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 -
It's not mere contempt though. It's specifically using trans norms as camouflage for bad actors that I'm concerned about. Women are considered less dangerous and awarded more sympathy than men. Trans identified men who are bad actors specifically take advantage of that.
When I heard "Ziz" referred to as "she", I specifically was not on alert for a psychotic man to be active in my social circles and I underweighted the danger from Ziz as my priors were set to "female" and not "male". If I knew there was a murderous psychopath named Jack LaSota going around, that primes my behavior differently.
Trans language pollutes the information commons, to the benefit of evildoers
I understand the issue, I'm not sure how significant it is though. I feel that using preferred gender pronouns can be compatible with being upfront about a person's transness, so any misdirection would be just for a brief moment (for example, a news report can use 'she' while also mentioning someone's trans status right away). So your threat monitoring can resume as normal after just a beat.
To understand your approach better, may I ask how you decide when to 'award' preferred gender pronouns? You mentioned you do it with people who are well integrated. Do you use their assigned-at-birth pronouns at first, and then only after getting to know them and trust them switch over?
In the bay area, there was one particular trans woman who passed well, was sociable, and all around pleasant to be around. She wasn't very forward with the fact that she was trans, so it took me a bit by surprise when I eventually found out. I used her name and preferred pronouns. There were several other awkward non-passing males who haunted the outside of gatherings. I never interacted with them much, and part of my reluctance to do so would have been feeling like I was betraying my own perception and being coerced into using names/pronouns that I did not believe in.
I don't use preferred pronouns for murderers and sociopaths, and I try to use birth name where available. Mr. Wax-my-balls is Jonathan Yaniv, not his preferred porn name Jessica. Ziz is Jack LaSota, and etc.
I think the net effect of having lots of "women raped two kids" headlines is to muddy the waters about the truth of the difference between male and female danger and capability. Sure, it may mention that woman was trans in the article, or you may be able to infer it. But it's pissing in the epistemic commons, and ultimately the point is to make it harder to object when someone pushes for policies which genuinely impinge on women in your life. I don't think bay area people have many children in general, so they don't have to worry about their daughters being forced to room with a weird male, or etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link