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 -
But who fertilized the egg is not what is being asserted, and outside of hospitals and genetics studies, 'who fertilized the egg' is not equivalent to 'father.' A baby wearing a shirt saying 'I love my two dads' isn't engaging in science denialism, it's just an expression of their relationship with two same-gender parents. Ditto for children of a remarried widower calling their father's new partner 'mom.' Gattsuru has other examples above.
In fact it is. The application for citizenship is on the basis of the biological parent who holds Irish citizenship. The mother (woman) isn't an Irish citizen or holding Irish citizenship. The person who fertilised the egg is the one claiming Irish citizenship and requesting it on behalf of the child. Unless we are going to say "words have no meaning at all" which is kinda tricky when we're making legal decisions, the transwoman (gender) is the father (sex) of the child, not its mother.
On what basis have you determined that "father" must refer to sex and not gender?
Reflecting how the word is used in medical, biological and zoological contexts; how the word is used in common parlance; centuries of legal precedent.
Not sure what you mean by this? This certainly isn't how trans people and the people around them, i.e. the people who actually need to make this decision on a regular basis, use the word. Most fathers are cis men, and usage in that context provides no information on this question.
Precedent from times when there was no distinction made between sex and gender is totally meaningless for answering this question.
There are certainly contexts when "father" refers to sex characteristics (e.g. use of the verb father) and certainly contexts when it refers to gender roles (e.g. adoptive parents). You are free to believe that those things cannot and should not be separated. But it's silly to pretend that one of those contexts doesn't exist. Some people think the gender context is more important and can be separated out. That is a coherent view even if you disagree with it.
For most people in most of human history, the word "father" refers to individuals of a particular sex, not individuals of a particular gender identity. Therefore, it is the common definition, the definition used in common parlance. The people using it in the nonstandard way you recommend are a minuscule minority, and there are hundreds of millions of living people for whom the question "does the word 'father' refer to the male parent, or the parent with a masculine gender identity?" would simply be incoherent. If you think the standard definition is deficient, you're welcome to argue in favour of your own, but it's rather obnoxious of you to pretend that everyone's already using your definition and that I'm the weird one because I understand the word "father" to mean "the male parent" and not "a parent with a masculine gender identity".
On the contrary, I think it demonstrates just how recent and faddish this worldview is. Only a tiny minority of currently living humans currently believe this is a distinction worth litigating, and dozens if not hundreds of countries manage just fine without.
I find this response confusing.
If you believe this, you do not understand what people mean by gender identity. Gender and sex are two components of what was previously seen as a single concept. It's not a brand new layer built on top of sex, it's taking certain components and calling them "sex", and other components and calling them "gender". As you say:
It would be incoherent because they do not make that distinction.
Certainly. But you are litigating this distinction:
Or @HereAndGone2 above:
To state it plainly, here are two different statements:
#1 is a coherent view that I disagree with, but it seems you hold. #2 is something you are claiming that seems pretty obviously false to me. It's at best ambiguous, and in actual practice it gets used in line with gender in situations where sex and gender do not agree.
#2 is an incoherent statement unless you reject #1, even if only for the sake of argument. Do you believe that, within the frame where we believe that sex and gender are separate concepts worth distinguishing, it makes sense to refer to this woman as a mother? If not, why?
It would be more accurate to say that I believe sex is a real thing, and that "gender" (and "gender identity") is a meaningless and incoherent concept unworthy of discussion. It's not that I think gender is a meaningful idea, but that it's not the place of the courts to debate it: it's that I don't think the courts should be passing comment on a completely meaningless concept in the first place. As a society, we've been collectively talking about this "gender" concept for decades, but I've yet to come across a simple, cogent, concise and non-circular definition of what the word actually means, and what it means to have a "gender identity" of x.
It is a simple scientific fact that every mammal must have a male parent and a female parent. The identity of one's biological parents is of paramount importance in a range of medical and genealogical context.
By contrast, there is no similar requirement that every mammal must have one parent of each gender identity. In recognition of this basic biological fact (and for the sake of consistency with how the word is used when talking about every species other than humans) I think it's more appropriate if, in the context of genealogy, the words "father" and "mother" are used to refer to individuals of a specific sex only.
You might say that the litigant in this case only wants to be referred to as the child's "mother" and would have no objection to being referred to as the child's "male parent". And I think you're attempting to sanewash the trans activist movement. I think this man would object just as strenuously to being described as the child's "male parent" as he would to being described as the child's "father". 100% of the time when a "moderate" trans activist announces that they're not engaging in science denialism and they're just calling on everyone to acknowledge the distinction between sex and gender – within a matter of minutes, a trans person will invariably show up to assert that, no, I really am "female" and it's dehumanising to describe me as "male".
(This is why I find this case corrosive to scientific fact and sense-making. In the case of adoptive parents, an adult simply wishes to be recognised as a child's primary caregiver, while still acknowledging the adults who are the child's biological parents. This is different: the litigant is the child's male biological parent, but wants to be legally recognised as not being the child's male biological parent. His claim is that this child does not have a male biological parent. You can talk about "recognising the distinction between sex and gender" til the cows come home, but I think we both know what he would say if the question was put to him point blank.)
Even in your example of how the words "father" and "mother" are used to refer to adoptive rather than biological parents, I don't really think this has anything to do with your mystical concept of "gender". Rather, the word "father" traditionally had two meanings:
Typically these two entities would be the same person, but we acknowledged various instances in which they would not be, as in the case of adoption. But I think it's blatant historical revisionism to claim that, when we refer to an adoptive parent as a child's father, this is in reference to his performing the "gendered role" of a father or whatever. On the contrary, I would say that referring to an adoptive parent as a "father" would be historically understood to mean "despite the fact that the child is not his biological offspring, this individual serves as this child's primary caregiver, and this individual is of the male sex". "Gender" or "gender roles" or how the man "identifies" simply wouldn't enter into the discussion at all.
So there's a tendency on the left when discussing this topic to refuse to ever say anything that could possibly construed as denying someone's conception of their gender. This is where the stupid circular non-definitions come from. But reversed stupidity is not intelligence, this does not mean there isn't a reasonable point of view in there. I don't think this is "sane washing", I'm not trying to justify or defend this person's conduct or beliefs, I'm trying to determine what policy is reasonable.
Gender is an attempt to decouple the social roles that tend to be associated with particular sexes from the biological reality of those sexes. I would say gender is essentially "everything that tends to be associated with a particular sex but can be decoupled from the biological reality of that sex". Gender identity is "the set of those things that one wishes to have", and a female gender identity means you largely want to have the things that are associated with the female sex. I'm sure many would take issue with these definitions, but I think these definitions accurately describe how people use these words.
So,
#2 is a central example of something that is gender, not sex. Yes, historically it is people with male sexual characteristics who would be referred to as fathers even in adoptions. But the biological sex is completely irrelevant in this case, if someone could successfully pass as the opposite sex, they absolutely would be treated that way.
Yes, because they do not decouple sex from gender. I still don't understand why you think that this gestalt of "sex" and "gender" actually only corresponds to what I would refer to as "sex" and not "gender". This seems tautologically false?
There is not actually this clean linguistic separation between sex and gender in actual usage, regardless of whether we might wish that was true. "Male" and "female" get used to refer to both gender and sex all the time. But this person likely would use "Assigned male at birth" to mean the exact same thing you mean by "Male". You probably think this is obnoxious, because I do too. But you are talking about the same thing.
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
More options
Context Copy link