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 -
Wake up babe, the definition of woman just dropped.
The year was 2020, trans issues have already made their way through our social consciousness, and some women were getting frustrated at the inability to congregate without trans women showing up, and - in the minds of the TERF inclined - spoil the party.
Enter Sall Grover, a bold enterprising spirit, that recognized two facts:
She quickly joined the dots, and thus the Giggle app was born. In order to register you had to upload a selfie, which would be run through a sex-recognition AI, and non-females would be automatically rejected. The AI was deliberately calibrated to minimize false negatives, wanting to spare cis-women the humiliation of appealing the process, Grover figured it's better to let a few false-positives through and deal with them manually. For a while, the whole system worked wonderfully, and the women congregated, giggling happily.
But, as we all know, there is no Giggle without a Tickle... In February 2021, Roxy Tickle uploaded a selfie to the Giggle app and the AI was so amused at the word pun, it forgot it was supposed to be an image recognition algorithm. Roxy got through! Her joy lasted for several months, until she was caught by manual review as she was applying for premium features of the app. After a short and unsuccessful appeal attempt, she decided that the only way to resolve this dispute is in court.
Roxy Tickle argued that this was an outrageous injustice, that she was being discriminated against for being trans, and that this constitutes a violation of the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984. Sall Grover argued that this is nonsense, that Giggle does not discriminate against trans people, it merely excludes people on the basis of sex. The law hasn't outlawed sex-segregated spaces over the 30 years it was in effect, Roxy Tickle was treated no different than any other male-sexed individual, and therefore no illegal discrimination has taken place. The judge had to rule if Giggle excluded a man, and was well within it's rights, or if it excluded a woman and indirectly committed discrimination against a trans person. He was therefore forced to settle that ancient question - what is a woman? Last week we finally received the verdict, and the way I understood it is "a woman is anyone who the state identifies as a woman". It turns out that sex is mutable, and that Ms. Tickle is a woman because she has a state issued document saying so. Australia's legal system seems a bit complex to my eyes, but at first glance that seems to also boil down to "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman".
The consequences of the verdict might be more interesting than the verdict itself. After all, if an app for women cannot keep an AMAB out, how can all the other controversial spaces like sports, prisons, waxing salons, etc.? We've covered enough of these cases over the years that I think it should be clear this isn't a hypothetical, and as connoisseurs of TERF content will know, hacking "gender violence" laws has become a pretty regular occurance in countries that lean on the self-ID side of the debate. More importantly, and/or ammusingly, normie men are deciding all that male privilege just ain't worth it, or perhaps the Spaniards are just more cheeky than average. In any case, if any such self-ID laws / rulings are to be maintained, I think they'll require some major qualifications.
Maybe I am too law brained but this outcome seems obvious? When governments draw distinctions between people they need a way to adjudicate who is classified how. For demographic markers they often issue some kind of identification that contains those markers and are considered authoritative. Sometimes (often?) there is a general process for updating those documents and markers when they are incorrect. When one undergoes the process for changing ones markers then, legally, one has changed classification.
This case was not lost today it was lost when, in 1994, Queensland started permitting one to change one's legal sex (if I read the opinion correctly) and, in 2013, when Australia amended the Sex Discrimination Act to cover gender identity.
Yeah I agree. The judge read the law right, it's what the law says that is the problem.
Queensland is headed for a landslide LNP win soon, it'll be interesting to see if the new parliament is game to change this. I think probably yes - both sides of politics seem to agree that trans issues are working for the right currently (with Labor trying to downplay them), and QLD doesn't have an upper house to get in the way.
More options
Context Copy link
This simply pushes the problem to the question of, "When are they correct/incorrect?" The silly version of this is that my driver's license has height on it. Suppose that for Person A, there was a genuine flubbing, a fat fingering. Their height was listed wrong. Presumably, they could request to have it changed on the document. On the other hand, Person B thinks that he's gotta be 6' tall for the dating apps, which in the future year of verified identity for everything, actually take in your driver's license information and use that in the algorithm. So, Person B waltzes into the DMV and says, "Well, obviously, you have a general process for updating these documents, so you need to list me as 6' tall." What should the government do when ye olde yardstick begs to differ?
Isn't the anti-trans position the opposite, though? You're saying that if someone was "born" 5'10" and somehow gained 2 inches of height, they're still 5'10".
If you can point to a single example of a biological male who grew into becoming a biological female or vice-versa, we can perhaps have a conversation about what to do in that case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Correct" and "incorrect" are relative to the government's purposes in having the mark on the document. Often this is to aid in identification of the person presenting the document but the marks can serve other purposes. In the case of height, having a listed one dramatically different than your apparent one would be a problem for using it to identify you. So they try to keep the height listed on your document close to your apparent height (as determined by yardstick).
In the case of gender, I would argue that it’s at least in part about safety. Men are orders of magnitude stronger than women, and given that most instances of stranger rape occur in private spaces, keeping natal males out of women’s restrooms, changing rooms, and sleeping areas is simply the best way to prevent rapes in those spaces.
Height and weight are more about proof of identity in general. If you match 5/5 of the identifying characteristics listed on your ID, it’s pretty clear it’s your ID.
No, they're not 100x stronger. Did you mean multiple standard deviations stronger?
Yeah, misspoke, sorry. But the point being that unless a woman is basically a semi-pro athlete (let’s say that she’d be competitive in a small school college sports program) her chances of successfully defending herself against a minimally athletic male in a one on one situation is fairly small. It’s why I basically laugh at the “learn self defense for women” programs. Unless you’re seriously training and competing in combat sports you aren’t going to have enough skill to win out against a male with enough extra muscle mass to manhandle her.
Isn’t ‘self defense for women’ basically ‘don’t be shy, kick him in the nuts and run away’?
I’ve heard that ‘kick him in the nuts’ is very bad advice because they aren’t vital (unlike eyes, say) and the pain is basically washed away by adrenaline and just makes him angrier. Works against a dweeb who’s being pushy, but not against somebody accosting you in an alley.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The governments purposes for tracking sex should not be about the feelings of the individual being tracked, but about keeping accurate records for the census, crime, and other statistics. I'd say that having a listed sex other than your apparent (actual) one is a major problem.
More options
Context Copy link
What are the purposes of such marks when it comes to private service providers, say, like amusement parks and emergency rooms?
It depends on the private service providers own policies and what kinds of obligations the government may have created for them.
The only reason the above case exists is because the government created a legal obligation for private service providers to treat people a certain way based on the mark on their official documentation. As far as I know there is no similar legal requirement to treat people a certain way based on their height. If there was, then a similar lawsuit against an amusement park may very well be successful!
In the emergency room context the only purpose a sex classification serves is as a shorthand for certain other biological facts that may be relevant for treatment. If you already know those other biological facts it's not clear to me what further information one is getting from someone's legal sex classification. In any case doctors should determine medical treatments on the basis of the relevant biology, not the legal sex classification. Indeed it's easy for me to imagine a scenario where a doctor denying someone treatment on the basis of their legal sex classification, rather than their biology, would be the basis for a sex discrimination lawsuit! Imagine a trans woman goes to a doctor and requests a prostate exam. Perhaps she has or hasn't had bottom surgery but in any case still has a prostate. The doctor refuses on the grounds her relevant identity document says she is female, though the doctor does acknowledge she has a prostate. I think such a doctor would likely lose a sex discrimination lawsuit. After all, if she had shown up as someone with "male" on their identity document and with a prostate the doctor would presumably have performed the exam. She was denied a treatment relevant to her biology because of her legal classification. Sounds like sex discrimination to me!
One could just as easily say that in a digital app setting, the only purpose a government sex classification serves is as a shorthand for certain other biological facts that may be relevant for treatment. If you already know those other biological facts it's not clear to me what further information one is getting from someone's legal sex classification. In any case apps should determine digital treatments on the basis of the relevant biology, not the legal sex classification. Where does your argument fail?
What is the "treatment" in this context and what is the relevant biology? In the medical context treatments very straightforwardly interact with a patient's biology. That's the point. What's the app analogue?
Don't need an analog, at least not according to the standard you've set forth. You just said that the "only purpose" a government sex classification serves is as a shorthand. They saw the shorthand, they determined that other facts were known, and they used the other facts. Amusement parks did it, emergency rooms did it, and digital apps did it. Unless you have some extra, currently hidden government purpose, these cases seem precisely analogous for the test you've set forth. There's nothing in your current test that says that some sorts are okay and other sorts aren't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’d be loath to assume the government uses a general process when a laundry list of specific ones would do. When I had to get my corrective lens requirement dropped, there was a specific office and form. I think I had to bring a doctor’s note from the optometrist? So the specific height-change form probably says “please stand by this ruler.” If you disagree with that, tough.
I think you might be sounding like a transphobe. Tests, forms, doctor's notes, medical gatekeeping?
But no worries, I think @Gillitrut's position can come to your rescue. See, you don't have to actually make any decisions about what test/forms/notes/gatekeeping will occur. You can sit back, remain completely agnostic about any underlying Big T Truth, and just be law-brained enough to observe that different jurisdictions will make different choices. Some jurisdictions, we can call them the Transphobe Jurisdictions, have rulers and tests and stuff like you might want. Other jurisdictions, the Nontransphobe Jurisdictions, don't. Australia happened to choose already that they are a Nontransphobe Jurisdiction, having no rulers, no tests, no nothing. They have a much simpler process that lets you quickly and easily change the authoritative document, which declares, with authority (thus the adjective), how the law views the situation. One can then just sit back, be law-brained, and see that the conclusions follow from the premises.
...but now, Person B is considering going to a local amusement park, a private service provider. There happen to be two amusement parks in the area. Amusement Park Z is run by young, hip folks. They have electronic controls everywhere. You can scan your driver's license and swipe your credit card at the entrance, and then just use the nifty electronic system to access any rides you desire. Amusement Park X is run by old fogies, practically boomers. You have to hand physical tickets to the white guy standing next to the ride, and he points to the sign that says, "You must be this tall to ride." Can Person B sue Amusement Park X for not caring about the authoritative document and simply observing, "Your head don't touch the top of the ruler, dawg"?
After riding a ride that mayyyyyyyyyybe wasn't super safe for short people, Person B isn't feeling so good. B makes his way to the emergency room. B tells the doc everything about what's happened in the time period leading up to that moment. B's last physical act is to pull an insurance card out of a pocket and hand it to the doc, but since it was right next to B's driver's license in the pocket, both are grabbed and passed to the doc. (Can insert/remove a hypo here about B's last words being, "Please help me doc; do anything you need to.") Then, B passes out.
The doc runs a bunch of tests. In the process, they strip off B's clothes and replace them with a standard hospital gown. They can't help but happen to notice B's genitals in the process. The hospital bed automatically provides B's weight. Maybe even in the future, there's a ruler built into the bed, too. The tests come back, and they happen to include chromosomes and other indicators. All of the medical indicators correlate perfectly toward B having a particular sex, height, and weight. But the doctor noticed that B's drivers license disagrees on some/all of these things. The only problem is that the next step that the doctor has to take depends on one or more of those things. Perhaps it's just a dosage selection; perhaps it's an even more significant change in the course of treatment.
Suppose the doc, a private service provider, proceeds according to the authoritative document and not the measurements, and B happens to die. Is that a successful lawsuit by the estate, according to pure law brain? Suppose the doc proceeds according to the measurements and not the authoritative document, and B happens to live. Is that a successful lawsuit by B?
I'm pretty law-brained for a lot of things, but when it comes to these issues, I cannot escape the phrase, "Live not by lies." If we bake lies into the premises, the principle of explosion surely follows. It is utterly unsurprising that if we start off with baked in lies, then attempt to simply close our eyes to the entire realm of truth and try to proceed purely by law-brain, contradictions will follow.
The nice thing about having specific processes is that they aren’t all-or-nothing. Giving up one doesn’t mean going full postmodernist and rejecting all empirical measurements. The ruler can stay.
Same goes for your rather convoluted hypothetical. There’s no discrimination lawsuit in using the actual indicators for a treatment.
Rulers for thee not for me
More options
Context Copy link
Why should the ruler stay, but not this app's restriction based on biological sex?
Because there’s a specific law calling out gender identity discrimination. (Sex discrimination, too, but I still don’t understand why that doesn’t apply.)
If short kings get a law passed, then the ruler might have to go. But that law won’t be passed, because trans activism doesn’t generalize to every possible category.
If you're going to split hairs here then how about this (in addition to what @ControlsFreak said): a FtM trans wants acne medication. The medication is known to be harmful to pregnant females. The patient is visibly pregnant. Were they biologically male, the acne medication would be the right prescription with minimal side effects. The patient's government issued id says they are male.
Can the patient sue the doctor for discrimination if they refuse to give them the prescription? If the doctor relents and her baby is born with birth defects can they sue the doctor for that?
And if you're going to nitpick about pregnancy status being different from sex, then imagine a drug that has significantly different effects on women vs. men, or that she isn't visibly pregnant. Use the "Least Convenient Possible World" to avoid easy outs and address the meat of ControlsFreak's argument.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't follow. Here you said that "[t]here’s no discrimination lawsuit in using the actual indicators for a treatment". So, I must ask again, given that there's a specific law calling out gender identity and sex discrimination,
Suppose the doc, a private service provider, proceeds according to the authoritative document and not the measurements, and B happens to die. Is that a successful lawsuit by the estate, according to pure law brain? Suppose the doc proceeds according to the measurements and not the authoritative document, and B happens to live. Is that a successful lawsuit by B?
We have a specific law. It is applied to private service providers. The document is authoritative.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't have anything to add here, but I had a flashback to a bad Tinder date. Halfway through a coffee the girl accused me of lying about my height, because 'her brother is my stated height and I'm shorter than him'. I said we should go find a measuring tape straight away and see who was wrong. May as well have thrown some gas on a fire. Kept accusing me of lying but wouldn't let me prove her wrong so I just shrugged and left.
I don't know what @IGI-111 is talking about. This is a great argument for the existence of government IDs, height on said IDs, and felony charges for anyone who lies about their government measured height.
More options
Context Copy link
One of my online dates.
Her: "Are you really 6 foot 2?"
Me: "Well not exactly, I'm 6 feet 1 and 3/4"
Her: "I could tell, you shouldn't lie about your height"
Me: -_-
Wow, just wow. The audacity on your part to attempt such a brazen rape by deception. Thank goodness she caught onto your machinations early; could you imagine the trauma she would have experienced had she only found out afterward that she got defrauded into lying with a sub-6'2.00" "man"?
6'2" is an accurate representation of your height to the nearest inch. It's not like you were 6'1.25" and ceiling'd it to 6'2" (which is still within the realm of acceptability), much less added 1-3" to your barefoot height as is NBA tradition. Women regularly and guiltlessly lie about their weight and bodycount, but I guess at least for this woman, men accurately rounding their height to the nearest inch is a bridge too far when it's upward.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
YTA for insisting on a measuring tape instead of being a decent person and believing her emotional truth as a woman that you were lying about your height.
What an epic coffee moment, in more ways than one. At least you turned 360 degrees and bounced, leaving the sunk costs be.
Since thot-patrolling sisters is verboten nowadays, that could be a genius brotherly tactic to passively cockblock guys from banging your sister: Understating your own height to your sister so that she thinks all guys she encounters are shorter than they actually are, thus increasing her chances of getting the ick.
More options
Context Copy link
I hope you started carrying a measuring tape on dates after that.
Measuring tapes are the greatest aid to bavarian fire drills known to man.
More options
Context Copy link
“I’ve got six feet of rope in my truck. Want to see?”
Part of the Tinder starter pack along with chloroform, rag and breath mints.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Indeed. The slope was always slippery.
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed. If there is a legal status, the government will treat people according to the legal status the government recognizes them as. Not only is that a convenient dodge for what the status 'should' be, it's about the only way for a government to consistently apply said status. If the government did NOT address people by the government-identified status, paradoxes occur.
I'm fairly sure this is what the US military already does, but I'll leave it to any of our posters to vouch for that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link