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 -
Hard disagree. Adults applying for roles in which they are responsible for safeguarding children will often undergo vetting regarding aspects of their medical history which might make them improper candidates, such as submitting to drug tests. I don't think the claim that a person who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis is an improper choice of guardian would strike "most everyone" as unfair.
Just so we're clear: the overwhelming majority of humans on this planet have zero problem, none, with people correctly pointing out that they are an individual of [sex], and that this trait of theirs has predictive power in an array of different domains. Maybe you'll say that these people are brainwashed by false consciousness and that in the post-gender utopia they'd realise how strange and inconsistent this was, but it's simply a statement of fact that most people really do not have any problem with this. Demanding that we change our entire society from the ground up, the inferences we are permitted to draw about each other, how we communicate with one another, how we refer to third parties in their absence – all to appease a tiny minority of extremely strange, emotionally stunted people, who are driven to tears and death threats by banal statements of fact like "as a male person, you are stronger than most female people". I'll reiterate: this set of policy demands would be totalitarian if it wasn't so farcical.
A specious analogy, as I've argued before. The difference between black people and white people is quantitative only: black people commit assault and murder more often than white people, but white people still commit assault and murder. The difference between male people and female people is both quantitative and qualitative: the proportion of female people who can forcibly penetrate people with their reproductive organs is 0. The proportion of female people who can forcibly impregnate people is 0:
Moving on:
Is your claim that male people are currently being subjected to "lifelong humiliation" because female strangers correctly deduce that they are male (the demographic responsible for a vastly disproportionate share of rapes and sexual assaults), and treat them with the appropriate level of wariness? I still just can't fucking get over this: you find it so humiliating when a woman crosses the road to put some distance between you and herself, that female people collectively should voluntarily put themselves in harm's way, exposing themselves to greater risk of rape and sexual assault than they already do, specifically to spare you that minor indignity?
This is a positively sociopathic level of disregard for women's safety and well-being. I'm not exaggerating or being the least bit facetious: this is such a selfish, self-absorbed worldview that it sounds like something a serial killer would write. You legitimately think that "innocent men being subjected to lifelong humiliation" is a more pressing societal issue than women being raped. It reads like a parody of sophomoric MRA bullshit.
Well, your request is ridiculous, and I'm not going to. The only people capable of forcibly penetrating other people are male people. Male people have vastly higher sex drives than female people. Male people are vastly stronger than female people. Male people are vastly more prone to aggression and sexual violence than female people. All of these facts are true, and they do not stop being true just because the male person in question purports to "identify as" a woman. A person's sex (not their "genitals", as you insist on referring to them: never miss an opportunity to imply that your interlocutor is a deranged pervert) is one of the most useful traits one can know about a person and to make predictions about their behaviour, beliefs and worldview, and to say otherwise essentially amounts to mind-body dualism. I don't care if that makes some creepy men in dresses sad: it's true.
More options
Context Copy link