site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   27235 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 26, 2025

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

they want is to be taken seriously as their chosen gender

The problem is we've told these people it's possible to choose your gender or for your gender to be wrong wrt your sex. The whole idea is a memetic hazard. They aren't tomboys, twinks they are suddenly in the wrong body. That's the problem.

I'm sure a non negligible number would have been "fine" with being a slightly-gender nonconforming version of the same gender instead of being sold the bill of goods for "choosing your gender"

You are, again, assuming the conclusion. I happen to think the world is considerably better for having trans people in it, and that most people are happier transitioning than they would have been in a counterfactual world where they didn't. (Not because it was written on their soul in golden ink from birth that they were the opposite gender; just because gender transition is a fun thing to do with your life and imbues the transitioner with a welcome sense of purpose and fulfillment, like any other arbitrary self-improvement project.) It's a memetic something but I reject the term "hazard". I think it's a boon to human flourishing, and it needs to spread harder, so long as we can decouple it from dangerous medical procedures. We're halfway there. "Transmedicalists" are already viewed with suspicion by mainstream gender theory; "you can be trans even if you don't get surgery or hormones" is a very widespread meme which is looked on approvingly. Push it all the way to "at least if you're a minor, it's better to be the non-medicalized kind of trans" and you're golden.

I happen to think the world is considerably better for having trans people in it,

I've been through this before with the self-affirming, ego-stroking, this is a reaction to being rejected but don't you dare point that out that we're feeling hurt and trying to soothe ourselves that "well of course being queer is so much better than being silly old boring cis het! we queers are so special and creative and brave and exciting! without us there would be no science and art or nice things! white bread!"

Gee who would have thought that raising a generation on this would result in every kid trying to indicate that "in fact I am a bisexual non-binary femme and not a cis straight girl, even though I've only dated guys and am married to one", because being cis het is not only boring and dull but also bad and wicked and systemically oppressive?

And we're getting it now with the trans thing. And I think it serves the genuine trans people poorly, because the fringe cases, the extremists, the batshit insane, and the 'hop on the trend bandwagon' types are getting all the publicity and making ordinary people think "well if this is what trans means, I want nothing to do with it".

Maybe you think "hurrah, a ten year old trans model!" (who is now thirteen) is an improvement for the world, I look at that and go "a manipulative crazy bitch conditioned her kid into this because she's the extreme form of a Stage Mother and is using the kid for attention and praise reflected back on her". Munchausen's By Proxy involves adults causing genuine harm to the child in order to make the adult feel better. I think that's what is going on here, and instead of heaping praise on the Brave and Stunning mothers like Dee McMaher and Jeannette Jennings we should be taking the kids away and giving them a chance to breathe and figure out if they're really trans, or gay, or just needing help navigating difficult circumstances.

Gee who would have thought that raising a generation on this would result in every kid trying to indicate that "in fact I am a bisexual non-binary femme and not a cis straight girl, even though I've only dated guys and am married to one"

… so? Trans minors I can see the issue on, because of the health hazards etc. But who the fuck cares if girls are identifying as bi on a kind of flimsy basis? How does it have any effect on the world besides making it a little bit more colorful, a bit more fun to live in, a little bit freer? Imagine a world with a restrictive binary of registered Vegetarians and Meat-eaters, with a small minority of Omnivores. I think encouraging people to view being an Omnivore as cool, and register themselves as such in greater numbers, would be a generally good thing even if some of the new Omnivores still eat many more greens than meat. On the margins, it's encouraging them to experiment more, to feel free to try more things. They can still eat a mostly-veggie diet (ie date mostly men) if that's what they actually want.

Maybe you think "hurrah, a ten year old trans model!" (who is now thirteen) is an improvement for the world,

Not particularly, but frankly I'd hardly be less skeptical of any mother pushing a ten-year-old into a modeling career. The gender aspect seems very secondary to what's gone wrong here. And to the extent the mother might in this case have pushed the kid towards identifying a certain way, I'm not suddenly in favor of pushing people into a certain gender presentation just because you've flipped the polarity. I'm all about freedom. I'm against coercion whether it's enforcing birth sex or doing the exact opposite. The former is, I think you'll agree, a lot more common - there are many, many more mothers obsessively teaching their little girls to clean up nice and be pretty, than teaching the same thing to their hitherto-sons - but sure, to the extent the latter happens, I'm against it too.

but frankly I'd hardly be less skeptical of any mother pushing a ten-year-old into a modeling career.

I am definitely in agreement with that. What I find repugnant is all the cheerleading by the media coverage over it. We have more than enough stories of modelling being a career that can be destructive for adults, but shoving a ten year old into being a LGBT role model in an industry that devours and spits out young hopefuls is meant to be a heart-warming success story and not one of "here's a parent willing to throw their kid into a meat grinder so the parent gets attention and head-pats".

The "I'm totally bi even though I've never done nothing about it" if confined to silly girls (and women) is relatively harmless, it's when they start trying to make this An Identity and pushing it on others that it becomes a nuisance. No, you're not queer. No, I don't care. No, don't try and tell me you are being persecuted because you are 'straight passing'. The fun part of the irony there is that they're doing this about the LGBT++++ set being insufficiently falling over themselves to celebrate the wondrousness of the "so bi it's invisible" lot; now they have to deal with the obnoxious 'I am so a real queer' types the way straight people had to deal with the obnoxious 'I'm the only gay in the village' types.

It's a [transitioning] memetic something but I reject the term "hazard". I think it's a boon to human flourishing, and it needs to spread harder, so long as we can decouple it from dangerous medical procedures.

You are ignoring the fact that for many, many trans people, transitioning is inextricably coupled with "dangerous medical procedures". That is, its impossible to decouple the dangerous medical procedures, from the sense of purpose and fulfillment that a completed gender transition gives; that sense of purpose is fulfilled by those dangerous medical procedures.

I happen to think the world is considerably better for having trans people in it, and that most people are happier transitioning than they would have been in a counterfactual world where they didn't. (Not because it was written on their soul in golden ink from birth that they were the opposite gender; just because gender transition is a fun thing to do with your life and imbues the transitioner with a welcome sense of purpose and fulfillment, like any other arbitrary self-improvement project.)

And here is the crux of the issue. What if I believe that transitioning is not a good thing, and people who transition actually feel worse than they would be in the counterfactual world where they didn't transition? How do we resolve this tension? The only way is to actually analyze the relative happiness levels of transitioners, how and when they transition, and the relative psychological profiles of transitioners and trans people (those who don't transition) in general; in other words, medicalize the issue. And if we do this type of analysis, at best the benefits of transitioning, both for minors and adults, become unclear and murky. At worst, gender transitioning actually seems to make the quality of life for people to be worse; it appears that it actually causes harm in the transitioner - the evidence for which the commentators in this forum have showed to you at length.

A heroin habit is also a fun thing to do, that imbues the junky with a sense of purpose and fulfillment -- I don't happen to agree that this should be illegal, but glorifying it is clearly not great for society. (or, objectively, the users)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats