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 -
In what world does what I'm suggesting inconvenience non-trans people in any way? It's literally free money, distributed indiscriminately to all citizens.
(I guess you may be assuming that it would require a tax hike to implement, but I don't think so. I suspect it would pay for itself relative to the status quo by eliminating the need for a complicated diagnosis and insurance claim process; even if it doesn't, I would be very happy to reduce funding to some other over-bloated area of government to this end, while leaving overall budget the same. And in any event we aren't talking huge numbers. Counting $20k per person as a rough estimate, we're talking a maximum of what, seven billion dollars nationwide? That is a drop in the yearly Federal budget, and it would be a lifetime allocation, not yearly. Moreover a majority of people would never use their 20k, so a vast percentage of the money would be repossessed by the US gov at no loss.)
How will the market for cosmetic surgery be affected by subsidizing it for literally everyone? How will society and culture be affected by subsidizing cosmetic surgery for literally everyone? You don't know, you haven't given it a second thought. You're a progressive pulling brand new "freedoms" out of your ass that coincidentally boil down to giving other people's money to one of your pet identity groups. Bringing women who want tit jobs or whatever along for the ride is just a sop you're willing to throw in.
After all, it's free money once you take it from other people. What about the overhead, inevitable creep, and probable activist reactions, someone downthread asks? Well golly those would form a fully generalized argument against massive government spending on non-critical issues, and since those can't possibly exist I guess you don't have to answer any of the questions.
Utterly parodical.
I absolutely do not give a single shit about transgender people. I think they should all get psychiatric treatment to stop thinking they're things they're not and get the fuck out of the public sphere. I resent every political force that has behaved as if this bizarre niche sexual practice is entitled to anything but my scorn, and I think the progressive civil rights mantle has been nothing but degraded by trying to extend it to obvious mentally ill fetish bullshit.
In short, I think we're just enemies.
It isn't. I am a genuine transhumanist and I do in fact support transgender people as a special case of my broader principle of supporting people's desire to alter themselves however they damn well want.
Sure they can. But if we decide that they do and we should just have very small government, then there's not much point in talking about the politics of gender transition on its own merits. I have strong opinions on "if there are charitable government subsidies for various things, should gender transition be one of those things" but I have neither expertise on, nor particular desire to discuss, the viability of that "if". It is, quite literally, a different question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The cynical rejoinder is that free money is never free. Firstly it ends up taking a huge amount of time and effort and bureaucracy to collect the money, organise its distribution, and police its usage.
But that's only the start. Soon activists will begin to protest that rich people who can pay for their own cosmetic surgery get 20k of taxpayer money, while trans people who will commit suicide without high-quality gender-affirming care get the same amount. The prices for these operations will change as the cosmetic surgeons soak up the extra funds available. It will end up in the same place as UK national insurance - means-tested to hell and back, too small to satisfy the people who want/need it and far too expensive for the people who pay for it and will never receive it.
Rather, we could just say 'No. Your morphology is your own affair. If it matters to you so much, save up and spend your own money on it'. I'm not sure how in practice your pitch appeals to those who are net taxpayers and think that transness is an unfortunate delusion.
I take the point re: the general swampy Moloch-spiral of any new government scheme - but that's a fully general argument against introducing new forms of government spending, orthogonal to the innate value of the proposal. A conversation on government bloat qua government bloat is not really the conversation I was looking to have; the policy was meant as more of a "here's how I think a sensibly run state would do it" deal than an electoral suggestion.
Well, that's where the one-size-fits-all nature of the policy comes in. As discussed in the tangent with FttG, I'd be happy expanding the scope of the policy such that it encompasses subsidies for forms of self-improvement that Red Tribers might be interested in just as well as pro-trans progressives, such as gym memberships. Besides, in the mid-to-long term, I expect genuinely attractive self-mod options not related to gender to become more and more available and popular; one (wo)man's sex surgery budget would be another man's cyborg-implant budget. Though again, I wasn't really thinking of it in terms of how to "sell" it to a partially hostile nation, just describing how I think a state populated by what I'd call reasonable people ought to do it.
I almost went on a tongue-in-cheek tangent about the fact that rationally, a random cisgender taxpayer can't be sure he or she won't have a gender epiphany in twenty years, and spending a few extra dollars in taxes on supporting the policy would therefore be insurance of sorts. I suppose that actually does raise the serious alternative option of introducing straight-up private-sector "trans insurance" separate from health insurance. Plausibly, enough affluent Blues would buy it as a virtue signal to meet demand, without touching the wallets of anyone who objects.
I don't love that option, because it bakes in gender exceptionalism, whereas an important part of my morpho-freedom-budget idea is that it would serve as a slow lead-in for broader societal acceptance of transhumanism (within which I hope and expect today's gender specific "trans movement" to ultimately dissolve). But it would probably work better than the healthcare kludge we have right now, and would presumably be more acceptable to gender-criticals, as they could keep on buying their health insurance without funding transitions.
Fair enough, if you’re interested in a ‘wouldn’t it be cool if’ conversation. I’m most interested in sensory and mobility stuff - giving more senses and mobility seems to be basically a pure win with very little social upheaval required.
On the practical level, the strong tendency towards bloat means that any such measure would need to be catering to a very strong need that I regard as legitimate and hasn’t been solved any other way, but that’s another conversation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link