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 -
To leave aside the divisive "groomer" argument, you still need to argue that transgenderism is inherently-negative cetis paribus--i.e., the problems associated with it would still be present absent the element of social stigma. This doesn't have to include over-correcting enthusiasm, just more whether these outcomes are replicable in a vacuum.
If given the choice to be trans or not be trans I think the choice is obvious, but I can argue it if you'd like.
non-socially derived negatives of being trans:
lifetime dependence on expensive and experimental pharmaceuticals
difficulties with procreation
additional difficulties presenting as your gender
imperfect medical science is not able to actually grant you experiences core to your gender's identity
drastically reduced romantic options
positives of being trans:
This is like trying to defend why someone might want their kids to not be convinced to poke out their eyes to join the the blind community. I can see why the blind community would not want to be stigmatized if they cannot help it but any blind person trying to argue there is genuinely nothing wrong or bad about being blind is expressing a coping mechanism. Are you actually willing to defend the idea that it is just as good to be trans as cis?
I'm personally not, but I merely ask if it is so negative as to make it too costly--and wonder then how anyone could ever justify paying a cost. Maybe gender dysphoria is that bad that someone would endure all the things you listed.
People regularly give their life willingly to cults. This is the population that eats tide pods for clout. I am not convinced that many prepubescent children can even understand what they're giving up when they agree to something like puberty blockers. I'm not going to ascribe this belief to you but it's frequently asserted that 18 year olds can't understand loans and thus college debt forgiveness should be taken more seriously, are we really supposed to believe the people who still sometimes believe in Santa understand the repercussions of lifetime pharmaceutical dependence?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The divisiveness is a good thing. How else are you supposed to push back against the growing attempt to influence children into joining the transgender movement? The LGBT movement has pressed hard on divisiveness, tactically calling everyone who opposes them "transphobic" or "homophobic." The "groomer" word is completely fair game. Language is powerful, your side has used it effectively, this is what conservatives using it against you looks like.
More options
Context Copy link
That's easy. The medical consequences of transition will be there no matter the social stigma. A more debatable point is that reducing stigma to reduce trans suicides seems to be a mirage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link