site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

OK, here's my effortpost. I have a few minutes, and I haven't given this topic the treatment it deserves.

Partly because I follow Andrew Sullivan and Chris Rufo on Twitter, I've seen a lot of detransitioner stories. These are usually natal women who transitioned to become boys in their adolescence, and then ended up regretting it. What strikes me about it is how many of them report having been depressed, having been introduced to the world of transgender ideology through the usual very online spaces, and then seizing onto it for three specific reasons: (1) because gender dysphoria is elastic enough to be a plausible cause of their unhappiness, (2) because it is a salient transgressive ideology and therefore permits them to scapegoat their families and culture for their misery, and (3) because transitioning is a big project that they can start one step at a time and work slowly toward along a well-lighted path, with social support and a feeling of accomplishment at each step along the way.

There has been a boom in adolescent girls transitioning, and this is a population known for booms in various sociogenic mental health illnesses: eating disorders, self harm, even sociogenic Tourettes, the last of which pretty squarely indicates its sociogenic fingerprints.

Now, many of these sociogenic illnesses are no joke. Eating disorders, self harm, and medically assisted gender transition have potential lifelong consequences. But the Tourettes thing! The reports indicate that somehow its sufferers get "stuck" in their sociogenic Tourettes -- who can fathom what that feels like "from the inside," but it is a clear case of girls suffering from some kind of delusion, where neurology conclusively rules out the usual Tourettes etiology, where they nonetheless insist they are unable to stop their tics even while they protest that they wish they could. There is no known neurological basis for their disorder, but they swear they are unable to stop their tics. Do you believe them? It's hard for me to really commit to a clear yes or no on that question. The best I can say is that there is a real disorder there, but it's hard to know where the disorder stops and the mind starts. Probably the self and the behavior, via the borrowed identity that the behavior is premised upon, have become conjoined. It isn't a meaningful question to ask whether they are capable of stopping, because doing so assumes the distinct identity of a rational mind that can observe the behavior from outside of it, in the way that someone with a broken arm can observe the source of the pain -- or even that someone with classical Tourettes can observe the source of the errant neurological signals, because they show up on the relevant diagnostic tests. I think there's an analogy to depression here, a meaningful analogy which at least requires us to raise an eyebrow to any sort of confident equivalency between depressive misery and physical pain. How unlike do we think they are, really? Is a clinically depressed person more or less able to get out of bed, shower, and have a productive day than a sufferer of sociogenic Tourettes is to stop exhibiting tics? Intuitively they seem to be in a similar category.

Anyway, imagine that we broadly accept the concept of medically assisted suicide as a treatment for severe depression. We'll put in lots of checks and balances, lots of consultations, require doctors to line up and swear on their souls that there's no alternative: pick your policy suite. What occurs to me is that we started with the same policy suite of checks and balances to avoid premature transgender HRT and surgery. And those checks and balances weren't enough. Arguably the checks and balances contributed to the problem, in the sense that they engendered online spaces dedicated to guiding people through the process, and presented a neat and exciting problem for depressive people looking for social affirmation and a sense of accomplishment in breaking down a big challenge into bite sized chunks and overcoming them step by step.

So whatever procedural safeguards you set up around medically assisted suicide for mental illness, as soon as that pathway is open legally, a subculture will spring up to guide people through it. They will study the criteria and share stories about meeting or not meeting the criteria, about their experience with this doctor or that, which will cumulatively provide a series of beacons for passing through all of the checkpoints that you've established. It will become a project for exactly the population of adolescent girls who are currently transitioning.

And the worst part is that these girls, the ones who fall prey to sociogenic Tourettes, sociogenic transgenderism, sociogenic eating disorders and sociogenic self-harm behaviors -- they usually grow out if it if they can be kept safe for a few years. They are usually fine in the long run! So the result of legally assisted suicide for depressed people, no matter how hard you try to prevent it, will be a lot of dead girls who would have grown up to be healthy and well adjusted women, and a lot of bereaved families who could perhaps be forgiven for believing that society murdered their little girl.

What we need to do, IMO, is to find alternative ways for girls in this group to try on some new and transgressive identity that does not cause lasting harm. Bring back the goth subculture. Have them try out being a lesbian. Let them practice witchcraft, or voodoo, or satan-worship. Maybe try being a Christian to rebel against particularly new-age parents who can't be shocked by the old ways: have them sneak out to attend church when they're supposed to be at volleyball practice, furtively study a bunch of catechisms, discreetly get baptized, and have their shocking and tearful coming-out announcement to their parents. The trick will be in setting up the subculture and making sure that it all feels properly transgressive. Maybe these Tourettes influencers on Tiktok are the answer to all of these problems, and by boosting their signal we'll be able to crowd out all of the other avenues of harm. But for fuck's sake, don't help them kill themselves.

they usually grow out if it if they can be kept safe for a few years

grouping tiktok tourettes, which is more like 'an emo phase', and being trans together in the 'they usually grow out group' is justified how? Your twitter feed evidence is selected for detransitioners, because they're the best way to make being anti-trans seem like a progressive 'saving the vulnerable girls' narrative as opposed to right-wing.

grouping tiktok tourettes, which is more like 'an emo phase', and being trans together in the 'they usually grow out group' is justified how?

They're both epidemiologically sociogenic.

Your twitter feed evidence is selected for detransitioners

It's dicey to rely on academic scholarship in an area as ideologically captured as transgender issues, but nonetheless my impression had been that desistance rates for transgender-identifying children who do not begin puberty blockers to be in the vicinity of 80% -- judged from surveys, not Twitter anecdotes. We should expect the rate to grow dramatically given the recent explosion in teenage natal girls expressing transgender identification in the past five years. Basically, trans teenage (natal) girls fit the cluster of other sociogenic teenage girl afflictions (self harm, eating disorders, tourettes) so well that we should expect them to follow the rest of this cluster in growing out of it, assuming they haven't been allowed to pass any points of no return on their journey (including puberty blockers, which seemingly interfere with the development process that causes them to grow out of such phases).

I intended the "in the 'they usually grow out group'" to be the focus there - i.e. how do you know that both are "things they usually grow out of"? 'sociogenic' is not a useful category either, IMO - 'epidemeologically', iron forging, belief in general relativity, self-identification of homosexuality, and "eating potatoes" are all epidemiologically sociogenic, in the sense that they're all behaviors that spread from person to person. It doesn't tell us anything useful about the behavior, almost all good human behaviors are partially learned, as are almost all bad ones.

Not relying on academia

I agree entirely. My only disagreement is that - even if the surveys weren't ideologically captured, they'd still be very unreliable.

'epidemeologically', iron forging, belief in general relativity, self-identification of homosexuality, and "eating potatoes" are all epidemiologically sociogenic, in the sense that they're all behaviors that spread from person to person.

I agree that those examples spread sociogenically, but (setting aside your example of homosexual identity) they aren't mental illnesses, insofar as they don't pose significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. I would further argue that homosexual identity also isn't a mental illness insofar as it is the healthiest response one can have to a homosexual orientation, and homosexual orientation appears not to spread sociogenically but rather to be inborn and immutable. If homosexual orientation were spread sociogenically, I'd have no quarrel with including it in the litany.

they aren't mental illnesses

Which is my point, the "sociogenic" part plays no role in a judgement that trans is bad or should be discouraged. Claiming it is a "mental illness" is what that relies on, which is honestly an uninformative term itself - "doing X" is only a mental illness if X is bad, and you still need to determine that.

On your second point, I got halfway through a literature review before being distracted and losing progress, but there wasn't really convincing evidence the desistance rate was 80% - it just seemed all over the place.

The definition of gender dysphoria includes "clinically significant distress" as a critical diagnostic element. There's no doubt that being transgender is a harder road than being cisgender, as are the medical interventions that pose indisputable harms and are justifiable (like chemotherapy) only as being less bad than the harm of untreated gender dysphoria; hence we should treat sociogenic transgender identity as a contagion to be suppressed.

Which is my point, the "sociogenic" part plays no role in a judgement that trans is bad or should be discouraged.

Sure it does, though it often relies on the help of another argument, that trans medical interventions have serious and often irreversible effects on your body. If the trans identity is sociogenic, then a social intervention to help people come to terms with their bodies is at least worth a try, since it will spare them a life of medicalization.

Even without the medical argument, the sociogenic part plays some role. I can somewhat understand rearranging all of society for the benefit of a minority who is "born this way" and cannot change, but if they aren't and they can, why exactly is society required to bend rules around sex segregation in sports and prisons to accommodate them?

If the trans identity is sociogenic, then a social intervention to help people come to terms with their bodies is at least worth a try, since it will spare them a life of medicalization

Even if it isn't sociogenic, that's still true though? One could have a genetically-caused desire to be trans, and it'd still be better to say some one shouldn't do that.

Anyway, my argument is just - the actual contents of 'being trans' are, individually, dumb - the aesthetics of being a woman are signals of various traits improving ability to bear and raise children. Mimicking that if you can't raise children is dumb!

Even if it isn't sociogenic, that's still true though?

It could be, but it being sociogenic makes a stronger argument. If it's genetic you're stuck with dysphoria, and the only way to alleviate it would be with body modification. The costs might still not be worth it, but that would be the only known "cure". If it's sociogenic the costs might be entirely unnecessary, as a social intervention could alleviate dysphoria altogether.

More comments

grouping tiktok tourettes, which is more like 'an emo phase', and being trans together in the 'they usually grow out group' is justified how?

Because according to statistics from gender clinics the most affected demographics are adolescent girls, so the same group that were affected by tiktok tourettes, and being emo. This state of affairs is fairly recent, and corresponds to the popularization of social media.

On the flip side, the trans discourse coming from establishment is barely coherent.

Your twitter feed evidence is selected for detransitioners, because they're the best way to make being anti-trans seem like a progressive 'saving the vulnerable girls' narrative as opposed to right-wing.

False. The selection effect, to the extent it exists, is a result of the Trans/Queer community completely boycotting detransitioners, and often harassing them. Not being able to find support elsewhere - including the gender clinics which are supposedly set up to help them, they have no choice to flock together, which results in this selection effect.

It would be nice to have a proper study on detransitioners where this is all taken into account, and the only group asking for it is detransitioners and their supporters.

It would be nice to have a proper study on detransitioners where this is all taken into account, and the only group asking for it is detransitioners and their supporters.

There are a bunch of detransitioner studies on e.g. google scholar, although their results are kind of all over the place

False. The selection effect, to the extent it exists, is a result of the

I concede I made the point poorly, but - here's another example of right-wing anti-trans content, /r/neovaginadisasters. It's more or less what it sounded like, and was pretty NSFW. It got passed around a lot on right-wing reddit discord a few years ago. It had its own selection effect - less-careful people who browed it often came away with a belief that like 50% of SRS cases were disasters that the patient regretted severely. But that kind of content doesn't show up on @realchrisrufo's twitter feed, for a number of reasons (nsfw, not respectable, etc). There's also the kind of anti-trans content that criticizes being trans in a direct material sense - this is what being trans is, this is why it's bad - and you don't see much of that from @realchrisrufo either. One example of the latter is just screenshots from /r/egg_irl, /r/tranmsgender, etc. Even if you're restricting yourself to anti-trans content, the current approach from the center-right is a very highly selected set of content aimed specifically at 'sympathy for poor oppressed under 18 transitioners', combined with 'groomer teachers and doctors and schools', which IMO paints a very biased and confused picture of trans as a whole.

Even if you're restricting yourself to anti-trans content, the current approach from the center-right is a very highly selected set of content aimed specifically at 'sympathy for poor oppressed under 18 transitioners', combined with 'groomer teachers and doctors and schools', which IMO paints a very biased and confused picture of trans as a whole.

Just to be clear that I understood, you're saying that the focus on under 18's is what makes the picture biased? I don't think that's true at all, like I mentioned adolescents are now the majority of referrals to gender clinics. They're literally the central example of a transitioner.

If you're saying that RadFem and Conservative activists are using detransitioners to push their political goals, and that results in a picture that's biased and confused, I agree. Actually listening to a detransitioner will quickly disabuse you of any simplistic ideology-driven views (whether lefty or conservative), but at the moment conservatives have more to gain than to lose from highlighting detransitioners, while for progressives it's the opposite, resulting in the discourse being what it is.

Actually listening to a detransitioner will quickly disabuse you of any simplistic ideology-driven views (whether lefty or conservative)

Could you explain?

This is probably on the more obvious side, but if you come from a left-wing view, the existence of detransitioners is the first problem. Progressives are relying a lot on the idea that gender identity is immutable, and that affirmation is the best treatment, so someone regretting their decision is a punch to the gut from the get-go. Another thing is that over the years they painted a very rosy view of how rigorous the transition process is, while a common theme among detrans stories is they're being waved through straight to hormones, or even to surgeries, with no one being particularly interested in any other issues they might have.

On the other hand, if you're right wing, you'll quickly discover you can't use detrans people to score an easy win either. While there's a good deal of social contagion going on, some of these kids do feel a deep discomfort with their bodies, and are just choosing to live with it. So also right off the bat, if you want to dismiss dysphoria as a whole, you'll be in for a surprise. Another common theme in the detrans stories is that apparently 2010's feminists had a point, because a lot of the stuff they were complaining about back then, from representation in the media to sexual harassment, is what drove some of these girls to want to opt out of girlhood. Another thing is that despite all the rainbow flags, there does seem to be some background homophobia in society, to the point some people prefer to give it a shot to transition to be "straight" rather than just come out as gay. So if conservatives want to stop kids getting transed, they might need to take a look at how they approach these topics.

On the other hand, if you're right wing, you'll quickly discover you can't use detrans people to score an easy win either. While there's a good deal of social contagion going on, some of these kids do feel a deep discomfort with their bodies, and are just choosing to live with it. So also right off the bat, if you want to dismiss dysphoria as a whole, you'll be in for a surprise. Another common theme in the detrans stories is that apparently 2010's feminists had a point, because a lot of the stuff they were complaining about back then, from representation in the media to sexual harassment, is what drove some of these girls to want to opt out of girlhood. Another thing is that despite all the rainbow flags, there does seem to be some background homophobia in society, to the point some people prefer to give it a shot to transition to be "straight" rather than just come out as gay. So if conservatives want to stop kids getting transed, they might need to take a look at how they approach these topics.

So not exactly a refutation or weakness of the detransition thing, but more that it highlights uncomfortable questions? I can agree with that.

Even if you're restricting yourself to anti-trans content, the current approach from the center-right is a very highly selected set of content aimed specifically at 'sympathy for poor oppressed under 18 transitioners', combined with 'groomer teachers and doctors and schools', which IMO paints a very biased and confused picture of trans as a whole.

I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to paint any kind of picture of trans as a whole. My point was really about under 18 transitioners specifically, in particular among the same population (adolescent girls) who seem to be susceptible to other sociogenic mental illnesses, and specifically among whom transgenderism has exploded in the past few years.

I appreciate the effortpost, but I don't think we're really disagreeing about the same thing.

I'm not arguing we should accept everyone's self-evaluation of their internal mental state at face value, and I am ambivalent about allowing state-assisted suicide under any circumstances. All your concerns about the failure modes of the system, even with supposedly rigorous safeguards and checkboxes, are valid. As are the concerns about the mental health of adolescent girls in particular.

All I am saying is that, "all in their heads" or not, "social contagion" or not, some psychological conditions are, for the sufferer, as "real" as anything we can definitively trace to a biological origin. I say this as someone who knows (multiple) people with severe, sometimes crippling depression. I do not think they are faking, I do not think their condition would be fixed by some good therapy and hitting the gym, and it's kind of dismissive to say their suffering isn't real. Because I know these people, I would absolutely oppose any move towards giving them an Easy Button to kill themselves with the state's help. But at the same time, not being in their heads (but believing what they say about their own experience), I don't buy the argument that what they feel can't be compared to physical pain. It doesn't really matter if it's 100% psychological and they just need to go outside, or if there is a pill that would help them, it's still as real as any other pain. To the degree that the comparison to teenage girls catching Tourette's from social media is relevant, it's kind of like saying those girls don't really have uncontrollable tics that make them miserable and which they wish they could stop. Are some of them totally faking, and they really could stop any time they want to? Maybe, but I think most of them are suffering as much as someone with real Tourette's Syndrome.

To the degree that the comparison to teenage girls catching Tourette's from social media is relevant, it's kind of like saying those girls don't really have uncontrollable tics that make them miserable and which they wish they could stop. Are some of them totally faking, and they really could stop any time they want to? Maybe, but I think most of them are suffering as much as someone with real Tourette's Syndrome.

I think it's saying that there's no way to know what they feel like. It could feel like genuine Tourettes, an upwelling of neurological energy that moves the body like a puppet, or it could feel like a strong case of muscle memory, like reaching into the bag of potato chips for one more chip even though they aren't appealing anymore and there's no remaining rational reason to do so. I say the same for clinical depression: is the sobbing and screaming caused by genuine pain, in the way that one responds to a kidney stone or the unexpected death of a loved one? Or is it a learned reflex, the body and mind moving on autopilot, stuck in a rut, acting in the way that they have collectively learned to act to reconcile their circumstances with the expectations of the people around them? We don't know! Presuming to understand what it feels like to be another person is a delicate endeavor in the best of circumstances, and I posit that it's hopeless with respect to delusional disorders that are situated entirely within the mind.