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 -
And these are exactly the rights that the trans lobby is asking from legislatures, community groups, and everywhere else. The invented right to compel speech from others regardless of their interlocutors' right to free speech, and the right to force themselves into women-only spaces (including but not limited to sporting teams, change rooms, lesbian communities) over women's right to freedom of association.
In Australia, the Lesbian Action Group (a gender-critical feminist-separatist organization) is currently in the Federal Court against the Australian Human Rights Commission, appealing the AHRC's decision to deny LAG an exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act that LAG sought, to be able to hold women-only events.
The more this has gone on, the more I think the evidence points toward the activist vanguard of the trans lobby being mostly autogynephilic men for whom the primary source of "euphoria" is an ongoing need for active validation from outside that "yes, you are a real woman". Whether this is from physically intimidating smaller women into silence, getting the state involved (example: Jonathan Yaniv and his "wax my ladyballs" crusade), or participating in (and often dominating) women-only community groups and sports.
Under this lens, the fact that the licence says
Mand notFis a reminder, constantly carried in that person's wallet, that the validation is incomplete. That this is intolerable to that person should be obvious.It seems obvious to me, given how well you picked apart the "masterclass in lying" sentence above it. The author is doing motte-and-bailey with punctuation: it's scare-quoted in the hope that the reader learns to flinch away from it as a fnord, but defensible as a direct quote from the regulation or statute.
More options
Context Copy link