mutilation, for boys as well as girls. The problem of religious indoctrination that cripples the mind, this is more difficult, but it has to be criticized. The state must intervene to ensure that the rights of individuals, particularly those who cannot advocate for themselves, are upheld, albeit in a way that does not allow ideologues to use the coercive machinery of the state to advance a political-ideological agenda.
Moreover, the principle of religious liberty is rooted in a broader framework of secular values that promote equality, individual rights, and the rule of law. Religions or belief systems that are fundamentally incompatible with these secular values—such as those that advocate for the subjugation of women, the suppression of dissent, or the rejection of legal equality—pose a challenge to the very foundation of religious liberty. The state, in its role as a neutral arbiter, must ensure that religious freedom is not weaponized to undermine the rights and liberties of others. This is why the law cannot reflect religious doctrines, such as the prohibition of homosexuality in Jewish and Islamic texts. The First Amendment permits anti-gay belief. It does not allow these anti-gay beliefs to be institutionalized. In fact, it forbids this.
So are people allowed to subscribe to queer theory and see themselves as the gender they are not? Of course. Obviously. People subscribe to Christianity and believe they have a soul and order their lives around this belief (and try to order other people’s lives around it). It is not for you or me to force them to believe things about the world and themselves. We are obliged to tolerate these views. However, tolerance has limits, especially when those beliefs interfere with our personal freedoms or harm others. Beliefs and their expression become problematic when they lead to actions or policies that infringe upon our rights or the rights of others, such as my freedom to live according to my values, my safety, or my ability to access equal opportunities. If someone’s religious or ideological beliefs result in discrimination against us, such as being denied services, employment, or equal treatment under the law, this interference crosses a boundary from personal belief into harm. Similarly, if these beliefs promote violence, coercion, or the imposition of certain practices on us against our will, then they directly impinge on our freedom.
Thomas Jefferson’ s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, dated January 1, 1802, is famous for articulating the concept of the “wall of separation between church and state.” In the letter, Jefferson wrote:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Here, Jefferson is expressing the idea that the government has no rightful authority to interfere in religious beliefs or opinions—these are matters of personal conscience. He distinguishes between beliefs (opinions) and actions, asserting that while government can regulate actions that affect the public welfare, it has no jurisdiction over personal religious beliefs. This separation, as Jefferson explains, is essential to protect religious liberty and prevent government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. Jefferson’s statement emphasizes that the power of the government should be limited to regulating conduct that impacts others, not controlling or dictating personal religious beliefs.
It’s is vitally important to distinguish between the right to hold and express beliefs and the actions that stem from those beliefs. While everyone has the right to believe what they choose, this right does not extend to infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others. In a democratic society, the law serves as the arbiter in balancing these rights, ensuring that freedom of belief does not come at the expense of others’ freedoms. In essence, while tolerance is necessary for coexistence in a free society, it does not require you or me to accept or endure actions that trespass upon our rights and freedoms.
It does neither me nor you any harm that two consensual adults engage in sexual intercourse in the privacy of their own space. Whether the intercourse is between a man or a woman or between two men, we are obliged to mind our own business. We are, of course, free to have an opinion on it, and to express that opinion, but since the behavior does not compromise our freedom, we have no right to interfere with it. However, great harm is done when boys and men are allowed to participate in activities or trespass upon spaces reserved for girls and women. This is an action the violates the equitable arrangements established by sex-segregation in society. Great harm is done to them when males and females submit to life-altering drugs and surgeries that have no valid basis in medical science. In the case of adults, it is not their desire to do this that makes it wrong but the responsibility of physicians to do no harm—and the responsibility of our elected leaders to stop them.
Do we allow Muslims to remove the clitoris and labia of their daughter vaginas because they interpret their scriptures to mean that Allah demand this? No. Would it make it any better if doctors performed the surgeries? No. Any society that allows this is barbaric; it is permitting atrocities to be perpetrated on the basis of religious doctrine. We still allow Muslims (and Jews) to remove for religious reasons the foreskin (or prepuce) of a male infant’s penis. The foreskin is a fold of skin that covers and protects the glans (head) of the penis, the result of natural history. During circumcision, this tissue is surgically cut away, exposing the glans. It’s one thing to think that the male penis should be mutilated. It’s another to permit it.
When somebody accused another person of “transphobia,” what they are actually accusing the person of disbelief in the claim that men can be women or genderless and instead use scientific definitions of gender. A man is an adult male human. His pronouns are he/him/his. His gender is determined by his sex-determining chromosome (Y), gamete size and type (sperm), and reproductive anatomy which may be ambiguous due to a disorder of sexual development (such as a dysfunctional SRY gene on the Y chromosome). The smear is also attempting to silence those who object to males invading female spaces, as well as those who seeks an end to the atrocities being performed on children for the sake of ideology and revenue generation for powerful corporations.
If the state takes up the smear, and punishes those who criticize these barbaric practices, then totalitarian desire becomes manifest in the form of coercive government action. So some of the words I asked you to consider earlier are here pronounced—authoritarianism, fascism, and tyranny.
freedom and reason 