Again, you’re taking the article to be an argument against humanism, whereas it’s an analysis of humanism and antihumanism.
I’m not clear what your criticism is. Is it that there’s nothing that unites all humanists, including the religious and secular ones? Is it that humanism is irrelevant because we get our secular morals elsewhere? Is it that some humanists aren’t hypocritical or prejudiced? You seem to be making all those points.
I’m fine with there being complexities and counterexamples that aren’t captured by my analysis here. Kant grounded human rights in our autonomy as rational self-legislators. Alas, Kant was personally quite sexist, so his rationalism amounted to a prejudice, after all. My analysis captures Kantian individualism quite nicely, meaning he’s no counterexample to the point that there’s hidden continuity between ancient tribalists and modern “humanists.”
Kant said, for example, “There are sciences which require a sharp mind, much reflection, and profundity. These are for the male sex. On the other hand there are sciences that require wit and a kind of feeling, and these are proper for women.” See the article below (“Kant and Feminism” by Kurt Mosser) for more in that vein.
As interesting as your criticisms may be, they’re not relevant here because I’m not taking a stand in this article on whether humanism is true or useful. The question I’m raising is just about the best way of categorizing humanists. What could humanism be, given all the hypocrisy and the mere implicit egalitarianism? I’m just presenting a way of thinking about humanism. I’m fine with there being plenty of other categorizations.
