Editor of Philosophy Journal Fired for Saying Women Don't Have Penises
Not even atheist humanists are safe from the long, punishing arms of the transgender mafia. Recently, Angelos Sofocleous was fired from his job at Durham University's philosophy journal Critique for retweeting a tweet that fellow students called "transphobic." The tweet in question included a link to an article from the Spectator called "Is it a crime to say 'women don't have penises'?" The article is about women's activists who had police called on them for placing stickers saying as much around their city in protest of men usurping women's rights.
In a typical 2018 overreaction, Sofocleous's retweet of that article caused great gnashing of teeth and loud weeping in the outrage corners of the internet. As a result, Sofocleous was dismissed from his position at the Durham publication and forced to resign as president-elect of the Humanist Students group. "Humanists," Sofocleous told PJM, "strive to have a rational and logical approach in life, and face issues with evidence and claims, not with belief and faith. As such, humanists have trust in the scientific method, which they believe to be the only source of truth in the world."
Strangely, the extremely scientific fact that women do not have — and have never had — penises didn't seem to sway the humanist students toward rational thought. They kicked Sofocleous right out of their sphere. Criticisms of Sofocleous were swift and mostly unintelligible. Responding to Sofocleous's true statement that engaging in debate does not mean your opponent has equal moral status, a writer at the ironically named "Freethoughtblogs" wrote:
This is where the fetishizing of free speech and debate goes bad. I get to deny your basic humanity and your right to exist, and you now need to convince me otherwise. I get to freely make assertions that don’t challenge my privileged status but do potentially do great harm to you, and I have no responsibility or obligation to others — others who may even consider those statements “wrong beyond doubt” — to make defensible statements, and the onus is entirely on you to address them, and if you don’t, you are an intolerant tribalist. Why do you get so angry when I merely want to deny your civil rights, or enslave you, or kill you? That’s not very logical.
"The author of this piece is making incredibly illogical and irrational statements, as well as a number of logical fallacies," Sofocleous said. "This reveals the problem in regards to people who try to silence others because they are ‘offended’ or because they have received ‘politically incorrect’ criticism."
Sofocleous explained that "an attack to some ideology (e.g. trans ideology) or some concept (e.g. gender) does not constitute an attack to individuals who hold that ideology or to people who claim to belong to the opposite sex or gender because of how they feel, appear, or behave."