How about mental autonomy?
Freedom From Religion Foundation has found religion.
Religious interference often seeks to erode protections for LGBTQIA-plus individuals in areas such as marriage equality, health care, education and workplace rights. FFRF opposes these efforts, as they threaten not only individual freedoms but also the integrity of our secular democracy. FFRF recognizes the right of bodily autonomy for LGBTQIA-plus individuals, just as we consider that the government or outside individuals have no right to dictate or interfere with such intimate matters as abortion or contraception.
By “bodily autonomy” I suppose they mean puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, removal of healthy breasts, genital mutilation and so on. Yes, the right to “bodily autonomy” is important, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that people should be enthusiastically encouraged to get drastic surgeries in hopes of resembling the sex they are not. The FFRF could for instance cite the right to bodily autonomy while saying that genital mutilation is not 100% benign. They could in fact warn against genital mutilation while still saying it’s a right.
Unlike some other secular groups, FFRF opposes such assaults not only in principle but also in practice. FFRF has devoted many resources toward education over LGBTQIA-plus rights — and countless hours and efforts toward defeating anti-LGBTQIA-plus legislation through action alerts, statements and blogs.
This is the problem with the alphabet soup. There is no “LGBTQIA-plus” – that’s an ever-baggier portmanteau word that means less the more initials are added. The “rights” that trans people demand are not the same rights as lesbians and gay men have. They’re not even in the same ballpark.
However, advocacy is rarely perfect, and progress is not always linear. Recently, we published a guest blog post as part of an effort to provide a forum for various voices within the framework of our mission. Although we included a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed within the post were not necessarily reflective of the organization, it has wrongfully been perceived as such.
Despite our best efforts to champion reason and equality, we recognize mistakes can happen, and this incident is a reminder of the importance of constant reflection and growth. Publishing this post was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values or principles. We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.
Moving forward, we are reviewing our content guidelines and internal processes to ensure our public messaging consistently reflects our values. We are committed to learning from this experience.
We stand firmly with the LGBTQIA-plus community and their allies in advocating for equality, dignity and the freedom to live without fear of religiously motivated discrimination. Our mission to keep religion out of government is inextricably linked to preserving and advancing these fundamental rights.
What cowardly backstabbing shits. The post they rudely and swiftly removed was by Jerry Coyne, yet they don’t even whisper his name.
Freedom from religion but no freedom at all from deranged destructive body-denying ideology.
“Bodily autonomy” is fine for informed* consenting adults. Everything else is abuse.
*Oh, you read a thinly-disguised propaganda piece on the internet. Come back in ten years, young padawan*.
*All religions are equally true including the explicitly hokey ones.
How interesting that they would begin an article on why Coyne’s post was removed with a reference to “religious interference” and remarks about Christian nationalists. Nevermind, of course, that Jerry Coyne is the author of a book subtitled “Why science and religion are incompatible” and that his positions are certainly not an example of religious interference. Nevermind that he actually anticipated this in his guest post:
[I sincerely hope that the FFRF does not insist on adopting a “progressive” political stance, rationalizing it as part of its battle against “Christian Nationalism.” As a liberal atheist, I am about as far from Christian nationalism as one can get!]
Nevermind still that the FFRF states that it will “continue to champion a society where all people — no matter their […] beliefs or nonbeliefs — are treated equally under the law.”
So long as that belief is not in biological reality.
Freedom From (every other) Religion Foundation, more like.
The wording is almost always the same in this one. It’s always about reflection and growth and learning and distress and forever-unstated harms to a nebulous, undefinable communinny. It’s always a commitment to an ongoing and endless process of mortification and prostration and education.
That doesn’t at all smack of religion. Nosirree. Nothing to see here.