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 -
At the moment, this is the seventh most viewed story on the Guardian.
They call her by her preferred pronouns, but also mention that she was trans:
Naturally they do not spin it as 'trans shooter' but mainly focus on mental health issues, which I find fair enough.
So if you are implying that the woke MSM is burying the story I think you are mistaken.
First paragraph:
The article is 1,291 words long, and it's not until the tenth paragraph, 375 words in that we get any indication that the perpetrator was anything other than a "woman" in the traditional (i.e. adult female) sense of the term: "McDonald said police 'identified the suspect as they chose to be identified' in public and in social media". How many people are going to read down that far?
Also surely not a coincidence that they didn't include a photo of the perpetrator (despite doing so for the Brown University shooting and this UK shooting in September 2024), as no one could possibly mistake him for an adult female.
They may not be burying the story, but they're certainly running interference.
CNN had an article at the top of the webpage this morning. It refers to the shooter as female, which is strictly false, and intermittently swaps between "she" and "they" for pronouns. Eventually, far down the article, it quotes someone else explaining that the shooter was born male.
The central philosophical grounding of transgenderism is that gender is socially constructed (and correspondingly malleable) and thus separable from the biological notion of sex. The idea that a "woman" (gender) is not necessarily "female" (sex) may be arguable, but it is at least comprehensible. Forget expecting future Supreme Court justices to know what woman means--journalists don't even seem to know what female means. Or, more likely: they are part of the trans prospiracy to simply deny facts about biological human sex typing. The sex/gender distinction was drawn for political purposes, and now is being collapsed for those same political purposes. They are pointing at deer and calling them horses.
"Running interference," indeed.
Because the anti-transgender faction, in response to the distinction as initially drawn by the pro-trans faction, was to take social matters of 'gender' and re-cast them as matters of 'sex', thus attempting to undo the exact goal of the pro-trans side, namely that biological sex ought not determine anything in social situations.
That principle is downstream of a more general left-wing ethos, that it is unjust for people to be limited by the circumstances of their birth, and that where we have the ability to make people not thus limited, we ought to do so. From this axiom, one can derive many other left-coded beliefs, which are left as an exercise for the reader.
They haven't re-cast them as sex, they just disagreed with the goal of the pro-trans faction. Seeing that they can't make a persuasive argument directly, the pro-trans side started playing language games, hoping they can hide the ball long enough to push their goals through.
The re-casting was how they sought to thwart the goal of the pro-trans faction.
To the best of my understanding, the pro-trans faction proposed to divide sex from gender, such that all social distinctions would fall under the latter category, and the biological differences would be as private as any other medical history, HIPAA avant la lettre.
The anti-trans faction, believing themselves entitled to know, and act on the knowledge of, the genital/gonadal configurations of strangers, then started referring to 'sex' instead of 'gender', 'males' instead of 'men', and 'females' instead of 'women'; thus allowing them to make the assertion that other people's genitalia are any of their business without being seen to make said assertion, and avoid anyone asking why they are concerned with other people's anatomy.
I am so, so fucking sick of trans activists suggesting that gender-critical people are perverts because they want to know what sex people are, by framing this desire in the most maximally uncharitable way. I've said before that the reason they frame the desire this way because they themselves are so pornsick that they can't conceive of wanting to know a stranger's sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. And, well, my opinion hasn't changed.
So let me try, once again, to explain why it's perfectly reasonable and understandable (and not in any way indicative of sexual depravity) for people to want to know the sexes of the people in their vicinity.
Female people face a disproportionate risk of rape and sexual assault, and most rapes and sexual assaults of female people are committed by male people. Male people also commit a disproportionate amount of violent acts in general, not just sexual ones. Owing to their smaller size and reduced strength & speed compared to male people, female people are particularly vulnerable to assault, including rape and sexual assault: that is, if a male person attacks a female person, then 9 times out of 10 he will succeed in overpowering her. Ergo, if a female person is walking down a darkened lane alone at night and notices someone walking behind her, it matters to her a great deal whether that person is male or female. If that person is male, the female person instantly knows that he is vastly more likely to assault her than if that person is female; and that if he assaults her, he stands a very good chance of overpowering her compared to if the person is female. Thus, knowing whether a stranger is male or female plays a vital role in a female person carrying out a risk assessment. If she's walking down a darkened lane at night and notices a female person walking behind her, she'll probably keep walking; if she notices a male person walking behind her, she might try to duck into a bar or a restaurant rather than risk being attacked.
"Propensity to commit assault and sexual assault" is predicted by sex, not by the unobservable, unfalsifiable "trait" called gender identity. Trans-identified males who have medically transitioned commit violent crimes (including violent sex crimes) at 18 times the rate of female people, which is functionally indistinguishable from the rate at which non-trans-identified males commit violent crimes. In other words, if a female person is walking down a darkened lane at night and notices a male person walking behind her, the fact that said male person purports to "identify as" a woman doesn't change the risk calculus at all. It's a completely irrelevant statement, like whether or not he likes strawberries or enjoys the films of Jean-Luc Godard.
Likewise, physical strength and speed track sex, not gender identity. A male person does not magically become less strong and fast (less capable of overpowering a female person, should he choose to) simply because he purports to "identify as" a woman.
To a lesser extent, all of the above is true of why male people might want to know the sexes of people in their vicinity. When a male person gets assaulted, it's usually by another male person, and male people (being stronger) pose a vastly higher threat than female people. Thus, if a male person wants to avoid getting seriously assaulted, knowing the sexes of the people in his immediate vicinity is of paramount importance: male people are vastly more likely to commit assault than female people, and vastly more likely to cause serious injury should they choose to. If you're a male person walking through the streets and a drunk female person starts mouthing off at you, unless she has a broken bottle in her hand then she's at worst an annoyance. But if a drunk male person starts mouthing off at you, then you may want to beat a hasty retreat, as there's a very good chance he's capable of killing you with his bare hands should he choose to.
As a final point, this really has nothing to do with "genitals". "Sex" really just refers to the reproductive organs a person was born with, not the reproductive organs they currently have. As previously established, even emasculated males are vastly more prone to committing violent crimes than female people.
Well, I just told you why they're so concerned. I've been moving in gender-critical circles for years, and most of these activists are not the least bit shy about explaining why they want to know the sexes of the people in their vicinity, especially in intimate quarters. You're acting like there's some ulterior motive they're refusing to disclose, but that's just – a lie, I guess?
I mean, if this is the state of affairs you want to bring about, I can't stop you. But politics is the art of the possible, and what you're demanding would make King Canute roll his eyes. While sex is ultimately determined by whether you were born with the organs associated with the production of small or large gametes, contra your dark insinuation, getting a close look at these organs is rarely necessary in order to identify a particular person as male or female, and we have a range of near-instinctive heuristics to do the job for us (height, wingspan, facial features etc.). From as young as 3-6 months old, babies can already distinguish male faces from female, before they even know what genitals are. Like it or not, virtually everyone can accurately "clock" an individual's sex within seconds of meeting them, even if that person has spent a small fortune doing everything in their power to try to pass themselves off as a member of the opposite sex (as freely admitted by innumerable trans people). Certain parts of one's medical history can (and should) remain private: if you've been diagnosed with HIV, if you suffer from diabetes, if you have a prosthetic leg etc. Other parts of your medical history simply cannot remain private: if you suffer from obesity or require the use of a wheelchair, everyone you pass on the street knows about it, sorry. No prizes for guessing which category "sex" falls into. This isn't even me passing comment on whether it would be desirable if our sexes were known to ourselves and no one else: I'm just pointing out that, with very few exceptions, most people can reliably infer most people's sexes at a glance.
(I can envision one hypothetical state of affairs in which an individual's sex really was a private matter: if everyone, male and female, was required to wear burqas in public, platform shoes to normalise their height, shoulder pads to normalise their perceived wingspan, chest binders to flatten their chests if necessary, and vocal processors to disguise the pitch of their voices. Boy, it didn't take us long to end up in the trans version of the "Harrison Bergeron" universe, did it?)
It's really tiresome that you're insisting that gender-critical people are disgusting perverts simply for accurately inferring a trait about someone that pre-verbal babies reliably can before they've even achieved object permanence. Or are you suggesting that 6-month-old babies are also creepy sex pests because they can tell male and female people apart? Goddamn, this whole "every accusation is a confession" concept is really paying down dividends.
I also just want to come back to the first part of your comment I quoted:
I will reiterate: babies as young as three months old can reliably tell the difference between male and female faces. This is not some subtle difference that gender-critical people have carefully honed their ability to detect, like a sommelier who can estimate the alcohol percentage of a glass of wine by sight. This is a skill learned from such a young age that it might as well be instinctive. Whether people are "entitled" to know (and act on the knowledge of) the sex of people in their vicinity is beside the point: they do know, at an unconscious, pre-verbal level, and they can no more train themselves out of it than they can train themselves not to experience vertigo atop a tall building.
What you essentially seem to be demanding is that people not use a valuable, evolutionarily advantageous skill that they learned before they could talk; that they pretend not to notice the accurate information this skill is bestowing upon them; that they consciously refuse to make use of this accurate information in their decision making, even if doing so would be in their own best interests. And why should they do this?
Because it makes a bunch of autogynephiles sad when they don't. Because this group of totalitarian, controlling narcissists cannot tolerate the slightest suggestion that anyone, even a complete stranger, is failing to "validate" them and their "identity" 100% of the time, even unconsciously. You are not only demanding that cisgender people yasslight trans people, but also that they gaslight themselves. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
I'm actually sort of astonished that someone could openly promote such a nakedly psychologically abusive worldview without once stopping to ask themselves "are we the baddies?"
If I were to claim that I was entitled to know any other aspect of your medical chart, on the grounds that it is statistically correlated with propensity to commit assault, most everyone would agree that I was out of line. The pro-trans faction is attempting to apply this consistently; the anti-trans faction is the one claiming that genitals are somehow less of a personal matter and should follow a different set of rules making them more of a public interest.
It is possible to, by observation, deduce someone's probable genital configuration, just as it is possible to deduce many other aspects of a person's medical history. However, this does not mean that one is entitled to know whether their deductions are correct, nor that they ought to be brought up in polite company.
The statistical correlations between biological sex and violent crime are claimed by many with whom you are probably familiar to have parallels with race. (I am sceptical of these claims, but the following argument holds even in a parallel universe in which they hold.) If people act on their knowledge of those statistics, innocent people of certain races are subjected to lifelong humiliation and ill-use, until it blows up in everyone's face. Thus, *we regard information derived from that source to be inadmissible.
I, personally, am not making any demands regarding your, or anyone else's, beliefs regarding transgenderism. You deserve the ability to think what you want, and any attempt to deter you from doing so by imposing Consequences is an injustice. The same applies for arguing, in the general case, for your beliefs; I do not endorse any employer refusing to hire you because they read your Posts.
I am only asking that, when it comes to interactions with actual people, you not treat their genitals as relevant by default, and not bring up the matter any more than you would any other medical condition.
I realise that some people on the 'woke' left demand further concessions, and in that circumstance, even though I disagree with what you say, I support your right to say it.
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
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