site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29495 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Forms of talk therapy are commonly and can be reasonably considered medical treatment as self_made points out with CBT. I have sympathy for the gay teens whose parents shove them into therapy to talk the gay away. I can see why that experience could be stressful or even counter-productive in cases where a predisposition works against the effort. *

I did not put 2+2 together until now, but I am moderately confident I know someone who had a hand in this law. Colorado has interests pushing for it to be the trans state. Apparently they are in dire need of lobbyists who can craft more sound legislation. Colorado thought it solved the the speech problem by limiting it to licensed professionals who could be doing a medicine by exempting priests or your WoW guild leader.

No one seems to have posted the text of the law in question or the transcript for oral arguments:

"CONVERSION THERAPY" MEANS ANY PRACTICE OR TREATMENT BY A LICENSEE, REGISTRANT, OR CERTIFICATE HOLDER THAT ATTEMPTS OR PURPORTS TO CHANGE AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY, INCLUDING EFFORTS TO CHANGE BEHAVIORS OR GENDER EXPRESSIONS OR TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE SEXUAL OR ROMANTIC ATTRACTION OR FEELINGS TOWARD INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SEX.

(b) "CONVERSION THERAPY" DOES NOT INCLUDE PRACTICES OR TREATMENTS THAT PROVIDE: (I) ACCEPTANCE, SUPPORT, AND UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FACILITATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S COPING, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND IDENTITY EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT , INCLUDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION-NEUTRAL INTERVENTIONS TO PREVENT OR ADDRESS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OR UNSAFE SEXUAL PRACTICES, AS LONG AS THE COUNSELING DOES NOT SEEK TO CHANGE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY; OR (II) ASSISTANCE TO A PERSON UNDERGOING GENDER TRANSITION

Helpfully, the law doesn't define many or any of these terms including sexual orientation, gender identity, and affirmation. Perhaps Colorado courts figured that out. I haven't. The Solicitor General argues that of course the law doesn't ban all treatment to change an individual's sexual orientation. That would be silly, because then the statute would also prevent the affirmation practices it seeks to protect. Only the bad version of A-B is illegal in her and Colorado's view, though it is not clear why this is the case to Alito. From oral arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: -- a difference between the argument that you're making now and the argument that I thought we rejected in NIFLA that professional speech is a special category that's outside normal First Amendment scrutiny, but I'll -- let me put that aside and ask about your interpretation of the statute at this stage in the litigation. And let me give you this example. Suppose an adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist and says he attracted -- he's attracted to other males but feels uneasy and guilty about those feelings, and he wants to end or lessen them and asks for the therapist's help in doing so. Under your interpretation of the statute, is that banned?

MS. STEVENSON: So, Your Honor, our interpretation of the statute turns entirely on whether the purpose of the therapy is to change the person's sexual orientation or gender identity. If that minor --

JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, what's the answer to -- what is the answer to my question? Is that banned or is it not banned?

MS. STEVENSON: If the therapist told him or he asked can you help me become straight, the answer would be it would be banned. If it was can you help me cope with my feelings as to how I am and how I want to live my life, that's permitted... This is the way we've interpreted the statute from the beginning of this case. It's the way both of the lower courts interpreted the statute. It's the way every state that has this statute interprets it. And the reason why is because the harms from conversion therapy come from when you tell a young person you can change this innate thing about yourself, and they try and they try and they fail, and then they have shame and they're miserable, and then it ruins their relationships with their family or --

JUSTICE ALITO: I understand -- I understand all of those arguments. What I don't understand is how you can square your interpretation with the plain meaning of this statute

[...]

JUSTICE ALITO: Are you suggesting that everything beginning with the word "including" is irrelevant? That just -- you just want all of that deleted from the statute

MS. STEVENSON: No, it's -- it's illustrative [...] But, if the -- if the minor wants to start dressing like a boy to match his gender identity not because --

JUSTICE ALITO: -- that's just not the way language works...

If you see someone receive talk therapy to turn themselves gay, well, you know that's legal. If you see someone receive talk therapy to turn themselves ungay you know it's illegal. Simple as.

I find it difficult to approach these concepts in a legal setting with any credulity. Sure, I usually have an understanding of what an individual refers to when they mention something about their gender identity. I have ideas on how certain identities are shaped, and an opinion on what extent a "gender identity" is "innate" or the result of repetition or persuasion. An opinion is the extent of it. Someone tap me when there's overwhelming empirical evidence that you can't talk the trans away.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats