I assume from your about page that you are a ex Muslim. As an ex Catholic atheist I have a different view. You say:
"I wonder if I have greatly overestimated human reason."
I would say you definitely have. You add:
"I had mostly thought about the “ceiling” that faith created–the ways in which religion hindered progress, scientific achievement and understanding."
I don't know how familiar you are with Christianity, but Christianity laid the intellectual groundwork for science and whilst it is certainly true that religion in general places a 'ceiling' on things, ceilings are not bad things in themselves. Of course, ceilings can be a bad thing like everything else, but they also provide direction and purpose.
What most ex Christian atheists seem reluctant to acknowledge is that whilst we have given up belief in God, we have not shed the values that we inherited from Christianity. Specifically the belief in the value of equality which seems to trump every other conceivable value these days.
You say: "atheists appear to be more likely than the religious to hold this particular unscientific dogma".
This is true, but that's because they value equality above all else. To treat trans women differently from biological women is to treat them differently and not as equals.
That last sentence sounds like double-talk. I'm not even clear on what you are trying to say. Are you saying the claims of biological males who claim to be transgendered must be accepted in the name of equality?
Does it violate the principle of equality, as you understand it, to treat men and women for some purposes? We knew that (for example) racially segregated restrooms, as in the South in the Jim Crow Era, violate such principles. However, most people think that real biological differences allow sex segregations in restrooms, changing rooms, and athletic activities.
If we accept the idea that sex segregation can be acceptable even under a regime that generally favors equality, then why would we possibly object to using objective biological definitions in establishing membership in the male or female category?
"Are you saying the claims of biological males who claim to be transgendered must be accepted in the name of equality?"
Err, no.
"However, most people think that real biological differences allow sex segregations in restrooms, changing rooms, and athletic activities."
So do I, but not those who argue for trans rights.
"If we accept the idea that sex segregation can be acceptable even under a regime that generally favors equality".
I agree that it is and should be, acceptable.
"then why would we possibly object to using objective biological definitions in establishing membership in the male or female category?"
Personally I do not object at all, but those who argue for trans rights do object. One, because they reject the idea of objective biological facts, and two, because they value equality above all else.
To be precise: The alleged proponents of «trans» rights, are not after real-life equality, but an idealized version they call «equity». Equity in this sociological sense, purports to cancel real-life inequalities by trying to calculate assets minus liabilities on an individual level, and compensate alleged unfortunate individuals by giving them individual advantages.
This, of course, is the core belief of intersectionality that lead to oppression olympics.
In this context, it is about prioritizing men that say they are women, over women, based on the notion that a man that says he is a woman, in general ranks higher on the oppressed/unfortunate pyramid than any woman.
I assume from your about page that you are a ex Muslim. As an ex Catholic atheist I have a different view. You say:
"I wonder if I have greatly overestimated human reason."
I would say you definitely have. You add:
"I had mostly thought about the “ceiling” that faith created–the ways in which religion hindered progress, scientific achievement and understanding."
I don't know how familiar you are with Christianity, but Christianity laid the intellectual groundwork for science and whilst it is certainly true that religion in general places a 'ceiling' on things, ceilings are not bad things in themselves. Of course, ceilings can be a bad thing like everything else, but they also provide direction and purpose.
What most ex Christian atheists seem reluctant to acknowledge is that whilst we have given up belief in God, we have not shed the values that we inherited from Christianity. Specifically the belief in the value of equality which seems to trump every other conceivable value these days.
You say: "atheists appear to be more likely than the religious to hold this particular unscientific dogma".
This is true, but that's because they value equality above all else. To treat trans women differently from biological women is to treat them differently and not as equals.
That last sentence sounds like double-talk. I'm not even clear on what you are trying to say. Are you saying the claims of biological males who claim to be transgendered must be accepted in the name of equality?
Does it violate the principle of equality, as you understand it, to treat men and women for some purposes? We knew that (for example) racially segregated restrooms, as in the South in the Jim Crow Era, violate such principles. However, most people think that real biological differences allow sex segregations in restrooms, changing rooms, and athletic activities.
If we accept the idea that sex segregation can be acceptable even under a regime that generally favors equality, then why would we possibly object to using objective biological definitions in establishing membership in the male or female category?
"Are you saying the claims of biological males who claim to be transgendered must be accepted in the name of equality?"
Err, no.
"However, most people think that real biological differences allow sex segregations in restrooms, changing rooms, and athletic activities."
So do I, but not those who argue for trans rights.
"If we accept the idea that sex segregation can be acceptable even under a regime that generally favors equality".
I agree that it is and should be, acceptable.
"then why would we possibly object to using objective biological definitions in establishing membership in the male or female category?"
Personally I do not object at all, but those who argue for trans rights do object. One, because they reject the idea of objective biological facts, and two, because they value equality above all else.
To be precise: The alleged proponents of «trans» rights, are not after real-life equality, but an idealized version they call «equity». Equity in this sociological sense, purports to cancel real-life inequalities by trying to calculate assets minus liabilities on an individual level, and compensate alleged unfortunate individuals by giving them individual advantages.
This, of course, is the core belief of intersectionality that lead to oppression olympics.
In this context, it is about prioritizing men that say they are women, over women, based on the notion that a man that says he is a woman, in general ranks higher on the oppressed/unfortunate pyramid than any woman.
Thank you for the clarification. I did not understand earlier whether you were describing a view or endorsing it.