Benjamin Watkins of Real Atheology was on the receiving end of a block from me this week on Twitter. In response he tells his followers that he was blocked because he “called out his analogy between transgender inclusion and acts of pedophilia.” Firstly, that was not the reason I blocked him, and secondly, I made no such analogy (as I had already made clear to him). I blocked Watkins for this reason: rather than engage in a reasonable dialogue about a point I made, he simply slapped me with the “transphobic” label and accused me of “meagre moral fruits” (a branding he stamps frequently on Christians who dare take a different moral position from him on some point).
My original tweet – in response to the Dalai Lama asking a young boy to suck his tongue – said this: “Who had “Dalai Lama turns out to be paedo freak” on their 2023 bingo card? The world just gets worse and worse with every passing day.” I jokingly followed up with this: “I’m assuming he’ll be in talks with Budweiser soon?” – a reference to the recent controversial decision by that company to employ Dylan Mulvaney in its advertising.
Now, I accept this might have been open to misunderstanding, so Watkins initially sought clarity: “The recent Budweiser controversy involves a transgender person and Budweiser’s support for LGBTQ rights. The recent controversy with the Dalai Lama involves acts of pedophilia. Are you really suggesting these two things are analogous, because if so…[LINK TO ARTICLE ABOUT HIS PET TOPIC OF MEAGRE MORAL FRUITS].
Sure, I see how he could have been concerned about my comment. The nature of Twitter is it is brief and a lot of meaning and intent can be “lost in translation.” So, I responded to clarify the analogy I was making:
“Analogous insofar as both would involve a company throwing themselves at something controversial and (frankly) offensive to try to make sales.”
Watkins replied with “Social equality and inclusion for transgender persons shouldn’t be controversial and the judgment that it is “offensive” is a meager moral fruit. I stand by my claim then.”
Well, that missed the point. I was particularly referring to Dylan Mulvaney, who is widely considered to be controversial amongst many people broadly sympathetic to trans issues. Mulvaney is not even considered “trans” by some within that movement, and his portrayal of womanhood is considered offensive by many women. My point had nothing to do with “equality and inclusion for transgender persons.” So, I briefly explained: “He’s a bad actor, in my view; presenting a crude caricature of femininity. Strikes a lot of women as offensive too. Aligning beliefs with reality isn’t a “meager moral fruit.” You throw that phrase around a lot. It’s not worth much, to be honest.”
Watkins continued to miss my point and again accused me of making an analogy I wasn’t actually making: “A ‘crude caricature of femininity’ is not even remotely analogous to pedophilia. That’s the meagre moral fruit. I couldn’t care less if you’re offended by social equality and inclusion for LGBT persons. It turns out *moral* facts also don’t care about your feelings.”
I confess I found that tiresome because he was missing the point again and flat out ignoring what I had said. So, I invited him to go back and re-read what I actually said, to which Watkins replied “I’m well aware of what you wrote [HE CLEARLY WASN’T], and you are well aware of the analogy you are trying to draw [YES, BUT WATKINS WASN’T]. Playing coy isn’t a good look. Then again, neither is transphobia.”
That got a block from me. Tiresomely throwing around labels rather than listening to and engaging with a point I was making was the final straw. Moreover, it was incredibly disappointing that Watkins accused me in this way (without any Benefit of the doubt) for a number of reasons: I had already explained my intent, I have had positive engagements with Watkins in the past, and I had recently donated $100 to a GoFundMe campaign of his to help pay the medical bills for a sick relative. To be accused of “meagre moral fruits” was particularly galling, and a far cry from the charitable nature Watkins paints for himself on social media.
In a subsequent tweet in response to another person, he defended his accusation of “meagre moral fruits” with this: “I think it’s morally disgusting and utterly abhorrent when Christians (or anyone else for that matter) compare the acts of the LGBT community to acts of pedophilia. My respect extends widely among views that disagree with my own, but that is simply a bridge too far.”
As should be clear by now: I did not do that. That is clumsy, lazy thinking, bordering on dishonest, which makes his constant complaints about “meagre moral fruits” somewhat ironic.
In a response to someone who pointed out his misrepresentation he said: “I’m open to clarification.” He already got the clarification. He chose to ignore it.
Stephen J. Graham
stephenjgraham 