FYI, Jaclyn Glenn Still Sucks


So it’s been a year since the Jaclyn Glenn Plagiarism Scandal where we found out everyone’s favorite YouTube Atheist literally doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been said before by millions of other atheists. She, of course, apologized, and promised she was no longer “out for blood.”  So that means if you go to Jaclyn’s YouTube page, you’ll see better videos, right?

To quote Donald Trump, “Wrong!”

A few days ago Jaclyn made a video with Arielle Scarcella basically saying that there are only two genders, and that all non-binary identified people are just making up new words. Needless to say, people hated it, including Onision, who called out Jaclyn and Arielle for being two cis women talking over trans people’s experiences. Even though Onision is an asshole himself, he made some great points. While Arielle later apologized for her ignorance, Jaclyn got defensive and did the whole “You can’t call me transphobic because I have trans friends” bullshit.

That’s not how this works, Jaclyn. That’s now how any of this works!

I already wrote a blog post criticizing Shoe0nHead’s shitty “There are only two genders” video, so I don’t want to rehash everything I said. However, I will point out that most gender therapists recognize non-binary gender identities. Nicholas M. Teich does in his 2012 book Transgender 101. So do The Transgender Institute (through which I am currently seeing a gender therapist) and British gender therapist Christina Richards. In fact, earlier this year the International Review of Psychiatry published a peer-reviewed articles co-written by Richards that gives mental health professionals a quick rundown on what it means to be genderqueer. Here’s the money quote:

The DSM-5 … includes the diagnosis of gender dysphoria which explicitly recognizes that having a different gender is not a disorder (APA, 2013b) and crucially includes the criteria:

4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender from one’s assigned gender)

5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender from one’s assigned gender)

6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender from one’s assigned gender). (APA, 2013 p. 452.)

Thus non-binary genders are recognized with the APA’s diagnostic taxonomy also.

You hear that, Jaclyn? The fucking APA!

It’s been said that every skeptic has they’re own blind spot, and I guess Jaclyn’s is her insistence that if you say any social justice buzzword, you’re automatically a stupid Tumblr Feminazi SJW. The sad part is I’ve met a lot of people like that. All’s not lost, though. I have a trans friend who is highly critical of the whole non-binary thing, but I sent her the link to the International Review of Psychiatry article, and she promised to read it, so if there’s a chance she can change her mind, maybe Jaclyn can as well.

Of course she is a YouTube Atheist, so who knows?

Comments

  1. says

    A few days ago Jaclyn made a video with Arielle Scarcella basically saying that there are only two genders, and that all non-binary identified people are just making up new words.

    Unlike all the other words, which were created in their present form and meaning by god at the beginning of time.
    Seriously, those people are even more stupid than your average young earth creationist. Holy fuck YES, WE MAKE UP WORDS. We do this all the time to best describe the world as we understand this. You are making this argument on something called the Internet, a word that didn’t exist back when I soiled my diapers either.

  2. oualawouzou says

    She should know there are only two kinds of people: believers that welcome God in their heart, and believers that hate God for some reason. “Atheist” is just a word made-up by people starving for attention and controversy.

  3. Siobhan says

    @Giliell

    Holy fuck YES, WE MAKE UP WORDS.

    SOUND THE ALARM! SOUND THE ALARM! THE LEFT™ HAS ADMITTED IT MAKES UP WORDS!!!!11!1eleven *panics*

  4. says

    So is your gender determined solely by what you believe it to be? Does this hold true for everyone? For example, if someone was experiencing body dysmorphia and they began to identify with a non-traditional gender as a way to distance themselves from their perceived flaws, is it true that they actually are the gender they believe themselves to be?

    • says

      Well, that I’m not sure. You’d have to talk to a gender therapist about that. All I’m trying to say is that most gender therapists recognize non-binary gender identities.

  5. says

    So is your gender determined solely by what you believe it to be?

    Gender is performative. It’s a language that people read. Of course, if nobody understands your language, you’re having difficulties communicating.
    On the other hand: Why on earth should that be any of your business of concern? The only reason for people to insist that there are only two genders and that they must know at first sight which one it is is that they think that men and women must be treated differently. So yeah, fuck that shit.

    • secondtofirstworld says

      Perhaps my username should hint at the fact, that I did not grew up in the Western world, and the place I come from heavily struggles with the acceptance of skin color, other religions, that aren’t Christianity, roles and abilities of genders, and we speak a language only spoken by 15 million people.

      One can imagine, how big of an echo chamber that can create, if in addition people don’t use other languages other than their own. If a famous person argues from personal credulity despite it being a logical fallacy, it becomes the law of the land. Now, one of the reasons to leave that behind for a place, that is more liberal to the extent, that it has legalized euthanasia, is so that I can exchange ideas without going into mutual character assassination. As much as I’d like to say that America is the leader of the free world in this regard… it would be untrue. When I hear devout people about how other humans they’ve never met should live, I feel right at home for the wrong reasons. This includes atheists, because you’re as progressive as the cultural baggage you carry with yourself from birth.

      Before anything else, take note, that the majority of social media atheists are cis white males like me. Instead of building the opposition to the common oppression of cultural conformity and religion from the ground up, this is top down, and it’s the world Miss Glenn exists in. If she wants to retain loyal supporters, one pretty much has to say what the echo chamber wants to hear. I’m not denying or debating the fact on how they’re blind toward issues like this, only saying that the biggest blind spot is the lack of recognition, that these millennials couldn’t mount up an extension to the Civil Rights Act.

      Many atheists became part of the problem, not the solution, when they attack incentives borne out of lack of information, like how the female body works or how non-heterosexual people are less likely to be unicorns because they’ve a different gender identity or sexual orientation.

      Lastly, this is what I missed from both articles: the proposition on why famous atheists pick on smaller minorities whilst proclaiming they’re less trusted than rapists: buying power. At the end of day people who live from royalties depend on people who are the most likely to support them, and who have the same ideals instilled into them as religious people. This is one second class citizen throwing a stone at another second class citizen in a glasshouse.

      • says

        At the end of day people who live from royalties depend on people who are the most likely to support them, and who have the same ideals instilled into them as religious people. This is one second class citizen throwing a stone at another second class citizen in a glasshouse.

        Bingo!

    • says

      @Gilliel
      “Gender is performative.”
      It’s obviously more than this though. If someone misgenders a trans woman as male, that doesn’t make her male. Gender is based much more on your own internal beliefs and attitudes than it is on the interpretations of other people based on your outwards appearance and behavior.
      “Why on earth should that be any of your business of concern?”
      The reasons behind how you identify can matter. For example, if someone doesn’t identify as their gender assigned at birth, and they want to undergo some sex reassignment procedure, it becomes very important to distinguish whether this desire is rooted in gender dysphoria or body dysmorphia. If it’s the latter, I think it’s pretty clear that such a procedure could be harmful, and that even enabling that belief in less extreme ways could be harmful.
      “The only reason for people to insist that there are only two genders”
      If you interpret gender as an independent construct of society, then there’s no reason why there can’t be more than two genders. If you interpret gender as something tied to biological sex, then it makes sense that there’s only two. I’m not entirely convinced of either.

      • says

        Despite my reputation of blocking Slympitters from my blog, I’m actually willing to talk to people who disagree with me if they bring up some valid points (and no, Thunderfoot’s latest video doesn’t count). Let’s break things down:

        Gender is based much more on your own internal beliefs and attitudes than it is on the interpretations of other people based on your outwards appearance and behavior.

        This is true. While I haven’t read Judith Butler’s work, I both agree and disagree with the idea that gender is performative. From what I understand, gender is both neurologically based (see the studies that show trans women’s brain patters are more similar to cis women’s than cis men’s) and a social construct. As former Promoting Secular Feminism co-host Demanda Wright once said, “My vagina doesn’t dictate whether or not I choose to shave my legs.”

        This also why Glenn and Scarcella are wrong when they say genderqueer AFABs (assigned females at birth) are really just tomboys. Well, how do they know? Did they ask, or did they just assume? This is the same faulty logic as transphobes and TERFs who insist my friend Danielle Muscato is a dude who just wants to be a woman.

        The reasons behind how you identify can matter. For example, if someone doesn’t identify as their gender assigned at birth, and they want to undergo some sex reassignment procedure, it becomes very important to distinguish whether this desire is rooted in gender dysphoria or body dysmorphia. If it’s the latter, I think it’s pretty clear that such a procedure could be harmful, and that even enabling that belief in less extreme ways could be harmful.

        Which is why we have gender therapists. In fact, as I mentioned in my blog post, I’m currently seeing a gender therapist to help me figure all this stuff out. At this point I’m definitely genderqueer, but since I don’t feel the need to either take hormones or have surgery, I’m not sure if I should call myself trans. That’s for my therapist to figure out.

        If you interpret gender as an independent construct of society, then there’s no reason why there can’t be more than two genders. If you interpret gender as something tied to biological sex, then it makes sense that there’s only two. I’m not entirely convinced of either.

        Right, this goes back to the “biological vs. social construct debate.” And as I said earlier, why not both?

        • secondtofirstworld says

          Tomboys. A former classmate of mine in elementary had the misfortune of her grandmother wanting a grandson, so all her toys were ones used traditionally by boys (toy guns, matchbox cars, etc.). Today she remains a heterosexual married woman with 3 kids, so I’m skeptical about tomboys (forced or voluntary) being like that to belong to the other gender.

          Besides, everybody should check out how Franklin Delano Roosevelt wore girl clothes as a child, as it was the norm back then, and as I recall, he was very sure being a hetero man with philandering and such.

      • secondtofirstworld says

        Even in the most liberal of countries and cultures, most people do not desire a gender reassignment surgery, and not because they’re afraid of it or unaware having such option. This is why I was mad at one point for having to debate an atheist biologist, who was impeccable at refuting outrageous and unfounded claims about evolution made by theists yet at the same was convinced that transgender/transsexualism is nothing but gender dysphoria. There’s peer reviewed scientific evidence for both (evolution and transsexualism), and my “beef” with people who’re supposed to be skeptical and critical start to get picky when there’s an abundance of evidence. I was born with inner ear tinnitus, and will also die with it, and despite being a Buddhist, I still meet well meaning but under informed people, who accept statements from quacks who say, meditation of all things cure it.

        This is my only connection to assessing that people with body image issues would choose the appearance of the other gender only extremely rarely. I’m calm, collected, sometimes emotionally distant, at other times very emotional, and hotheaded, it depends on the situation and my mood. So, because I like Lars von Trier, Terry Gilliam, Michael Bay and Nora Ephron movies at the same time, would that mean I should change back and forth between physical and psychological gender?

        I don’t think so. I like being a hetero guy, and I’m sure once a person with a transition reaches the goal he or she wishes to achieve, they don’t go back. Furthermore, I’ve never in my life have I ever heard, that a female to male or male to female person suddenly realized they were just unhappy being the person they were born, and wanted the reverse of the assignment or commit suicide.

        • says

          Wait a minute, let me see if I understand you correctly. I know you said you’re not from the States, so I assume English isn’t your first language, right? Maybe something got lost in translation, but it sounds like you’re saying no one in their right mind would undergo sex reassignment surgery. Well, there’s plenty of evidence that transgender women really are women in the brain, so undergoing medical transitioning actually helps them out. And from what I understand, hardly anyone who transitions regrets it.

          Like I said, your comment might have gotten lost in translation, so I just want to make sure I read your comment right. Please forgive me if I read it wrong. For some reason, I’ll often read something and not understand it.

          • secondtofirstworld says

            This is the usual case, when a thought sounds less complex in 2 or 3 separate sentences instead of being in just one. What I mean is: gender reassignment surgery, like pregnancy termination, isn’t being done for fun or on a whim, much less for reason like body image issues. In other words I’m not denying that transsexualism exists, otherwise I wouldn’t have debated that biologist. The peer reviewed study published by Zhou et al. in 1995 is based on CT-scans, where it was proven beyond the statistical margin of error, that despite there being small differences between male and female neuroplasticity in the brain, people are being born with one sexual gender, but with the neuroplastic makeup of a different gender. Heck, biology is not a foolproof system, rarely people are born with a vestigial tail, without an uterus, an additional X chromosome, with a micropenis, and in similarly rare cases people are born with the ability to reach orgasm by the slightest of touches.

            However, there’s a difference between something the medical science calls an anomaly, and what a layperson should call an anomaly, as there is no blueprint for the development of any human body by which we live. I mean by that sentence that doctors treat these cases as something other than the usual but neither is abnormal, it simply happens. I refrain from presenting people with any of these conditions in a negative light as a) I’m not a medical expert b) I don’t pick and choose, which part of science I’m skeptical about as long it’s peer reviewed c) I’d foster a culture where my person could be judged just as equally harshly in a shallow manner.

            To your other suggestion, yes English isn’t my first language, it’s my second one since almost 30 years ago. It isn’t as much I don’t know what I want to say rather than I have to check myself 2 or 3 times because semi frequently it happens to me, that I formed a word, possibly an important one in my mind which should form part of the sentence yet I forget to actually type it, or like now I don’t realize, that 3 connected sentences take a life of heir own separately. Then there’s the embarrassing issue of repeating words, like using form twice in one sentence.

            Anyhow, I’m a bit of bind when it comes to Miss Glenn. She is one of the two remaining YouTube atheists I’m still subscribed to as others went off into the deep end with their rampant sexism or other bigotries. In my book, she doesn’t bear intentional ill will, if she did, she wouldn’t defend women from being called sluts for cultural reasons, and especially wouldn’t befriend members of the LGBT community. I’m not an apologist here, she can and should be criticized for things said that are out of line, even members of the minorities not covered by the Civil Rights Act can be insufferable assholes. For one, there’s the guy banned from Twitter for harassing Leslie Jones, he works for Breitbart despite being gay, then there was a lesbian woman 2 or 3 years back who sued her ex wife in Texas over child custody because she knew that the state did not recognize gay marriage and as the natural birth mother she’d get exclusive custody.

            Lastly, there’s one other issue I’d like to address. I chose this username to bring limited attention to the fact, that the sporadically debated Second World were the socialist countries. Economically we were of course behind, but our social differences aren’t as great thanks in large part to these countries also having Christianity. Yet I debate, nay, refute the American academic view of us being atheists. Once religion is being substituted for the party ideology and one is obliged to look up to the great savior country even more than your own, those are beliefs not based in reason, which is something an atheist shouldn’t have. So sure, I’m a cis hetero white man, but before achieving freedom, my family was one of many in which social upward mobility wasn’t possible as we weren’t party members, and some family members were treated as enemy of the working class. As strange as it may sound from a “cracker” I feel more in common with Americans of limited resources than with those I could identify ethnically. I do find it great that you don’t have party leaders who possess the title for decades, and debates lead to nomination. That’s why I’m appalled with the behavior of some atheists calling anyone an SJW because they stand for something they don’t like but equally don’t have. It being actual constitutional protection. That old document prohibits making laws furthering any religion and enables people to change faiths or to deconvert entirely. It’s bovine manure to say how any atheist can welcome theist help fighting so called social justice warriors as the common enemy, when theists disenfranchise all of you ever since they hooked up with the GOP back in the ’70s.

            If I may, here’s a historical example (nobody will be compared to Nazis, so it’s not Godwin’s law): shortly before the attack on the USSR began, Germans and Italians awarded territories considered lost, yet when the mobilization came, they held secret talks with everyone promising contradictory things, like expanding gain territories, promising the same territory to more than one party or the reverse an earlier decision. Fear and greed kicked in, they all said yes. People are different, not all theists are narrow minded, we both know that as humanists. The way I see, issues concerning human beings should not exclusively viewed only through the lens of how you did it in the past, and no matter how tempting, don’t ever base the assessment of the other party by their most extreme members and ideas, it kills the conversation. One egregious example is pregnancy during work. Instead of countering the argument leading on how it’s one person’s choice, I’d have said giving it paid leave can be done and have seen it being done. It’s not extra money given to women, it’s being covered by health care the financed by them before getting pregnant, and voilà, the topic isn’t about unfair treatment to men anymore. Generally, a ton of criticized policies in society stem from cultural expectations without asking the parties involved how they wish to see it resolved, may it be alimony, the draft, wages. Oh, and comprehensive, anatomically correct sexual education should be federally mandated, we wouldn’t even need to have this debate at all if more people were aware.

      • secondtofirstworld says

        I think therein lies the problem. As much I appreciate that TJ isn’t racist and Glenn has actual lesbian friends (though of course, it doesn’t invalidate trans-phobia exercised by gays and lesbians) or even Darkmatter2525 has a stable family, they all have come out against one community, who is already targeted by religious zealots.

        I’ve said time and again, that my problem with American atheists is that it seems to be from the top down, people like Comfort or Feuerstein are being debated by other white people. Even if there’s no racial intent, the 3 major religions atheists criticize have a genuine diversity regardless of how wrong they might be. Atheists don’t, and those daring to step up, and belong to a minority get various threats…from other atheists.

        It seems as though, if you can be successfully self employed, we will like you, other people in your shoes should be content with what’s given to them. In essence “I refute the supernatural based on logic and evidence, but I won’t use the same method to non-supernatural stuff in holy books”. This is where these atheists become ambiguous since if a theist uses the same argument but does base it on a holy book, then it’s horrifying, anything else is fair game. The society is for every American, not just the ones who pay support through Patreon.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *