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 -
The New York Times just published an article on a trans study not being published for ideological reasons (Archive)
Has anyone else noticed a clear "vibe shift" on trans issues recently? It would have been unimaginable for this article to be published in the New York Times just a few years ago, but now, it just seems like part of an overall trend away from trans ideologues.
I'm am curious where this trend continues. Is it going to go all the way? Will trans issues be seen as the weird 2010s, early 2020s political project that had ardent supporters, but eventually withered away and died like the desegregation bussing movement? Or will it just settle into a more moderate position of never using any medication on children, but allowing adults to do whatever? Or maybe it is just a temporary setback and the ideologues will eventually win out?
Also of note, trans issues are coming to SCOTUS again. The issue presented is
I recommend reading Alabama's amicus curiae brief for an in depth critique of WPATH. SCOTUS is set to hear oral arguments on this case on the 4th of December, so this is lining up to be an interesting oral argument to listen to. SCOTUS usually releases the big controversial cases at the end of their term, so the opinion on this case will probably be released in the summer of '25.
Cautiously hoping this is a sign this is becoming useless as a political wedge and we can go back to studying what GD is and how to help people that have it instead of wallowing in the hell of using it to destroy social norms at the expense of everyone involved.
No, we should drop the whole exercise and stop giving the concept any thought space at all, because it doesn't exist other than as a cognitohazard/toxic meme. A child (especially an autistic one, which appears to make up a huge proportion of "trans" individuals) going through puberty and having a hard time does not know what's going on. They don't know why they're having a hard time, they don't understand their own emotions, or why they are having a hard time relating to others but what they do know is that it is unpleasant and they would like it to stop. The child doesn't know that approximately everyone has a hard time during puberty and adolescence, since they've got no frame of reference outside of themselves, and they don't know that nobody who is honest has a solution to that difficulty other than growing out of it.
Enter the well-meaning teacher or activist, who offers a silver bullet: the reason you feel weird and like you don't fit and your body is uncomfortable isn't because you're autistic or going through puberty, it's because you're in the wrong body, so all you have to do is transition. Kids are susceptible to believing what an authority tells them, especially one proffering a solution to their problems, and on top of that the authority often primes them by asking if they "feel like a boy" or other questions about internal state that no one healthy ever thinks about and then uses the kid's ambivalence as evidence in favor of the theory. (And now the poor autistic kid thinks normal people have either a pink or blue light in their head telling them what they are, and this is just one more reason they're not normal, and etc)
Of course this is a basically unfalsifiable theory under the best of circumstances, and there's no way to "try it on" to see if it works. When it inevitably fails to solve the problem and in fact makes it even worse, proponents can blame the failure on not doing it early enough, not doing it hard enough, or "transphobia", all of which boils down to "do the thing that isn't working harder". Even if the kid could see through the smokescreen and realize that this isn't helping, the cult-like qualities of the social changes (love bombing, breaking down of relationships, renaming) make it borderline impossible to walk back. It's a social and cognitive trap that vulnerable people are susceptible to, it makes their lives measurably worse, and the only way to cure it is to burn it out of the culture entirely before it gets any more rooted. Giving it legitimacy by taking it seriously as a field of medical research only empowers it.
I understand the problems with the current approach with dealing with the problem. All of which are tied into politics.
But how do you propose we deal with the real phenomenon then?
God is not going to stop sending us people who want to be the other sex to a pathological degree. You're engaging in the same wishful thinking as the gender constructionists if you think tabooing the concept is going to make that stop.
And we don't really know how or why GD happens, we just know that it does and has been before we had a word for it. Anybody that tells you we know the mechanics of it (including muh brain scan studies) is selling something.
So if we are to find any sort of solution, surely it has to provide for studying the problem. Or we're just leaving these people to fend for themselves.
Surely you wouldn't be against studying schizophrenia because it also has the potential for social contagion?
My position is that it's not a real phenomenon, and I thought I made that clear from the first sentence in my comment. There are sexual fetishists that can be dealt with largely by ignoring them, but GD is not a real thing with a medical cause. Telling people that it is is the thing that creates it.
Yes, you deal with it the same way you deal with furries/otherkin/people that think they're literally able to do magic. You pat them on the head and say "no you aren't a girl, you've got a dick and that's what that means." If they want to play pretend beyond that, fine. But if we collectively stop giving it space, then the number of people that want to play pretend will drop back down to a totally unnoticeable number and we won't have to care as a society at all.
I would say that it is a real phenomenon, in the same manner that chronic pain is a real condition even if no cause is found. If you feel you're experiencing it, you're experiencing it, even if it were psychological in nature. Body dysmorphia doesn't go away by saying it's not real any more than you can cure depression by simply telling someone they don't actually have it that bad.
The way I see it, I don't care if an adult wants to get bolt-on boobs for any reason. My breaking points are:
A) Children. In particular, the constant framing of trans children as suicide risks I believe is social contagion. If "there have always been trans people" then why is this danger of suicide only talked about now?
B) The elevation of the meaningless concept of "identity."
C) The accompanying suppression of noticing or speaking about a person's sex.
D) That any research towards curing gender dysphoria without transitioning would be framed as genocide.
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