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’m pretty sure “they” are inconsistent because “they” consist of a bunch of vaguely-aligned interest groups.
Those darn Christians, denying allegiance to the Pope one minute and then affirming it when it suits them.
Context is enough to convey that "they" = the people who support and defend transgenderism.
The difference with Christians is indeed that I've never heard an individual Christian sincerely deny allegiance to the Pope one minute and then affirm it when it suits them. Transgenderists on the other hand must switch positions because the indispensably binary framing of the question requires that they do so.
I don't know the formal logic notation but it's logical that only an X can be a trans-Y, therefore no Y can be a trans-Y, therefore trans-Ys are not Ys. QED.
Extend the logic a little further and it resolves to X=X, Y=Y, X=/=Y, and anything that falls outside of X and Y can be Z, or Q, or K, but it's not X or Y. Or we can throw the whole lot out, there's nothing inherently inconsistent in writing the whole thing off and washing one's hands of it.
Trans logic rests on an argument that X and Y are not meaningful categories, and therefore X can in fact be Y. The flaw in the logic is plain to see (only one of those conditions can be true) and if you press them on one they must abandon the other to defend it. If you point out that the underlying inconsistency remains they'll switch back as required by the last conditional you pressed on even as it demonstrates the same inconsistency.
The pro-trans position is more like “X and Y are meaningful, but you are sorting some people incorrectly.” This is internally consistent. It explains the vast majority of gender CW issues.
But maybe I didn’t understand your observation. If X and Y really weren’t meaningful, why would they have to be disjoint?
If X and Y are not meaningful then what would it mean for X to become Y? Nothing, it's empty semantics. X can have none of the qualities of Y and be Y regardless because X and Y no longer have any qualities that meaningfully separate them. The only thing that's changed is the referent. Some Xs are now called Ys, no other changes required.
Sorting X from Y, whether correctly or incorrectly, requires a coherent method to discern X from Y. That's what imparts meaning to the labels.
To wit, if a woman can have a penis then why can't a woman have a male name, male pronouns, wear trousers and use the men's locker room? [Transmen: "Yeah! Why not!" Transwomen: "...Hang on, that's my card you're palming!"] The rest of the women do and you don't hear us complaining.
More options
Context Copy link
If that was the case, there wouldn't be a famous mockumentary called "what is an X" where everyone from lowly activists to supposed experts can't answer that simple question
It has to be incoherent, there is no other way for it to work. If you go with biology, you sort all the trans people incorrectly. If you go with diagnosis, you sort incorrectly all the ones without it, who want to be in the other category. If you go with social roles, you contrdict seven ziilion years of feminism, and sort incorrectly every gender non-conforming person, who's completely happy in their body.
The defintions of X and Y have to be meaningless, or the whole thing falls apart.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know about that particular example but it is common, and I have personally experienced, individual Christians picking and choosing different parts of the Bible to reference according to their instrumental needs. I have not noticed any tendency towards strong logical consistency in Christians vs any other group.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link