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 -
What is a woman?
I had an epiphany a while back and it's so obvious in retrospect that I'm mad about it. And I don't have anyone else to talk about it with, so you people can suffer this.
They actually don't know what a woman is.
Not everyone. I'm not saying there aren't any AGPs, or bad actors, or just people with extreme dysphoria. But a significant subset, including among the supporters? They actually just don't know.
Like, literally. They are not dissembling. They are not fucking with you. It's not Kolmgorov Complicity. They actually do not have a mental construct for "woman" that is a distinct referent class from a mental construct labeled "man".
I think this is the intersection of a couple of different things.
First, if a core conservative flaw is Othering, perhaps the core progressive flaw is the Typical Mind Fallacy. Think of the guy who can't even pretend to believe that fetuses have souls. Or the dude who looks at a religious extremist screaming "I love killing women and children in the name of my God!", and thinks "This person would adopt all of my beliefs about queer theory if they were just a bit less poor and uneducated and oppressed." Why on earth would that provincial fool do any better at understanding the alien category of "women"?
Especially with the elephant in the room, feminism, insisting that there are no meaningful between men and women that could justify any discrepancy in representation in any professional field. Women are just like men and want the exact same things, right? So, what exactly are the differences you're allowed to talk about?
(Writing prompt: explain gender variances in readership between romantasy and milscifi... to HR.)
And the cruel irony is that a lot of progressive men can traverse that minefield. Just blame the other men for gatekeeping and emotional immaturity. It's not a fair answer. It's not a true answer. But it threads the needle. There are plenty of people who can accomplish that task, because they have the mental agility and verbal IQ to mouth the platitudes while internally running logic straight out of a Hoe Math video.
It creates this doublethink world where everyone is supposed to know what a woman is and how to treat them differently, but never acknowledge the source of that knowledge, or openly admit to any real world implications. In fact, they have to actually deny that knowledge in a mass gaslighting. Remember Darwin? He was doing that all the time. A critical precursor to this epiphany was that time he pulled the mask down a little bit, and expressed his annoyed bewilderment that the rest of us spectrum-y nerds were taking progressive politics literally, instead of understanding it as a cynical exercise in tricking other men into acting like dumbasses.
Now what about the guys who aren't that
mercenarycynicalsocially adroit? What happens when we combine the preceding socially-required doublethink with the common autistic struggle to model other minds? Remember that autistic-to-trans pipeline? Yeah.So what the hell even is a woman, if you struggle to understand other people in general, and you don't think you're allowed to notice any impactful differences between men and women and all of the smart and successful people in your (blue) tribe sneer at the idea of any meaningful differences? The resulting rationalization is like a pastiche of the Jack Nicholson line: "I think of a man, and then add some cuteness and whimsey".
Which is, I observe, is exactly what it looks like when a pro-T prog guy tries to write women characters. They write women as men with some shallow "loli Dylan Mulanney" cuteness, because they don't actually have a mental model of "women" as having any differences in mentality, life experiences, preferences, traits, qualities or viewpoints compared to men. "A woman is a dude who spends 12 hours writing spreadsheets about Warhammer 40k battleships and then adds a heart emoji and a tee hee at the end. Don't deadname her, bigot."
And terfy ladies, you didn't just sow the seeds here. You plowed the fields, fertilized them, then set up aggressive arrangements of killbot scarecrows to fend off any threats to the seeds. I'm not sure how you can recover from that without rewriting a significant portion of third wave feminism, but maybe that's a me problem.
How would you explain to an autistic teenage boy the differences between boy people and girl people? In a way that provides useful guidance and doesn't make T seem like a normal thing for any boy who isn't obsessed with sports? In a way that let's them successfully navigate the differences?
How do you teach them to actually understand the difference?
Well, #1 I'd make him do some sports. That's the easiest way for any teen to get on the path of appreciating the differences between men and woman. That girl who was good at tag? Guess what, when you both at 15 shes no good anymore. Even the slow boys are beating her. And physical activities involving even a modicum of contact like basketball? Forget it. Its not just that she can barely jump by comparison, its that any man that does even a little physical activity can just move her. And, its actually scary in many ways, because you will be afraid that you are going to break her. Which you could easily do on accident.
Eh, actually 15 is still in the danger zone. Girls will have started puberty 1-2 years ahead (12-13) and so at 15 will still be ahead or apace. The boys will overtake them, of course, but sometimes not quite at 15. It's just at the inflection point.
The adult women world champion football team is losing to the under-16 boys' teams (not even the champions) regularly.
There are many 15 year old boys who haven't quite hit puberty all the way yet. Presumably none of them on the u16 teams.
You don't need to hit puberty all way to beat a 15YO girl, what are you guys smoking?
I'm smoking about what you'd expect me to smoke at a rock climbing gym, where I routinely see teenage girls run circles around (some of!) their age-peer male counterparts.
Part of which is that when you graduate kids from the non competitive "kids classes" programs to the competitive "team" programs, the boys separate pretty severely: some boys hit puberty hard and fast and get muscular and athletic and turn into stars, some barely hit puberty at all until pretty late in high school and turn all gangly around 15 unable to climb like either a kid or a man. (Girls face a similar set of problems with puberty, in that some get a rack that will not cooperate with a sport built around being light and having great balance).
The idea that men and women are ultimately equal in physical strength and athletic ability is a bizarre feminist political cope.
The idea that any random male can beat every single female in every single sport in every single situation is a bizarre manosphere political cope.
In both cases, evidence is slippery and misapplied.
You say:
Which is a statement about the top end of the athletes of both genders, and then use it in an argument about medians.
Feminists tend to take an obviously true statement like "Caitlin Clark would beat every mottizen in a game of horse" or "no mottizen would hit an oly total of 262kg at 71kg bodyweight" and bootstrap that into "therefore gender does not have any predictive value of athletic performance" which is obviously false.
Is that the idea that was being put forward? I thought we were talking averages and percentiles.
This particular subthread starts with our learned friend in argument @anti_dan stating that to explain sexual dimorphism to an autistic 15 year old he would...
And @anon_ (apologies if I'm misstating your point) and I are pointing out that reality is actually a really noisy signal, and that taking your 15 year old autistic boy and making him play sports (which everyone should do anyway) may or may not lead directly into an understanding of sexual dimorphism. Depends on the kid, depends on the sport, depends on the social groupings the kid is involved in. It's not as simple as "every man is stronger than every woman" and human beings are notoriously bad at dealing with percentage chances that aren't 100/0 or 50/50.
Hypothetical: an only child homeschooled 15 year old boy, the rock climbing gym is his PE class. ((I know several kids/families like this irl, the parents are climbers and think it's a great way to get their homeschooled kid both exercise and socialization)) Which factor is going to cleave reality at the joints better to classify human beings by physical ability: whether they have tits, or whether they have their own climbing harness? In rock climbing, having tits will allow me to say with certainty that you aren't in the top 1% of climbers in the gym and you're less likely to be in the top 5%, but beyond that it has little predictive value: plenty of women climb 5.11 or 5.10, plenty of men can't. "Having your own climbing harness" allows you to make a pretty accurate hard cut: people who don't own gear pretty much never climb anything tougher than a juggy 5.10a. Athletic freaks who climbed 5.11 before buying a harness have been much rarer in my life than women who climbed 5.13.
So is our rock climber kid going to classify reality first by male/female, or by climber/civilian?
I do think that athletics is exposure to reality, hence why Plato tells us that Gymnastics is inimicable to Tyranny. Over time a kid will develop a nuanced understanding of the reality of sexual dimorphism. But, you know, it'll take time, and long exposure across multiple fields, and it will probably be quite nuanced.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link