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 -
But trans activists were arguing (and for quite a few years were very successful) for a significant exception to the norms against men going to the women's bathroom. The original interpretation of the GRA even made it illegal to refuse certain men access to the bathroom. You originally phrased your objection as one based on liberty and skepticism of solving the issue through law, and I find it odd you're glossing over this aspect now.
Maybe the pre-existing norms make it less likely for women to be raped by MTFs, then for MTFs to be raped by men, but the argument is completely speculative, while your original objection was:
So is this a practical concern for MTF GRC holders being raped by men, or is this a moral panic? I think you should answer the question the way it was asked, or concede that it was not a valid argument to begin with.
Personally, if they really feel unsafe in the men's bathroom, I'd say they can use the disabled ones. There's plenty of them, and new buildings are mandated to have them.
Sure. I think it's enough if women get to be able to scream "Eeeeek! A man!", and have the nearest security guard or concerned citizen kick the interloper out, and for establishments to be able to ban repeat offenders from their premises without exposing themselves to lawsuits.
More options
Context Copy link