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 -
Can I just throw in my opinion that this is a totally uninteresting and pointless case?
Everyone involved agrees on what should happen. The intent of the law is for the biological children of Irish citizens to become Irish citizens - both the parents and the state want this to happen. The only objection is that the trans woman (and biological father of the child) doesn't want to check the box that says 'father' on a government form because she doesn't like how it sounds. This is patently ridiculous grandstanding. The reason it says 'father' is because the genetic material for the child comes from a male and female gamete, and the father is the one who provided the male gamete, so for the purposes of the law (whose intent, again, everyone agrees with) it can't say anything else.
What a waste of time for everyone involved.
Seconded. This seems pointlessly stupid on both sides. The law, in this case, seems to treat parents the same whether they are mothers or fathers. A court should just decide that the parent is indeed a parent and thus their kid gets the citizenship.
If some crazy wants to use the terminology of budding to refer to their relationship to their offspring, that does not change the fact that they are a parent.
In any case where the gender of the parent actually matters, the answer is of course haha no. You get maternity leave iff you are carrying your unborn child in your uterus, however you got that organ. Likewise, if your body is capable of producing sperm, you can be ordered to provide DNA for a paternity test.
More options
Context Copy link
Disagree.
The "trans" father has engaged in maximum levels of grandstanding and rebellion from the world he exists in.
If he wants his children to benefit from the world, he merely must accept normal rules.
All he has to do is be normal and his kid gets normal rules.
Prioritizing your weird rules over normal rules means you are crazy and people should not want your kids as citizens.
Thus, consequences.
Historically, the whole family is lucky to not be exiled.
More options
Context Copy link
It should be an uninteresting and pointless case. The first time it crossed anyone's desk for permission to challenge the ruling, the decision should have been "Look, you can call yourself Queen of Romania for all we care, but you are the biological father of this child, not its mother".
Instead, we're going to have a court case which might get drawn out forever and a day, and I'm not at all sanguine that idiot judges won't make some bleeding-heart decision that yes indeedy, we cannot hurt the tender feelings of this fragile feminine blossom by requiring her to apply as the father.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link