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 -
My point is that they can’t go “trans women are women” without conflating category and identity. “Trans women are women” is a categorical statement of whether “trans women” is a subset of “women”.
I appreciate that you draw the lines quite clearly and I think your position is fine in the abstract, if confusing when applied. I also think that under your definitions, you could plausibly provide a reading that trivially doesn’t conflict with any statement (e.g. the “makes no sense to [you]”). I do think you think you haven’t made a claim to how we should treat trans people, or otherkin, or the headmate people, or transracialists, or whatnot.
But I object to the idea that most other people use terms in that way. I really don’t think that people saying “trans women are women” are saying “trans women are men who have a self-conception of “woman” who we should treat as women” (e.g. your decoupling of “identity” with “how we should deal with divergent identity vs category”), they really mean “trans women are women”, even if the practice is identical.
My objection isn’t with your specific statements (when taken with your definitions in mind), it is with that I think most people - especially most activists - don’t use it this way in practice, except occasionally as a motte and bailey.
Edit: There is an alternate interpretation that makes sense of the trans activist viewpoint: that they are creating a new category “woman_2”, which but for a sleight of hand is different from “woman_1”, and “woman_2” refers to explicitly people who “identify as a woman”, all other categories be damned; and that we should migrate all our prejudices from woman_1 to woman_2 post haste. But I don’t think that is what they are doing, and if they are then I don’t have a disagreement with you. I think this makes much less sense than the other interpretation though.
This is increasingly not the case, what with the recent (few years) rhetoric about how transness doesn’t require dysphoria (which coincides with the increase of nonbinariness and all), and trans people who don’t agree with that as truscum. I don’t think truscum are the majority of the trans movement by far.
I will get this out of the way first: You are being rude. I know exactly what claim I am making. As it happens, I don't think transwomen should be allowed to participate in women's sports, nor use women's bathrooms. And, as someone who used to work with adolescents, I don't think that gender reassignment surgery should be allowed on anyone under 18. But none of that is relevant to anything I have said here.
Yes, you can. First, that is actually not a claim about definitions; it is a claim about how transwomen should be treated. I understand that superficially it might seem like a definitional claim, but it isn't; it is a claim about public policy. And it is, after all a slogan; "transwomen should be treated as women" is not nearly as catchy.
Second, even if it is a definitional claim, it is NOT a claim about the definition of "transwomen" (and even less the definition of gender identity") but rather a claim about the definition of "women." And not the female sex, because obviously the distinction between sex and gender identity is central to the entirety of their claims, but rather the definition of "women" as used in "women's sports" or "women's bathroom", etc.
Finally, you keep taking issue with my statement that identity in general, including gender identity, is a belief/feeling/whatever, and I have cited evidence that others use that term. But, I haven't seen you say what you think those terms mean, let alone that anyone uses them as you define them. So, tell me, what does "gender identity " mean, if the definitions from the Open Education Sociology Dictionary (and from the Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood or the WHO or the Mayo Clinic or Merriam-Webster ) are wrong?
Well, I think I’ve tried to be as polite as reasonably possible, and since I don’t think we will ever agree, let’s call it off.
For what it is worth, in my opinion, those are the mottes that I alluded to before.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link