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 -
A good write-up on a detransition study by the PI (Well, it's a cogent write-up, on its own; I didn't check if it was faithful to the study.)
They subtyped detransition into "Detransitioning with regret," 'Identity evolutions," "Transition ambivalence,' and "Interrupted gender transitions." The biggest surprise to me was the last subtype, since the others were pretty much what you'd expect. (Or, at least, what I'd expected.)
The write-up has a lot of tables and graphs, so block quotes aren't very effective.
To paraphrase the author, this is higher quality information than we had, previously, but the study can't tell us how to use that information... So, how would a utilitarian interpret this? Or a deontologist, virtue ethicist, contractualist, contractarianist, etc?
I kinda don't believe in utilitarians, they tend to use "utility" to cover up their actual values. For example, I'd say that a utilitarian would recommenend improvimg the diagnostic process so that there's less people detransitioning for "identity evolutions" reasons (they hurt their health only to end up where they would have been anyway, without thebmedical interventions), but another utilitarian can just as easily say "well, if they don't regret it, have they *reaaaaally* lost any utils?". Similarly there aren't really utilitarian reasons for favoring hormones and surgeries, over coping strategies to deal with body image / identity issues.
The actual conflict is between Natural Law people and transhumanists.
Also between 'people who believe Elliot Page to be a woman with mental defects, causing her to change her body away from its Natural Form' and 'people who believe Elliot Page to be a man born with a defective body, causing him to try to bring it closer to its Natural Form'.
I'm not seeing it. For one, I've never heard anyone argue fornthe pro-trans position in those terms, so even if such people exist, they're a tiny minority.
Even purely theoretically the position doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I could understand it with regards to someone like Imane Khelif, who's one sex, but due to a development disorder looks more like the other. You could then say that by adjusting his body to be more male, you're bringing it closer to it's natural form.
With Eliot Page, where you have someone with a perfectly healthy and normal female body, but try to change it to be more male, how is that bringing it closer to the natural form?
This is the official, top expert approved line. Why you think "sex change" is obsolete bigoted term and gender affirming treatment is the proper terminology now?
Because the real gender was always deep down there, in soul that got stuck by mistake in wrong body, and must be affirmed by hacking and chopping the body until it conforms to the soul (just like statue was always inside the boulder, and the sculptor just gets it out).
The official, top expert approved line is "bodily autonomy above all else". It doesn't matter if you want to be male one day, and female the other, thus showing there is no single natural state you're aiming toward, it doesn't matter if you have gender dysphoria, thus showing there could be anything unnatural about your current state to begin with, hell, it doesn't matter to them if you are of sound mind. All that maters is that you want to do it in the moment, they believe it's a part of self-expression , and you should be able to change your body the way you change clothes.
"Gender affirming care" is the proper terminology precisely because they wanted to separate the treatment from the questions of the body and what is natural to it, "gender" is a social construct after all.
To be fair, I think that bodily autonomy generally makes a good Schelling point. There are certainly limits, few would argue that the psychotic who is stabbing himself to kill the spiders crawling inside his skin should get bodily autonomy, but for the most part respecting bodily autonomy seems like a rule which leads to beneficial outcomes.
Nor is the solution of non-interventionism in the absence of a sound mind preferred by the natural law people and cishumanists very coherent. They might excuse the mother who kills her child by refusing the measles vaccine because she does not want her child exposed to chemicals, but get really upset with a mother who does a better job of protecting her kid from chemicals, even though death from oxygen deprivation is the natural fate of a human almost anywhere in the observable universe.
At the end of the day what is an act and what is an omission depends on your subjective moral frame of inertia (obligatory xkcd). Failure to prevent the onset of puberty is not meaningfully different from purposefully inducing puberty, just like killing a patient by turning off their ventilator is not meaningfully different from killing them through the injection of pentobabitone.
Naturally, that does not mean that any intervention is good, just that there are no moral shortcuts which save you from looking at the outcomes. (On the object level, I do not have a race in the "gender interventions in minors" topic, my suspicion is that likely no short and simple rule will maximize utility.)
Yes, well, few as they may be, there seems to be a higher concentration of them in the biggest international association concerned with transgender health.
The majority of the observable universe being the cold vacuum of space, you're quite correct, but the one bit of the universe where humans are typically seen, depriving them of oxygen does usually require some form of intervention. If you want a real gotcha you can say they would be upset at refusing a blood transfusion or a dialysis machine, though even there the Natural Law enjoyers have arguments for why they are ok with that, and not other things.
Puberty is a necessary process for development of not just all humans, not just all primates, not even only of all mammals, but practically every animal observable to the naked eye, that anyone will ever run into. Without it it, you lose access to one of the core functions of your body. You can say that it might be worth it under specific circumstances, bot it's loony say they're the same.
The ventilator itself is an active intervention, while puberty is, again, the process of developing a core function of one's healthy body, making the analogy somewhat stilted.
This is where most utilitarians cheat. It's not enough to look at the outcomes, you need a moral framework to judge those outcomes by.
I got used to the "no dog in this fight" folks, but I'd imagine you'd have somethimg to say about your "real world" model of mental health not really reflecting reality because of this issue.
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