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 -
New Culture war fodder from the UK: The Guardian (I read it for the math puzzles):
Seems like the TERFs (including JK Rowling) won this one.
The process for obtaining a GRC is detailed in the WP Article on the Gender Recognition Act 2004 . It seems that you require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and then a panel will rule your case.
Now, I have no idea how much of a hassle this is. For all I know, it could be a rubber stamp process where any bearded 40yo can get his diagnosis and GRC with minimum hassle and then proceed to jerk off to random women in communal showers. Or it could be a long journey to get the diagnosis.
How many perverts who got their GRC just to watch naked women are there in the UK, anyhow? Is this a practical concern, do women get raped by m2f GRC holders in safe spaces, or is this a moral panic?
On the matter, I don't think there is a great "one size fits all" solution. Allowing biologically male perverts to intrude on women safe spaces just by yelling "I identify as a woman" seems bad. Forcing someone who underwent HRT and surgery and passes as female even naked to shower with the guys also seems bad. For that matter, making a passing f2m with beard, muscles and a dick shower with the women is also not helping anyone.
Also, should I don't think it is a good idea to let the government regulate which groups get safe spaces where. If a private swimming pool decides to establish unisex communal showers, let them try it. If some weirdo religious organization tells people who they think are non-straight to use individual changing rooms lest anyone is aroused, let them. If a lesbian organizations requires all their members to menstruate, let them. (Yes, this leaves public bathrooms and the like as a point of contention.)
On a more meta-level, this feels like legislation from the bench. From my understanding, the 2004 GRA updated the legal definition of "man" and "woman". The Equality Act was passed in 2010. Presumably, parliament was aware of changed definition when they passed the Equality Act. If they meant "biological woman", not "legal woman", they should have specified that. If we allow people to change their legal gender, then their gender should also be recognized in all aspects. If you are f2m and the men get drafted, you get drafted. If a judge orders a mass DNA test of all men, then the f2m gets swabbed as well. If NHS pays for a mammography for women of a certain age, then the m2f gets their fucking mammography.
Finally,
Now, I don't know this circumstances. Perhaps one in 30 board seats is reserved for women, and on half of the boards they were filled with trans-women, leading to everyone on that board having the Y chromosome. If that is the case, then I apologize for the following misinterpretation.
Quotas suck in the first place. Most people are not on some Board Of Important People, and the ones who are on them take care of their class, not their gender cohort. Sure, an all-male board of directors will fuck over working class women in the company, but they will just as eagerly fuck over men in the company. The childless career female board member will not care more for the plights of a single mother than her male colleagues. But whatever, apparently we have quotas. If you have, say eight out of 20 board appointments thanks to your quota, and then you bitch that one of them is a trans-woman when that seat is clearly the birth-right of a biological woman, that seems incredibly petty.
Where does that happen? At what point in any trans person's life will they be through the transition process so well that they "pass", and also still sharing showers with sex-segregated people? I can only think of a couple, and they're either voluntary organizations that can make their own rules (like gyms) or places like prison where they don't have full civil rights anyway. What's the scenario here?
From my understanding of the ruling, it bans trans women from single sex women spaces. So de jure, even a fully passing trans-woman is banned. Obviously, defying that ban would be a infraction which is hard to detect.
Is your argument that any use of a communal shower is voluntary, and that a trans-person can simply opt not to go to the swimming pool to avoid gender-segregated spaces? Just as she can stay at home to avoid using gender-segregated bathrooms?
I will grant you that from what I know, many trans women who did not have surgery will try their uttermost to avoid situations like communal showers, because unlike what J.K. Rowling is thinking, they do not really get off on the idea of showering with a bunch of random women who can see their dick. (I think the solution is to have some single-stall, unisex cabins and showers, btw.)
But to deny people who can pass while naked their preferred gender showers seems silly.
I am quite skeptical that anyone at all can pass while naked IRL, so the whole argument seems silly to me.
The intersection of an exceptional individual who must have spent an enormous effort to look like the opposite sex with a situation in which they are forced to use communal showers seems even less likely. Certainly nothing we need legislation for, it won't happen often.
I think you and I mean different things by "to pass".
For me in that context, it means that a stranger is subconsciously inserting you into their mental categories of "men" or "women". If I were to go into a communal shower and saw a person of average statue with no facial hair, developed breasts and no dick and balls, I would place them in the category "women" -- and wonder if I am in the wrong shower.
The other interpretation of "to pass" is more adversarial. Something like "a stranger whose prior on you being trans is 0.5 will categorize you either as a cis-woman or a trans-woman following a close-up inspection of your naked body".
I would argue that for the shower situation, to pass in the first sense is sufficient. The prior of someone being trans IRL is low. If you see a cock in the woman's shower, that is certainly enough evidence to overcome the prior of "random person in the woman's shower is typical XX". But if someone is trying to pass to the point where they had bottom surgery, in most cases I would expect the subconsciousness to just put them in the "women" category.
I don't know what goes on in women's showers, obviously, but "excuse me, but can you stand still for a minute while I inspect your labia to determine if you are one of us or one of these god-awful pervert men who likes to spy on and/or rape women, (and in your case might have cut off his genitals to better to better hide among us)" is not a level of scrutiny I would expect in practice a lot.
Serious question: have you known any trans people personally? I used to work with an FtM and not all the testosterone jabs and clipped hair in the world makes up for being 5 foot 4 max and having a voice like a flute. There’s also just the fact that the body shape is wrong, the movements are wrong. After only a few moments your brain is screaming at you, “This person is not what they say they are.” That’s why it’s so insulting and damaging to be forced to ignore the evidence of your own eyes.
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