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 -
I got into an argument on JK Rowling recently. That was mildly annoying, but then it shifted to transgender stuff in general, and the puberty blocker discussion in particular was very vexing to me. I just genuinely don't know how anyone can be okay with the idea, especially now that we know way more about it than we did 10 years ago. The dismissal of the Cass Review on the part of the pro-trans side has increasingly looked like the stereotypical right winger doing mental somersaults to any science they dislike. But I have some questions on it, there were some things I didn't have great answers to.
What are the actual requirements for getting prescribed puberty blockers? The pro-trans tribe insists that it is a very rigorous process involving thorough checking of gender dysphoria, and it's not commonly done, despite being a readily available tool in the toolbox of clinical practice. I do not believe this after examples I have seen, but I have nothing to cite.
Is there any actual scientific evidence in favor of social contagion playing any part in transgenderism? The pro-trans tribe claims that social contagion plays no role, and to me, it's trivially true that social contagion plays an astounding part, as well as fetishism and abuse, and autism. I have no idea how many kids genuinely become gender dysphoric due to genetics, if there are any at all. And if there are any, I certainly don't think that it's a given that they need puberty blockers. How the hell did that become the default? But anyway, has The Science turned up anything on social contagion?
Are there any actually valid critiques of the Cass Review? Pro-trans tribe will cite the Yale Law retort, then when I point out the responses to it, either holes are poked in them or they just go back to their priors that the Cass Review was methodologically bad, done by a transphobe, misinterpreted studies, and went against the scientific consensus and ruined its own credibility. Actually, they say the same about the recent HHS Report. Please show me if there are any published valid critiques of the Cass Review besides the Yale thing.
What are the probabilities of serious consequences from puberty blockers? I brought up infertility, and the pro-trans tribe claimed that it's actually a very low chance and that it's not anyone's business anyway because not everyone wants to have kids. The latter half of that is completely inane when we're talking about life changing decisions for a demographic that cannot consent, but the former, I don't know. Do puberty blockers cause the infertility, the loss of ability to orgasm, and the complete lack of penis tissue with which to create a neovagina, or is it the ensuing hormones that do this?
Sadly, none of this will do anything to convince anyone on either side anyway. There's really no way out of this hole that has been created. Sometimes, I kind of hate this world. I really thought "don't give minors seriously debilitating life changing pills to solve a solely mental disorder" was an easy hill to stand on, but the fighting was just as vicious as anything else with the gender issue.
Edited to be slightly less angry.
I'm shocked that you'd expect anything else.
This issue is derived from instinctual gender politics; follow the money.
It is to the advantage of old women that two things be true:
Furthermore, old women have significantly more sociopolitical power than they did 50 years ago compared to everyone else.
So, what do we see? We see old women pushing hard on "encourage young women to destroy their sexual appeal to young men", for when attractive women are scarcer, men pay more[1] for inferior sex. Additionally, we see pushes for "the only safe man is a man who is either uninterested in sex with women, or if still interested in women, unable to cause real harm to them"[2].
Encouraging homosexuality, then transgenderism, is the way that is done- the end result of both is a social token that old women can hold up about Fighting Oppression(tm), and less competition. The fact that it destroys young men and women is not a concern to biological dead-ends (a fact said old women are extremely resentful of), forming a perfect moral hazard.
Other than Noticing it's always the mom? The more female-dominated the profession is, the more obsessed with transgenderism it is- I think this is the reason why.
This is [one way] women sexually abuse children. Men don't really understand it and aren't equipped to fight it (the conditions of reality- that being without them, women don't eat- haven't forced them to evolve a defense against this; now that automation has made it so women are on equal footing with men, these problems emerge), but the motive and the result, at the end of the day, is abusive[3].
Now, that all having been said, is transgenderism a real thing? I think so (ask the older pre-Third Wave Feminism examples about it), and puberty blockers/hormones might be our best response for that condition at this time. But much like our other "best answers" that psychology has given us listed downthread, it's also extremely destructive, and it's complicated by the institutions responsible for identifying it all being dominated by the gender most likely to abuse children in this way.
There is, and it's being followed. Because the faction currently pushing for puberty blockers and transgenderism to be a solution to everything is also the only one that the concept of "consent" serves (per the above: punishing men for sex with younger women that they actually want = more power for older women), sanctioning any woman who speaks of transgenderism to anyone under the age of "consent" is only fair... which is why laws are, though slowly and clumsily (re: Don't Say Gay), moving in that direction.
[1] Instincts are just brute force, and can't adjust for men having anything better to do- these days, men have plenty of other options, so the [sexual] market shortfall is hidden.
[2] The fact this (one or more of "sexual herbivorism", effeminate homosexuality, chemical interference) generally makes them worse at harming hostile men is not something women need to care about- if all their tribe's men are killed in war because they were unable or unwilling to dominate their own women, they still have inherent value to enemy men and will generally be treated well. Women even have instincts for accepting being carried off; they don't have a similar instinct for making sure their sons or daughters grow up to be attractive (men do, to a point).
[3] "But they enjoyed it/it actually had a positive outcome" is an excuse men use when they use their social station to abuse children, but not one we accept from them. Why should we accept it from women?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link