International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   ACA denounces Rationality Rules over trans-women video (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336411)

carlosy 13th May 2019 12:22 PM

ACA denounces Rationality Rules over trans-women video
 
I dont't think the trans women thread would be sufficient enough, because the issue is not only about trans women in sports, but more about the ACA's way of dealing with the situation.

So, short version:

Rationality Rules (aka Stephen Woodford) had done some videos with Atheist Experience (Matt Dillahunty) and now he has been denounced in a public statement for being transphobic:

https://i.imgur.com/o0LsCsI.png

His reply:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



And now there is a dicussion about how "religiously" or reactionary the ACA behaved. Matt Dillahunty does not seem to agree with the board though.

cullennz 13th May 2019 12:32 PM

"LGBTQIA+"

Am I the only one who found it slightly humorous when they gave up on adding more letters and just chucked a + on the end?

Bouncing Bettys 13th May 2019 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12694286)
"LGBTQIA+"

Am I the only one who found it slightly humorous when they gave up on adding more letters and just chucked a + on the end?

I thought oh dear I hope that isn't A+ as in Atheism +.

Elagabalus 13th May 2019 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlosy (Post 12694280)
I dont't think the trans women thread would be sufficient enough, because the issue is not only about trans women in sports, but more about the ACA's way of dealing with the situation.

So, short version:

Rationality Rules (aka Stephen Woodford) had done some videos with Atheist Experience (Matt Dillahunty) and now he has been denounced in a public statement for being transphobic:

https://i.imgur.com/o0LsCsI.png

His reply:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



And now there is a dicussion about how "religiously" or reactionary the ACA behaved. Matt Dillahunty does not seem to agree with the board though.


You had me going there for a moment. I thought that the ACA was the Affordable Care Act and I cared a little.

theprestige 13th May 2019 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12694286)
"LGBTQIA+"

Am I the only one who found it slightly humorous when they gave up on adding more letters and just chucked a + on the end?

I'm partial to "LGBTQIAOMGWTFBBQELEVEN!"

Darat 13th May 2019 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bouncing Bettys (Post 12694303)
I thought oh dear I hope that isn't A+ as in Atheism +.

I remember when the L was added!

Ron Obvious 13th May 2019 02:27 PM

How embarrassing the ACA have become. I've seen the some of the discussion on the AA forum regarding this and it appears many refuse to believe men outperform women in sports. It's hard to know how even to argue with such motivated reasoning and ideologically-based blindness.

Sad. I gave up on their podcast years ago because of the high level atheism+ idiocy, but this is pathetic.

p0lka 13th May 2019 02:59 PM

The latest episode of the athiest experience had the president of the aca, james something (he is a presenter too) doing a 20 second or so statement about the public relations kerfuffle that has ensued.
What a kerfuffle.

d4m10n 13th May 2019 08:33 PM

Where can I find Woodford's "controversial views" which managed to inflict both pain and anguish?

Loss Leader 13th May 2019 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12694305)
You had me going there for a moment. I thought that the ACA was the Affordable Care Act and I cared a little.


I thought it was the American Dental Association.

The Great Zaganza 13th May 2019 09:25 PM

It's kinda nice to know that the ACA needs to look that hard to find something to denounce.
I would assume there is lower-hanging fruit.

Robin 13th May 2019 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12694349)
I remember when the L was added!

Me too. When it was suggested that Gay News become Lesbian and Gay News people sniffed "why don't you call it 'Harpies Bizarre'?"

After that it had the masthead "Lesbian and Gay News, incorporating Harpies Bizarre" for a while.

carlosy 13th May 2019 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12694663)
Where can I find Woodford's "controversial views" which managed to inflict both pain and anguish?

Not sure if he was saying those things in a video when he was on Atheist Experience or if it was one of his own videos. They or he probably deleted it already?

Puppycow 13th May 2019 10:49 PM

So what's this thread about? The OP doesn't explain the content of the alleged "ignorant and transphobic videos and statements". Also, I've never heard of any of these people.

Checkmite 14th May 2019 01:32 AM

Neither have I. Somebody please explain to me why this apology by the ACA to their apparently disappointed listeners should bother me?

carlosy 14th May 2019 02:01 AM

Strange, I know the ACA/Matt Dillahunty only because of this forum.

The context is, that an Atheist Community which propagates skeptical and free thinking denounces someone in such a way over such an issue.

McHrozni 14th May 2019 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlosy (Post 12694280)

Rationality Rules (aka Stephen Woodford) had done some videos with Atheist Experience (Matt Dillahunty) and now he has been denounced in a public statement for being transphobic:

Stephen Woodfort is known for knowing a whole lot about logic and arguments, but being utterly unable to apply those to questions he feels strongly about. For a stunning example of Dunning-Krger effect in action check his Second referendum debunked video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


My take? Ignore the guy, he's far from what he seems at the first glance and further still from what he thinks he is.

McHrozni

The Great Zaganza 14th May 2019 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12694889)
Stephen Woodfort is known for knowing a whole lot about logic and arguments, but being utterly unable to apply those to questions he feels strongly about. For a stunning example of Dunning-Krger effect in action check his Second referendum debunked video.

My take? Ignore the guy, he's far from what he seems at the first glance.

McHrozni

good summary.

Darat 14th May 2019 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 12694744)
So what's this thread about? The OP doesn't explain the content of the alleged "ignorant and transphobic videos and statements". Also, I've never heard of any of these people.

I thought it was going to be about a ruling from a sports body!

Obviously I'm not in the "in group" for these spats.

carlosy 14th May 2019 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12694889)
My take? Ignore the guy, he's far from what he seems at the first glance and further still from what he thinks he is.

It is less about the guy, but more about how the ACA is handling the issue. Denouncing him as transphobic etc. And in one of their live-streams after the denouncing, they censored lots of comments in the chat about this issue, acting pretty much like those institutions they criticize.

McHrozni 14th May 2019 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlosy (Post 12694922)
It is less about the guy, but more about how the ACA is handling the issue. Denouncing him as transphobic etc. And in one of their live-streams after the denouncing, they censored lots of comments in the chat about this issue, acting pretty much like those institutions they criticize.

My point is he isn't worth the attention in the first place. It's like the Flat Earther coming to a NASA press conference and trying to prove it's all fake. How long do you think they'd tolerate him?
It's a tad more extreme version of the same question, nothing more.

McHrozni

Belz... 14th May 2019 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12694286)
"LGBTQIA+"

Am I the only one who found it slightly humorous when they gave up on adding more letters and just chucked a + on the end?

Wait, wait. Not only is the Q included in the other ones but... what does I and A mean?

Loss Leader 14th May 2019 04:24 AM

Or the association that puts on the Cannonball Run.

dann 14th May 2019 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12694975)
Wait, wait. Not only is the Q included in the other ones but... what does I and A mean?


I have no idea, but I guess that A stands for asexual and that I probably doesn't stand for incels ....

d4m10n 14th May 2019 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlosy (Post 12694922)
It is less about the guy, but more about how the ACA is handling the issue. Denouncing him as transphobic etc.

Was this Woodford fellow being transphobic, though? I've not yet seen any evidence on point.

dann 14th May 2019 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12694663)
Where can I find Woodford's "controversial views" which managed to inflict both pain and anguish?


This is how he describes it in the video:

Quote:

I know that I made a few big mistakes within my recent video about transgender athletes, and as Ive stated publically, Im working on a video in which I express my altered views and apologize for what Ive got wrong, but thats the thing I was WRONG on some things, not transphobic.

But it would be interesting to know exactly what he said about transgender athletes, and if he had stated that he was working on a video of apology before the ACA criticized him.

Puppycow 14th May 2019 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12694975)
Wait, wait. Not only is the Q included in the other ones but... what does I and A mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12694979)
I have no idea, but I guess that A stands for asexual and that I probably doesn't stand for incels ....

I think the I stands for intersex. I was wondering about the A but you're probably right.

dann 14th May 2019 04:42 AM

Seems to be correct: https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...erm=LGBTQIA%2B

Belz... 14th May 2019 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 12694987)
I think the I stands for intersex. I was wondering about the A but you're probably right.

Seems like it would roll off the tongue easier if they just folded everything into the "Queer" label, although trans and intersex don't really fit in a group about sexual orientation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12694994)

Well, would you look at that. Apparently the G also means genderfluid.

They really should call every group a "community".

p0lka 14th May 2019 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12694981)
Was this Woodford fellow being transphobic, though? I've not yet seen any evidence on point.

heres the video in question.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

d4m10n 14th May 2019 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0lka (Post 12695042)
heres the video in question.



YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Thanks for the link to the video.


I believe we can see whats happening more clearly, now.


Rather than taking a scientific approach and questioning the factual claims made about sex differences in hemoglobin levels, heart capacity, lung capacity, bone density, fat distribution, metabolic rates, etc. and the effects of androgens on creating and maintaining these differences, the ACA has been publicly performing their humanistic virtues by shaming people into silence for hosting the sort of debate which (they believe) could lead to pain and anguish.

theprestige 14th May 2019 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12694952)
My point is he isn't worth the attention in the first place. It's like the Flat Earther coming to a NASA press conference and trying to prove it's all fake. How long do you think they'd tolerate him?
It's a tad more extreme version of the same question, nothing more.

McHrozni

As I understand it, the two situations aren't really analogous at all.

Bouncing Bettys 14th May 2019 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12695065)
Thanks for the link to the video.


I believe we can see whats happening more clearly, now.


Rather than taking a scientific approach and questioning the factual claims made about sex differences in hemoglobin levels, heart capacity, lung capacity, bone density, fat distribution, metabolic rates, etc. and the effects of androgens on creating and maintaining these differences, the ACA has been publicly performing their humanistic virtues by shaming people into silence for hosting the sort of debate which (they believe) could lead to pain and anguish.

So the ACA is really the ACA+?

ponderingturtle 14th May 2019 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12694349)
I remember when the L was added!

Bah as if lesbians exist, they just need a good *$^@#(.

theprestige 14th May 2019 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12695252)
Bah as if lesbians exist, they just need a good *$^@#(.

For once I agree with you.

Delvo 14th May 2019 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 12694744)
So what's this thread about? The OP doesn't explain the content of the alleged "ignorant and transphobic videos and statements". Also, I've never heard of any of these people.

The guy who runs a (well-known among atheists on YouTube) YouTube channel called "Rationality Rules" posted a video criticizing some people's negative reactions to an athletic association's ruling that an athlete with an intersex disorder can't enter competitions with women in that association's events because that athlete is not a woman. He said that the athletic association made an appropriate decision and the objections to it didn't make sense.

Some people had a negative reaction to that video. While that was happening, he visited the Atheist Community of Austin (ACA) and guest-co-hosted their show, The Atheist Experience, without anybody in the ACA apparently bringing up the controversy over that video. After that was done (in other words, after the ACA had finished using him for what they wanted from him), while he was flying back to England after finishing his visit, the ACA Board Of Directors posted a statement falsely accusing him of a history of posting transphobic stuff and calling him a transphobe. It's not clear who is on this board because the known faces of the ACA who've said anything about it so far have taken RR's side, not the ACA BoD's.

Has there ever been a controversy in the online atheist community that wasn't created out of nothing by SJW lunatics in another one of their SJW lunatic rage fits?

* * *

Some of the responses to the situation from some of the more semi-SJW-ish members of the online atheist community have denounced the ACA's behavior as unprofessional and irrational and religion-like. But they also said that there were unspecified "mistakes" or such in RR's video and that some of it had been phrased in ways that unfortunately coincidentally sounded like what an actual transphobe would have said, although they were sure he isn't one and didn't mean it like that. They also have a tendency to start off their videos about it with off-topic personal digs at him for having been too complimentary about the knowledge or intelligence or debating skills or such of debate opponents on the wrong side of politics, which is a pattern of blatant well-poisoning: "if he's willing to say something not entirely hostile to that guy, then you know he must be bad".

I am not aware of any actual errors in his claims on the facts. The worst things that I saw that I can name are not falsehoods but just things that seemed to call for a bit more information which was not given, such as a comparison of an individual's hormone level with the female average but no mention of anything like a female maximum/minimum or the male average/maximum/minimum. There was one thing he did say which was called "hyperbole" or "reactionary" or such by a couple of critics I saw, and which I agree was taking the personal reactions a bit farther than he'd given scientific support for. He said that allowing athletes like the one in question to compete in women's sports would ruin women's sports by dominating over actual women so women are left with no place to succeed in athletics themselves, which was supposed to be the whole point of having separate women's sports in the first place. I doubt that there are enough of them for that. If there are, the numbers need to be shown.

He seems to agree with some of his critics about the original video containing "errors", and said in a response video that he will follow up with a new one detailing what was wrong and what he's changed his mind about upon being corrected, and told everyone when to expect it to be done based on his usual video production speed. Then the SJW brigade started saying he wasn't doing it fast enough. :rolleyes:

d4m10n 14th May 2019 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delvo (Post 12695840)
He seems to agree with some of his critics about the original video containing "errors", and said in a response video that he will follow up with a new one detailing what was wrong and what he's changed his mind about upon being corrected, and told everyone when to expect it to be done based on his usual video production speed. Then the SJW brigade started saying he wasn't doing it fast enough. :rolleyes:

Looking forward to the corrections video. It will be interesting to see whether he kowtows enough to be received back into polite company. [emoji1787]

Loss Leader 14th May 2019 08:45 PM

The final word on the subject is this: The whole subject is complicated, fluid and nuanced. There is no simple "yes/no" answer that will perfectly fill all of the blanks. People who want to pretend there are no ambiguities are probably contending with their own difficulties processing information more than anything else.

Puppycow 14th May 2019 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delvo (Post 12695840)
He said that allowing athletes like the one in question to compete in women's sports would ruin women's sports by dominating over actual women so women are left with no place to succeed in athletics themselves, which was supposed to be the whole point of having separate women's sports in the first place. I doubt that there are enough of them for that. If there are, the numbers need to be shown.

Each sport is its own thing though, as far as the athletes are concerned.

If the sport (event) you happen to specialize in is, say, the 800 meter race, it could take only a single athlete like the one in question to prevent all the other women from succeeding if success is defined as a gold medal.

If an athlete happens to be a shotputter, it is no consolation to them if women can succeed in other events, if she is prevented from succeeding in her own event. Etc.

Elagabalus 14th May 2019 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12694986)
This is how he describes it in the video:




But it would be interesting to know exactly what he said about transgender athletes, and if he had stated that he was working on a video of apology before the ACA criticized him.

"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission..."


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.