site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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 think it is worth noting that on all of this discussion about blockers, blockers are supposed to be the compromise position that was suggested to placate those concerned about youth gender medicine.

You could just let them take cross-sex hormones instead. Hormones are pretty good at what they do in relatively short order, I have seen many examples of people taking hormones for ~3yrs and along with a haircut, passing well. It works the other direction too, all of the physical changes can also be reversed in short order if you desist and let your gonads get back to work producing your natural sex hormones. When you take E or T, it makes your gonads stop, temporarily, producing hormones, because your body doesn't seem to care which hormone you have, as long as you have a sufficient amount of it coursing through you it's satisfied.

If a trans woman hasn't had an orchiectomy, she can get off hormones and father children within 3 months or so. Same goes for trans men getting off T and getting pregnant.

Kid still goes through puberty, won't have to worry about bone density, won't have to worry about IQ loss, etc. Can reverse it later by stopping them whenever.

Oh, hey there. Are you ever responding to that Jaime Reed thing you started?

I think it is worth noting that on all of this discussion about blockers, blockers are supposed to be the compromise position that was suggested to placate those concerned about youth gender medicine.

You could just let them take cross-sex hormones instead.

Is the idea here that you should default to giving children any medicine they ask for, or is it just some special case for hormones?

Oh, hey there. Are you ever responding to that Jaime Reed thing you started?

What about it? Her claims remain ridiculous, she continues to grift off them. The state changed their laws so the pediatric trans health center couldn't operate, the state AG continues to slow walk an investigation into the now-closed center so that he can put out tough press releases every now and then.

Is the idea here that you should default to giving children any medicine they ask for, or is it just some special case for hormones?

Did I say that we should have no controls and no gating whatsoever, thirty second appointments, or are you strawmanning me?

What about it? Her claims remain ridiculous, she continues to grift off them.

What's ridiculous about them? She provided evidence for them. Even for specific claims you singled out as absurd.

Did I say that we should have no controls and no gating whatsoever, thirty second appointments, or are you strawmanning me?

I don't know if it's possible to strawman you, since you keep your opinion implicit. I just noticed you haven't provided a direct argument for the treatments being based on good evidence, and if they're not based on evidence, what is the argument for giving them to children?