This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'd like you guys to refrain from responding to this message (the one you are reading right now) unless you either are someone who holds the beliefs I am trying to engage with, or you can steelman how someone who holds those beliefs would respond to what I'm saying. Expressions of agreement are useless to me here. Thank you. (I have tried to get this discussion going on Twitter, but as one would expect, it hasn't worked.)
clears throat
So you, hypothetical person, believe that if a trans child has been on puberty blockers for the maximum of two years, then they should be allowed to switch over to HRT, even if they haven't reached the age of consent. So, for example, if a child starts blockers at age 12, then they should be able to switch over at age 14, even though the age of consent is no lower than 16 anywhere in the United States.
Why should the age of consent for HRT, the "real deal" of transitioning, be lower than the age of consent for sex? If you say that HRT is less harmful for children than sex with an adult, you need to be able to substantiate your claim.
Don't hold or agree with the views, let me try to steelman them as an Intellectual Turing Test (remember those?)
(1) Why should the age of consent for HRT, the "real deal" of transitioning, be lower than the age of consent for sex?
Because we don't strictly force compliance with the official age of consent. We have Romeo and Juliet laws because we realise that adolescent sexuality is complicated and it is unfair to stigmatise teenagers as sex offenders for ordinary sexual exploration. We don't think that 'abstinence only' education works, so why would an 'abstinence' policy around HRT be any better?
(2) If a minor has been on puberty blockers for two years and shows no desire to go through natal puberty or to socially de-transition, then it should be accepted that they are indeed genuinely trans and not simply 'going through a phase'. Thus, delaying medical intervention for an additional period of time confers no benefits and imposes penalties on the minor.
(3) Successful 'passing', to use the controversial phrase, is accomplished more easily the earlier transition begins. Forcing a trans individual to wait until they can undergo the puberty of their identified gender is a meaningless delay. Trans people of all genders have often expressed frustration and concern about how well they can 'pass' as their identified gender due to being forced to undergo natal puberty or to wait until an arbitrary cut-off age before they can commence medical and, if desired, surgical transition.
(4) With regard to other sexual health issues, several states permit minors as young as 12 to give consent - see chart here. If a minor is 14 years of age, has been on puberty blockers, understands the effects of such treatment, and it is with the agreement and consent of the parents and done under medical guidance, there is no reason to impose this arbitrary waiting period.
Naturally, individuals will differ in their level of maturity and readiness, so such provision of HRT would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, but it should be legal.
I personally am for giving minors access to gender affirming healthcare if they have gender dysphoria, and I’d say you pass the ideological Turing test as I’m pretty much in agreement with those points. Can I ask why you’re against it?
IF being the big honkin' signal here. A 12 year old may be confused and frightened about the changes puberty is wreaking on their body. 14 is still young and impressionable, and if they've been putting puberty on hold for two years, they might not be sure about reversing course when school, parents, doctors and everyone has been affirming them in their new identity. 16 is still young, but it's older that there's a better chance the kid really knows and has made up their own mind and can understand the risks.
What really puts me off is the 'experts' claiming that 2 year old kids can definitely know their gender identity. I've mentioned this before, but I work at a childcare centre and I've heard a 4 year old explaining to his granny that he was not a boy, he was a robot. Now, if parents just roll with it and don't make a big deal one way or another about "Susie doesn't want to wear dresses, she wants to wear jeans" then fine. It's the anxious parents who get chivvied into it by activist teachers and online advice that your kid will kill themselves if you don't affirm their true gender identity that make bad decisions.
Or things like this proposed bill in California, which is heavily amended but which does look to be trying to extend the meaning of "child abuse" to "doesn't affirm child's gender identity". Custody battles are already nasty enough without dragging in "Your Honour, my ex should not have custody or visitation rights because they are a child abuser because my kid is trans and they don't accept that".
(Amended sections in bold):
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link