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 just came across a word that I feel could be very useful in the trans debate: signalment. Specifically, I'm inspired by the way the term is used in verterinary medicine.
I feel like this term captures an important point I've seen brought up in a few contexts - that a person's status as transgender might matter to their doctor, and their sexual partners, but it doesn't matter much to their social interactions in ~90% of cases. "Signalment" seems to capture the idea of "medically necessary information needed by a physician to narrow down their search space and provide quality care." Just as it might be important to know that dalmations are more prone to bladder stones than other breeds, it might be important to know that a patient is "Female, with a hysterectomy, and on testosterone for the last 3 years" because that might provide unique medical information that could be useful to the proper treatment of a patient.
I think it also bypasses some of the issues people take with terms like "biological sex" or "gametic sex."
Instead of saying, "Your biological sex is still male though", to a transwoman, you could instead say, "Your sex signalment is 'male, orchiectomy, testosterone blockers and estrogen for 5 years.'"
Then we could have the following distinction:
Signalment: All the medically relevant information about a patient.
Courtesy title (honorific), personal pronouns and gender identity: All of the social information that will make interacting with the patient easier.
So a patient might be Miss Tiffany Lewis [she/her, woman], with a sex signalment of "male, orchiectomy, testosterone blockers and estrogen for 5 years."
There's actually a rather interesting Yudkowsky essay in an obscure part of the Sequences, where he unintentially obliterates trans ideology IMO. It's not enough even to change the chromosomes, hips, skin, face and so on...
You'd have to rewire the parts of the brain that do sexual pleasure so you're not hooking up a vagina to the penis-pleasure part of the brain. There'd probably still be some male part of you that wants to penetrate women, you'd have to change that too. There are whole bits of the Y chromosome that aren't found in the X chromosome, so you'd have to take those out. What does taking out parts of your chromosome mean for the brain circuitry relying on them?
What would happen if you had a male-type brain hooked up to a female body? Something bad, probably. I believe male brains have slightly bigger volume, so you've got some practical engineering issues too (though studies differ on this). And how do you design the intermediate stages of transferring the male brain to a female brain (the equivalent of neuron-by-neuron upload)?
You certainly wouldn't have the experience of being a woman either, going through high school and gossiping with the girls or other female experiences I don't know about because I'm not a woman. It's an intimidatingly vast problem. One day we might have Miss Tiffany Lewis [she/her, woman], female body (Made in China), male mind, remastered memories, phase three psychotherapeutics. And yet we might still have TERFs saying 'if you weren't born a woman, you aren't a woman, simple as. No matter how many factory-made memories you buy, you don't have our authentic female experiences.'
I'd rather we took up vast bodies of steel and inhuman power, let's leave all this behind.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions
Do all (cisgender) men want to penetrate women?
No, but there's probably something in the male brain that makes them inclined towards penetrating.
Not all men are aggressive but nearly all are more aggressive than nearly all women. There's probably a part of the male brain or hormone-regulatory system inclined towards aggression.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link