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 -
As a straight, cis-by-default guy, I have a mild preference for female characters. Not sure if that makes me crypto-trans or something. Here is my reasoning:
I think that for mainstream games like ME or Cyberpunk, there is enough demand for female main characters that it makes sense to provide both options, even if you have to cast some lines with two sets of pronouns.
I agree with your points on story-writing, though. A thinly veiled allegory for whatever the cause of the day is (no matter the political leaning) rarely makes for an engaging story.
The Mass Effect 2 character has a phenomenal ass. It was the first time I picked a girl character and it was a great call
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah I'd suspect most people who play female characters are straight men as well. The actual "female gamer" demographic is likely much smaller than most would admit.
More options
Context Copy link
Just sounds like you're a straight man tbh. And I've yet to be persuaded that "cis-by-default" means anything.
"Cis-by-default" is trying to motion toward the difference between the sort of straight guy who'd react to a Ranma'ing by poking his own breasts and giggling for three hours straight, and the sort who'd immediately douse their head in boiling water. (To turn back into a man, right?)
Ozy originally had a poll from somewhere saying some sizable number of men in that situation claimed that they'd go full suicidal, but I can't find it or any real references to it, so I can't look back at how well-designed it was, and even the summary had a lot of questions unanswered about how performative that claim was. But from a revealed preferences sense, you do get a lot of similar outputs: most obvious in smut where some fraction of guys get really uncomfortable with (especially but not only VR) female protagonist games even in F/F-only contexts, but also more subtly the difference between guys that are bored by and those that are outraged by having to learn about woman-specific things like traditional makeup use.
That said, yeah, I agree quiet_NaN doesn't seem crypto-trans. I've clocked people wrong before, but at minimum I'd expect a crypto-trans person to either really like the gay romance option or at least mention the lesbian option for an alternate universe Witcher 1, even crypto-trans people that don't fit Blanchard's typology.
The point of "cis-by-default" is that most people don't have a "gender identity" in the sense that transactivists use the term. (Google AI provides the definition "Gender identity is a person's internal, deeply felt sense of being a man, woman, both, neither, or another gender..." which I think is consistent with transactivist use). I don't have an internal, deeply felt sense of being a man - I just am one. The question of "how would you feel if you woke up in a female body?" doesn't make sense - I am my body as well as my brain, and the person who had a female body (complete with different musculature, menstruation, gonads that secrete oestrogen etc.) would be a different person.
I think the concept of gender identity is incoherent and nobody has a gender identity - some people have preferred gender roles that don't match their biological sex, and some people have fetishes which mean they can get off by performing a gender role that doesn't match their biological sex. But if tomboys and femme queens think they "really are" the other sex it is because transactivists tell them to, not because they have an "internal, deeply felt sense of being..."
The original essay is available online. I get that you're trying to reject its assumptions, but I don't think you're really succeeding at it so much as arguing over definitions.
If we replace the Ranma or Ozy's thought experiment instead with "how would you react if a mad-but-exceptionally-skilled plastic surgeon kidnapped you and gave you the exact outside appearance and vocal patterns of the opposite gender, without messing with your gonads, menses, yada yada; we'll call the population that had this done to them momen and sound like a bad scifi flick, they're tots not women-in-your-specific-sense", and one half of the subject population immediately slit their own throat, and the other half got slightly annoyed about having to replace their wardrobe and learn how bras work, it'd be compatible with your claim and Ozy's.
Guilty as charged. Fundamental to my position on trans issues is that the concept of a "gender identity" as used by transactivists is probably incoherent, and if coherent does not describe a real thing. That requires trying to clarify the definition of a concept whose authors made it deliberately slippery in order to support motte-and-bailey arguments.
There is a much saner argument you can have about trans issues if you conduct the argument in terms of generally accepted concepts. Some men want to live as women (and vice versa), and potentially take drugs and have cosmetic surgeries to allow them to do so more effectively. Should adults be allowed to do this? (Default answer given the basic assumptions of Western liberal society is "yes" on the usual liberal grounds) Should children? (Head exploding issue in western society - there is a vast class of issues about how the State as parens patriae and the actual parents share authority over and responsibility for children who are too young to effectively exercise their own freedom and we don't have satisfactory answers.) Should people who do this be protected by anti-discrimination laws? (marginal - it's about as strong a case for the T as for the LGB)
But that isn't the argument that the trans movement want to have. I'm not the one who made this about the meaning of words - it started when a powerful political movement tried to make the meaning of the word "woman" a central political issue.
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, this doesn't quite fit because I'd be going from it being easy to play my biological role to it being difficult to play my biological role. You really can't dispense with the fully functional for phenotypical sex shift, that's load bearing.
This is probably something that's just inaccessible to me, but would that really solve that many people's discomfort? If biological role means reproduction, I can give examples of people who'd be happier if they could knock someone else up by scissoring hard enough, but the latter is one of the rarest kinks I've ever seen. Guys who'd want female reproductive organs and get knocked up are more common... and still one of the central examples of kinks most straight guys are extremely uncomfortable with.
If it's something about muscles or hunter/gatherer breakdown, that seems less likely to directly squick, but more likely to just not have a lot of people care and a few people really care.
It being inaccessible is I guess the point, but yeah, I'd much rather become fully female than stuck in between, which is one of the things that horrifies me about the whole 'transition as medicine' because it really can't deliver. Being stuck between would mostly distress me because I'd have a broken body that can't really do either gender role, it would be like finding myself crippled. It's not even just strictly the whole form baby thing, although that alone would be huge, but it would make all sorts of relationships more strange.
The whole thing about being cis by default is that you can offload a lot of whatever it is trans people claim to feel about their social dissonance onto just following these really straightforward scripts. I'm a guy, I can wear the normal guy clothes, go to the gym and follow a bro split to get moderately good results, and a thousand other things that pretty much just work. If I'm stuck in between then I'm in the wilderness. Nothing is designed for you, even if you pass then there is a surprise penis you need to explain to perspective partners.
That may all seem pretty trivial to someone with a strong sense of gender, and it all really is logistics, but hopefully it serves to highlight that it isn't the girlness or boyness that bothers me, it is the logistics and a full transition just has intrinsically better logistics. I think this reflects the intent behind the original cis by default concept because it avoids the whole being crippled thing and tests only if you care a lot about the girlness or boyness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can imagine a sci-fi scenario where your brain is transplanted into a female body. You’d still be you. Exposure to oestrogen would change your personality to an extent, but it wouldn’t be instantaneous, and it would be a lot more limited than if you had been exposed to it in the womb or during childhood.
Now of course brain transplants are currently purely theoretical but cross-sex hormone therapy isn’t. Cis men who have taken oestrogen (more common in the past to treat testicular or prostate cancer) report higher incidences of depression, anxiety, body image issues from feminisation, loss of libido and sexual dysfunction, and emotional volatility.
Meanwhile trans women usually report the opposite and their mental health is improved from the exact same hormones. Weirder anecdotal reports are cis men complaining of brain fog from taking oestrogen, while trans women saying the hormones actually lifted their brain fog.
It's actually very much in doubt to what extent "you" resides in your brain specifically -- the nervous system is much more complicated than that.
You don't think that those symptoms could be related to, y'know -- having cancer at all?
More options
Context Copy link
Would you mind providing a link to this study? I've heard the opposite from the recent controversy over the "mermaids" charity and Cass review, so I'd be interested to see the other perspective on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The thing with Cis-by-default is that the whole point of a default is that you don‘t need to describe it. You can save those bits of information. If you refer to someone as a man, all the default qualities are implied – het, ‚cis‘, normal in every way - unless otherwise specified. Queer theory and the trans movement produce verbal pollution, forcing people to specify useless information we leave out/imply („my pronouns are he/him“). Because they‘re autists who have a hard time with implicit clues. Instead of brave rebels asking questions no one dared to, they force people to repeat answers everyone already knew.
This isn't really what the meaning of cis by default is. It's the trans attempt to square the circle that a lot of people, when asked how they'd feel if they had the body of the opposite sex to make them empathize with the trans discomfort, just shrug their shoulders because besides logistics it just wouldn't be that big of a deal
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