site banner
PaperclipPerfector  18d ago (text post)   26575 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's have some more CW over trans issues, because we can never have enough of those, right?

Now, I've been gently chided by other commenters on here about my attitude regarding transgender activism. It's only a few edge cases and nothing to do with the reality of trans people's lives, I get told.

So here's a story I stumbled across that is happening in my own country. I'm hoping really hard that this is just a legal stratagem and not a guy who is now a gal claiming "I am too the biological mother of this child" for realsies:

A British trans woman, who used her frozen sperm to have a baby with her wife, has been granted permission to bring a High Court challenge against a refusal by the State to grant Irish citizenship to the child on the basis that she is not the biological mother.

The woman – who has Irish citizenship while her wife does not – submits that if she has to claim to be the “father” of the child as part of the application, it would be an “offensive, discriminatory and unjust attack” on her person, gender identity and legal status.

...The woman is seeking a declaration from the High Court that she is legally and genetically a parent of the child.

She is also seeking an order compelling the State to register the child on the Foreign Births Register and for the child to be granted citizenship under Section 7 (1) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956.

Persons born outside of Ireland who have an Irish national grandparent born in Ireland may obtain Irish citizenship through registration with the Foreign Births Register, which is maintained by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

In submissions to the High Court the woman, who was born male, states that she is a UK resident but with Irish citizenship through her own lineage.

The submissions state that the woman had stored sperm with a UK fertility clinic, intending it to be used at a future date. She changed her name and transitioned from a man to a woman under UK law, receiving a UK gender recognition certificate.

The woman married her female partner and frozen sperm was then used to have a baby with her wife by an IVF procedure at a UK clinic.

The woman says she fears any UK withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights would mean her family could lose its protections and status in that country.

It is submitted by the woman that her child was refused entry into the foreign births registry – thereby denying Irish citizenship – as the woman was not the biological mother of the child and because her wife, who gave birth to the child, was not an Irish citizen.

The woman submitted that the Department of Foreign Affairs informed her that “under Irish law, as applied to date, the mother of the child is the woman who gives birth to the child and therefore the child would derive their citizenship through that mother”.

It is claimed by the woman the department’s position is that, because she is not the biological mother of the child, she therefore does not meet the requirement of an Irish citizen parent and the application cannot proceed.

The woman further submits that she could have claimed to be the “father” of the child and “could have possibly obtained citizenship by descent that way”.

“I feel it would invalidate me as a trans woman, invalidate my legal status as a woman and invalidate my same-sex marriage,” she said.

The woman submits that if she had to claim to be the “father” of the child, it would be an “offensive, discriminatory and unjust attack” on her person, gender identity, legal status and on same-sex marriage.

I'm trying to be sympathetic here, but my well of the milk of human kindness seems to have run dry. If this person applies as the father of the child, the child can be granted Irish citizenship and this will recognise the parent as "legally and genetically a parent of the child". Otherwise, they are asking our High Court for a ruling that (a) the child has two mothers and no father (b) being trans means you are biologically a woman (c) even if she didn't bear and give birth to the child she is still a mother not a father (d) in future such cases, the mother of the child is "whoever wants to call themselves the mother" and not "biological mother".

Remind me again about how, silly normies, gender is not the same as sex and we're not making any claims that biological sex is the same thing as preferred gender, so just shut up and give in on our totally reasonable requests? I don't care if this person calls themself daddy, mommy, or XibablaMakiNooNoo as parent of the child, what I do care about is precedent that "trans gender you identify as is now the same as your biological sex, now if you're a trans woman you're a mother even if you're the father because calling you the father would be offensive, even though you are a father not a mother" for future cases. If the precedent is set, it won't be limited to "parent of child wishing to be identified as legal mother not legal father".

EDIT: I think my main objection here is the twisted logic on show: "You can't call me a 'father', I'm a woman! women are not fathers!" Yeah, but people with functioning male reproductive systems that are capable of getting cis women pregnant can be women. Uh-huh.

I already expressed my thoughts on why this case in particular is not actually about transgenderism downthread, and the decision doesn't contradict her being a woman.

EDIT: I think my main objection here is the twisted logic on show: "You can't call me a 'father', I'm a woman! women are not fathers!" Yeah, but people with functioning male reproductive systems that are capable of getting cis women pregnant can be women. Uh-huh.

I don't see anything twisted in this logic at all.

I'll start with my steelman for transgender ideology, so you know where I'm coming from. I am aware that the stance in practice varies between activists, and they often contradict one another, but I suspect the framing I give below would still make most anti-trans people unhappy, so it is not about "twisted logic", but rather a values difference.

Without any kind of gender theory:

  • Humans can be separated into the categories "male/men" and "female/women" (male/men, woman/female and sex/gender are synonyms)
  • These categories are hard to verbalise. There are a bunch of single criteria (XX vs XY, penis vs vagina, ovaries vs not ovaries, etc) that almost totally overlap, and deal with most cases. And they all make up the definition: a woman is still a woman after a hysterectomy (because she satisfies all the other things)
  • But the existence of these categories, and the way we assign people into them, is common-sense to everyone (outside of extremely rare medical cases)

Let's call this the "old" system ("cis(hetero)normativity", I suppose)

Now let's make binary transgender ideology (just 2 genders for now):

  • I define a new sort of identity marker (next to stuff like race, sex, age, etc) called "gender identity" (or "gender" for short)
  • This is a redefinition of the old concept of gender. We will still keep the word "sex" to refer to the old-fashioned thing above.
  • I also redefine "man", "woman", "boy" and "girl" to now refer to gender identity, instead of sex
  • Same for any other gendered (pro)nouns (fireman, mother, lesbian, etc) - we can only refer to sex by male/female (and references to sex should be avoided where possible)
  • Being a man/woman means sincerely wanting to be (EDIT: mostly) male/female (this, but unironically)

To address the typical complaints/questions about gender ideology:

  • This is not tethered to claims about objective reality: nothing about trans women having "female brains", the effect eostrogen has on sports performance, etc - this is a purely moral framework
  • There are no weird logical contortions about how sex is a spectrum. Sex is real, but it just shouldn't talked about for moral reasons.
  • In this framework, it does not count as a "lie" to use trans people's pronouns. It is merely an acceptance of a redefinition of language, and agreement to look at things a different way (people might still be uncomfortable with this, but it wouldn't be an objective lie, like saying "the sky is red")
  • The definition of man/womanhood is not-circular (it goes back to referencing the already established notion of sex)
  • There is the issue of practically judging "sincerity" of desire. But I think most anti-trans people are unhappy even in cases where there is clearly a sincere desire (e.g. this one!)
  • And as for the general "Is a [bunch of masculine features] person really a woman? Seriously?" type "questions": yes. That is what this framework includes under the category of "woman" - you can of course morally oppose the framework on this basis. But it doesn't prove the framework itself is illogical.

With this framework, let's address your complaint.

"You can't call me a 'father', I'm a woman! women are not fathers!"

Correct, she is not a father. She is a woman, and fathers are men. Calling her a father is in direct violation of transgender ideology ("transphobic", if we wish to pathologise it)

Yeah, but people with functioning male reproductive systems that are capable of getting cis women pregnant can be women

Individuals with "functioning male reproductive systems that are capable of getting cis women pregnant" are males, and are typically men. But they do not have to be men, and in this case, the individual is not a man, she is a woman.

Now of course, this framing I gave above doesn't get respected by TRAs in real life. Indeed, the woman in this very case makes a mistake:

“I feel it would invalidate me as a trans woman, invalidate my legal status as a woman and invalidate my same-sex marriage,” she said.

She is supposed to say same-gender marriage! (Or gay/lesbian, which sounds less awkward than "same-gender")

Remind me again about how, silly normies, gender is not the same as sex and we're not making any claims that biological sex is the same thing as preferred gender, so just shut up and give in on our totally reasonable requests?

You are right to call this out. My most charitable explanation is that she just misspoke when she said "same-sex" (other than that, she didn't say anything contradictory) - though it does seem that as of late, TRAs has started conflating the 2 concepts (more egregiously are the terms MtF and FtM, which refer to sex!)

Personally, my objection to gender ideology is not the social aspect. I ultimately don't care if a man wants to wear a skirt. But I see the discrepancy between the arguments they make and the actions they take. For as much as they say they are simply separating gender from sex, their actions are consistent with wanting to eliminate the concept of sex in humans.

  • "Biological" man/woman? This is offensive terminology.

  • Saying bathrooms/changing room usage is determined by sex? Bigot.

  • Sports separated by sex? "Leave it to the committee" when the committee allows trans women to compete, but get mad if they change it. Simultaneously attempt to argue that letting trans individuals compete with women is no big deal.

  • Attracted to the opposite sex? Genital preference.

  • Surgically altering your body to imitate the sexed characteristics of the opposite sex? Gender Affirmation Surgery.

  • Choosing your sex in video games? Body Type A or B.

  • In the progressive lexicon, there is no single word for the male and female sex in humans. There are acronyms like AFAB, or references to bodily functions (menstruators, chestfeeding, etc.).

Any decision based on sex must be made on gender. Any references to sex that cannot be replaced with gender must be hinted at rather than stated. Sure there's the "charitable" reading of the TRAs confusing their own terminology, but it seems to happen a lot. The most straightforward conclusion I can draw is that the rhetorical separation between sex and gender only exists because they worked backwards from the conclusion that they wanted to be treated like the desired sex in every way possible, and invented an argument that they convinced themselves of in order to square the circle.

With regards to this specific case, I could at least buy the argument if Irish law treated adoptive and birth mother the same. But if this line is true:

“under Irish law, as applied to date, the mother of the child is the woman who gives birth to the child and therefore the child would derive their citizenship through that mother”

then it seems unambiguous that Ireland is not using "mother" as "feminine caregiver," it is using it as "person who carried the baby." The "sex is not gender" argument doesn't fly here because the real source of the conflict is that the state is specifying sex and the plaintiff wants gender to be the standard. The point TRAs don't mention is that when Gender got divorced from Sex, Sex was the breadwinner who named all the words for man/woman, but Gender got literally everything in the divorce. If TRAs had invented new terms for masculine/feminine gender roles, then there'd be no issue because it was clear Irish Law was specifying sex. The actual motivation for the lawsuit is over whether the law is allowed to use mother/father to refer to sex or whether Gender has stolen the word "mother" for all purposes.

The most straightforward conclusion I can draw is that the rhetorical separation between sex and gender only exists because they worked backwards from the conclusion that they wanted to be treated like the desired sex in every way possible, and invented an argument that they convinced themselves of in order to square the circle.

Gender theory itself isn't an argument, but just a way to view the world. And it definitely arose from wanting to be the opposite sex, as you described. But "I want to be a man/woman" is a totally coherent concept.

The "sex is not gender" argument doesn't fly here because the real source of the conflict is that the state is specifying sex and the plaintiff wants gender to be the standard ... The actual motivation for the lawsuit is over whether the law is allowed to use mother/father to refer to sex or whether Gender has stolen the word "mother" for all purposes.

I am not denying this. Trans activism is trying to make wider society adopt the gender theory lens of viewing things, make it the "standard" as you say.

I'm just pointing out that this is not something that can be objectively proven false, and is just a moral preference.

Gender theory itself isn't an argument, but just a way to view the world. And it definitely arose from wanting to be the opposite sex, as you described. But "I want to be a man/woman" is a totally coherent concept.

It's coherent in that there is a desire there, for whatever reason. Part of my frustration admittedly is switching arguments between "this is totally normal, gender roles are all made up" and "go along with it or kids will commit suicide." The "kids will commit suicide" aspect suggests something is very wrong (when this argument is not used as emotional manipulation) but "go along with it" does not follow. To me "going along with it" is like if society decided that the treatment for hearing voices in your head is to say the voices are real, for society to grant personhood to the voices, and to redefine sound from vibrations in the air to anything someone perceives as auditory sensation. It makes the sufferer feel better about having it, but nothing has actually changed about them having it and it all collapses when someone naturally points out the elephant in the room. The only way for this treatment to improve is to increasingly demand conformity to avoiding the topic.

Whenever someone like Jesse Singal questions whether this treatment program is actually saving kids lives he's accused of wanting to kill kids. If you suggest that some kids might be autistic or struggling with adolescence, you get mobbed. Imagine if someone decided to research a drug to deal with dysphoria by suppressing the dysphoria and making them more comfortable in their own skin. And for that matter, if there have always been trans people, don't you find it a little odd that suicide is such a massive concern now as opposed to 100 years ago? If you think a trans kid was bullied 10 years ago, imagine 100. You'd think they'd have been killing themselves left and right and people would have noticed.

I am not denying this. Trans activism is trying to make wider society adopt the gender theory lens of viewing things, make it the "standard" as you say.

In reality they are doing this. From their own claims they are doing nothing, they are just living their lives and mean people are going out of their way to torment them. They act as if they have always been the standard.

  • Gender was always implicitly recognized throughout history because no one went around looking under women's skirts. Spend 5 seconds imagining what would probably happen if someone with a penis was identified dressing as a woman in the past (not counting theater).

  • Cherry picking niche societies with categories like "two spirit." Many of them were societies with strict gender roles that they wouldn't want to live in, and these gender roles were often a form of emasculation.

  • Salami slicing small changes in the name of acceptance, then framing the opposition as overreacting to nothing. Related anecdote: video games have quietly almost entirely changed character creators to say "Body Type A or B", "styles," or unnamed silhouettes, despite choosing the character's sex. They claim that this is no big deal. The right wing owner of the company behind Lords of the Fallen forced the devs to change it to Male/Female. Cue lefties saying they will no longer buy anything from the company. If asked about this discrepancy, Male/Female is appeasing right-wing chuds, Type A/B is "being a decent person" even when localizers changed it from the original Japanese.

  • Claims that non-experts should defer to experts, then denounce any experts/evidence as operating in bad faith and try to personally and professionally disqualify them. Experts that find evidence in their favor are of course neutral and professional.

I'm just pointing out that this is not something that can be objectively proven false, and is just a moral preference.

Moral preference cannot be proven false, this is true. But try comparing believing in gender identity to religious belief and watch the left howl.

Also, I can point out how their arguments in favor of their moral preference they conveniently discard when it leads to outcomes that don't support their moral preference. The "gender and sex are two different things" argument is presented as "I'm not trying to replace sex, I'm trying to add nuance." Then they repeatedly oppose any decision making based on sex, even matters where biology is a main factor. My favorite was another conversation where I also pointed out the discrepancy of it being called gender affirmation surgery despite gender being all in the mind, and was calmly told that breasts are also a gendered characteristic. And their definition of gender is nonsensical. Ask them to define a woman and it means anyone who identifies as a woman. Ask what woman-as-a-concept is, and all you will get is an endless runaround of what it is not.

Sex was the breadwinner who named all the words for man/woman, but Gender got literally everything in the divorce. If TRAs had invented new terms for masculine/feminine gender roles, then there'd be no issue because it was clear Irish Law was specifying sex

Yes, good point. It seems these gender idealogues are trying to hijack the language. Why can't I have a convenient way to refer to, and distinguish, men and women as those terms have been traditionally used?

Here's another example: Suppose a Trans Identifying Man asserts that he is a woman while I assert that he is not a woman but is in fact a man. Theoretically, there is no contradiction there: We are just using words in different ways. So why is it that I must respect his definitions but he is not required to respect mine?

Yes, good point. It seems these gender idealogues are trying to hijack the language. Why can't I have a convenient way to refer to, and distinguish, men and women as those terms have been traditionally used?

Because when wider society thinks this way, it makes the lives of those with genders incongruent to their sex more difficult.

...Theoretically, there is no contradiction there: We are just using words in different ways. So why is it that I must respect his definitions but he is not required to respect mine?

There is no contradiction - that is why there is this cultural conflict. Who tells whom how the words are used? Neither way of thinking is inconsistent or based on an incorrect map of objective reality - there is just a question of whose feelings and desires are priotised over the other.

it makes the lives of those with genders incongruent to their sex more difficult.

Exactly how? (And by the way, I am very skeptical that any such person actually exists. How could such a thing even be verified?)

there is just a question of whose feelings and desires are priotised over the other.

Agreed. In my view, there must be a very compelling case made to justify this kind of societal change in language. And trans activists have come nowhere near making such a case.

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