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 -
One of the things I've noticed about the media is how they define the narrative by promoting the things that people should be talking about, rather than simply dismiss and ignore. Case in point:
AP News: "New law puts Kansas at vanguard of denying trans identities on drivers licenses, birth certificates"
Note that it's about how trans people must use the correct gender marking (i.e. gender assigned at birth), rather than their own preferred gender, on their drivers' licenses.
I notice that I'm confused as to what "transgender rights" are, and what rights specifically transgender people are demanding that Americans don't already have. Trans people have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for instance. However, the demand that other people refer to you with a specific designation is not really a natural right, and in fact, suppressing or compelling the speech of others is a violation of other people's rights to free speech.
The question of if gender can "change" is purely philosophical and not something that can be settled by research. I can't begin to imagine how research could settle it, unless the research in question is from a hyper-advanced sci-fi future where reversible body modification is possible with no ill side effects.
Is the contradiction here that they can't be protecting women if they don't use favorable labels? If we accept that premise (which I don't), then surely calling women "menstruators" is also not protecting them, but that terminology has been advanced in the name of being inoffensive to trans-identifying males.
I love the multiple layers of lies that get packed into this one sentence. It's like a masterclass in lying while saying something that is technically true.
First, attributing it to unspecified "transgender people" in general. So you can't blame the journalist for printing this statement if it's blatantly false, he is just the messenger.
Second, attributing any supposed harassment from others to carrying ID that "misgenders" them, rather than other factors. They're painting this world where a trans woman (man who says he is a woman) is just like a woman in every other respect of the word, except that he just happens to have "M" on his license, and that causes him to be unduly questioned. In reality, a trans-identifying male can be spotted from a mile away, and if he was ever asked about it (which IME most people are too polite to even do), it was because he was clocked as a man and it's obvious to everyone that he's a man.
Finally, the assertion that they face violence. (To be clear, I mean violence as in physical violence, something that can at the very least be legally categorized as assault. I don't believe that mere speech is violence.) I am going to assert that there are vanishingly few cases where a trans person has faced violence simply on the basis of being trans and nothing else. Out of all the cases I've seen, they faced violence for other reasons, such as being the aggressor or for being involved in sex work.
I'm not saying it's impossible or hasn't happened, but I just haven't seen a case yet that could support the assertion that there are people who want trans people dead or genocided. There are no roaming death squads of extremists hunting down trans people. Being a trans person is quite a safe demographic in America. By and large, most people just don't care about trans people, but they are interested in making sure that trans people don't inflict negative externalities on society.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, we have the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Why the quotes around biological reproductive system? Are biological reproductive systems not a well-defined, scientifically-grounded concept?
My bigger point is just asking why anyone should even care in the first place, including trans people themselves. If I was trans, I would shrug and just accept the "M" designation on my license. To the extent that I would have a problem with the current state of affairs, I would find that the entire licensing regime that the government imposes on the people -- forcing them to register and pay fees in order to drive and participate in society -- is the actual problem here, not merely an unpreferred gender marker. But my stance is that it's not worth it to fight the licensing regime and it's better to comply. Hence, too, I wouldn't care about having the "M" on my license. It seems rather silly to me to question and reject one social construct (gender) while being completely subservient to another (driver's licenses).
And my biggest point is that this shouldn't even be worthy of discussion. If you're going to accept that the government has the right to force you to get licensed, who cares what kind of silly labels they give you? But a mainstream news article publishing this as a headline implies that it's a newsworthy item, a topic of controversy, something that people should care about even though it's really not going to have an impact on anyone's life.
Kiiiind of begging the question here....
Only in the sense that would define most victims of anti-Black violence in the Jim Crow era as not 'simply on the basis of being Black and nothing else'. The modal case of anti-Black violence in that time and place was something along the lines of 'white person Big Mad because black person insufficiently obsequious', or 'black person expects to be paid previously-agreed-upon wages rather than whatever pittance white employer feels like after-the-fact'. These aren't technically, in the narrowest sense, a Black person facing violence simply on the basis of being Black and nothing else; however, they were precipitated by a Black person 'thinking he's as good as a white man', something he has every moral right to be able to do without risk to life or limb, and thus, practically, they round off to that description.
Anti-trans violence follows a similar pattern: some victims are targeted on the basis of 'being trans while thinking of oneself as an equally valid human being rather than a horrifying, disgusting freak'; some are targeted on the basis of 'not performing one's assigned gender to the satisfaction of the Community'.
Speech isn't violence per se, but some speech can carry the implication of impending violence, or can serve the function of coördinating violence; the targets of said speech can't always tell the difference.
No, their first preference would be terrifying them into living by the standards of their assigned gender (which are younger than the New York Times crossword puzzle) no matter how miserable it makes them.
No, just individual bad apples and a barrelful of bystanders who would never personally do anything so vulgar as beat up a todger-bearer-at-birth for being insufficiently masculine, but who don't see it as being as bad as a 'normal' person suffering the same fate. (With their definition of 'normal' being less 'people on the bus' and more 'people at the church sponsored ice cream social'.)
...and just happen to have much stricter standards for 'externalities inflicted by trans people or other non-conformers' than they have for 'people they consider Normal'.
...whom they were interested in making sure didn't inflict negative externalities on society. That did not justify his being killed, because there are worse things than someone causing negative externalities and getting away with it. We expect the people-of-hair-colour, if the only alternative is the murder of people for their political opinions, to absorb the externalities caused by conservative pundits; the same applies to church-ladies being expected, if the only alternative is a combination of State repression and vigilantism making people terrified to put a single toe outside the closet, to absorb the externalities caused by non-heteronormative identities and/or lifestyles.
I'm guessing it was a direct quote from the statute in question.
What if you were trans in the other direction, identifying as male, but assigned female at birth?
The difference is that there is, at least theoretically, a legitimate government purpose in issuing and requiring driver's licences; I benefit from bad drivers not being allowed to operate multi-ton machinery on the same roads I use, whereas I do not benefit from requiring said licences to list what kind of gametes the operator of said machinery produces (very few motor vehicles are operated using the gonads), or for that matter, anything other than the licence-holder's name, date of birth, and photograph.
I will concede that there is an argument to be had as to whether the licencing regime accomplishes this purpose, especially in Miami, where per Dave Barry, "everyone follows the traffic laws of his or her own country or planet of origin".
Is it not correct to use that marker? My license says I'm 4'11". If I wanted it changed to 5'11", not because I am 5'11", but because I want to be, would that not be incorrect?
No, obviously the blacks lynched in the Jim Crow era were killed for being black. I believe that because their killers made it clear they were acting with anti-black motives. Meanwhile, the deaths of trans people I've seen are usually no different from, say, a sex worker getting killed by an angry customer or pimp.
If you're going to compare anti-trans violence to Jim Crow, please give me a specific case where something like this has happened.
A lot of people talk a big game but are unwilling or unable to put their money where their mouth is. For how much anti-trans sentiment there is in the First World, there are remarkably few instances of actual violence enacted based on it.
What standards? That you have to be honest about what you were born as? I thought we did away with gender standards entirely. A man can be emotional and wear a dress if he wants, but he's still a man. In olden times he would have been mocked and derided as a woman.
Has this ever actually happened?
I don't think they do. For example, normal people are not allowed to groom children into living an alternative sexual lifestyle, so trans people should not be allowed to do that either. Which standards do you think are stricter than the ones normal people are held to?
First, what externalities do conservative pundits even cause? An externality is an effect that you don't suffer but others do. Most conservative pundits have to live under the effects of their own policies and often are happy to do so. For example, Charlie Kirk made the (often mocked) nuanced argument that a tyrannical government is so terrible that the Second Amendment is worth keeping around even if it leads to a few (statistically rare) mass shootings, or in other words, the optimal number of mass shootings is not zero. In contrast, gun control advocates often don't have to suffer the negative effects of their policies when they are wealthy enough to live in a nice neighborhood and/or afford private protection. In other words, they hold luxury beliefs.
Second, the alternative to murder is speech. If anyone had an issue with Charlie Kirk, they could just talk to him. That one chose instead to shoot him makes speech less likely to happen in the future and murder more likely.
I'm not sure what difference this makes.
Police regularly use identification to catch criminals. If identification is not accurate, that makes their job harder. I benefit from police being able to quickly and accurately identify people. If we are to have licenses, they should at least be useful for this purpose.
Also, we can still prohibit people from driving even if we don't have a licensing regime.
That is the question at hand! The Red Tribe says it is; the Blue Tribe says it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender#2020s
Note the 2022 murder of Luo, a trans-woman in Wuhan who was murdered while using the men's restroom.
That 'what you were born as' is anyone else's business.
Many people are still attempting to maintain them.
See above.
There's a difference between 'groom children into living an alternative sexual lifestyle' and 'make it harder for parents to groom children into being homophobic bigots'.
The standard where someone existing as gay or trans gets equated to 'grooming'.
Making society less friendly to people who don't fulfill 100.00% of a certain narrow concept of 'normality'.
Yes! We are in agreement on this! I am merely extending that maxim to make a general rule!
(I'm guessing that you are a cis-man; if you are a cis-woman, transpose the genders in the following.)
I'm asking how you would feel if you had been assigned female at birth, and they put an 'F' marker on your documents, as that is closer to what a trans-woman goes through when her documents carry an 'M' marker.
Hence the photograph. Also, there do exist trans individuals who absent close examination would be more accurately identified by their post-transition gender.
Why doesn't the Blue Tribe contest this for height, date of birth, or race?
Should I go through the list and address every one of them? None of these people were killed solely for being trans. I'll do just one to start.
Talk about being economical with the truth! In reality, Ariyanna and his friend (another trans-identifying boy) got in a fight with Jimmy's girlfriend, who then suggested he shoot the party up. He showed up with an assault rifle and asked who was fighting, to which Ariyanna admitted to. He then asked "Are you a boy or a girl?" and Ariyanna said he was a boy, and that's when he fired.
So a guy killed another guy for beating on his girlfriend. Now, could he have had some hateful bigotry in his heart that led him to use the beating as a pretext? It's not impossible, but I doubt it when there's no evidence of such. It makes far more sense to kill someone for a perceived slight to honor (e.g. because you beat my girlfriend) than because you're just a transgender who exists. Taking this death and extrapolating it to be a part of some trend of anti-trans murders is, frankly, irresponsible when it's just as likely a normal person would have died in these circumstances as a trans person would.
It makes far more sense to go with the angle of black-on-black crime, or male/youth violence, or even "this is why we need gun control". But going with an anti-trans angle is confusing at best and malicious framing at worst.
The rest of the list proceeds similarly. Don't even get me started on Brianna Ghey.
That's not really a gender standard so much as a privacy standard. If people aren't allowed to find out what gender someone was born as, do women's spaces and women's locker rooms and women's bathrooms just not exist anymore, when enforcing them requires that knowledge?
Who? I'm sure some conservatives still expect boys to play with trucks and girls with dolls, but I would be hard-pressed to find conservative parents who maintain gender standards so much that, should their son play with dolls, they declare him a girl. Meanwhile, a blue triber is more likely to do exactly that.
Is there some sort of epidemic of parents grooming their children into being homophobic bigots that I'm unaware of?
To my knowledge, this largely doesn't happen. Kiwi Farms, a site that documents trans and gay grooming, doesn't accuse just anyone trans/gay of grooming merely for being trans/gay. They do it with specific, documented evidence of specific grooming actions.
I'm having a hard time finding a policy, blue or red, that wouldn't be indicted by this standard. 100.00% or even 99.99% is an extremely high bar to clear. Every policy that could actually exist in the real world must disadvantage someone somehow, even slightly. The nature of policies is that we have to choose the best tradeoffs.
I'm confused on what you mean by extending the maxim, since I thought that it was already a general rule that bad argument gets counterargument, does not get bullet.
But I wasn't assigned female at birth.
Ok, I know, "I did have breakfast". But I think this is an absurd hypothetical and to my knowledge a male has never been assigned female at birth, barring rare cases of malpractice or intersex babies. If I was somehow assigned female at birth despite clearly being male, I would suspect that the nurse who did it had a screw loose in her brain. It could even get as bad as filing a malpractice lawsuit due to potential knock-on effects from having the wrong marker.
I don't think this is related to the trans experience unless trans people think there is a conspiracy out to get them and deny them their real gender.
A photograph is not a foolproof method of identification alone and should not be used alone. People's appearances change and they can quickly be outdated, or they can look like someone else. Hence we use other markers, which should be kept accurate if they are to be useful.
That would be how one would back up the assertion that
If a trans person is murdered, and a cis person would not have been murdered ceterus paribus, that counts in my book as 'murdered for being trans', just as a black person who is murdered, if a white person in the otherwise exact same circumstances would not have been murdered, was killed for being black.
No, they try to shame and bully him into not playing with dolls.
Yes. People aren't born with the desire to victimise gay people, just as they aren't born with the desire to victimise any of the other categories of people their families teach them to hate. (Readers of a certain age might remember a Public Service Announcement that said "Hate is a four-letter word. So is love. Which one will you teach your children?)
Extending it to "A person hypothetically causing negative externalities does not give you unlimited licence to persecute them, even if not doing so means that the externalities will continue."
The hypothetical at which I was aiming was one in which you, with your current mind, had been born with female parts. Would you, in that case, feel that the 'F' marker was viscerally wrong? (Or would you look between your legs and conclude yourself to be a woman? In that case, you would be what Ozy Brennan calls 'cis-by-default'. [Thing of Things, January 2015])
But 'what do you have in your pants' isn't very useful outside a very narrow set of circumstances; 'what did you have between your legs when you were born' isn't useful even then!
I don't think it's productive to go through each case unless you also do your own research to find non-trans-related reasons for the murders. The burden of proof is on the ones who assert that trans people are being targeted for murder, not on others to disprove those claims. If there's a specific case that you think is particularly merited, sure, we can discuss it. But I'm not going to sit here and repeat almost the same thing every time. I'm comfortable saying that most of those deaths were unrelated to being trans and only gain media attention just because the victim happens to be trans.
Ok. Surely that's less damaging than declaring him a girl.
News to me. I would like some evidence or sources for this phenomenon.
I agree that people aren't born with hateful desires, but this doesn't make sense to me. I don't think families teach their kids to hate gay people. I think it's more complicated than that. People form their opinions usually through observation and interaction with the specific groups, and learned information from sources like the Internet. Sometimes they will have negative opinions, and that's not because they just irrationally hate them, but because they've taken everything they've looked at and come to their own conclusion. In particular, I think a lot of opinions about gay people can be traced back to the actions of gay people.
I agree with this in the abstract but I suspect that you and I might operationalize this differently. So let me ask, what policy do you think is giving unlimited license to persecute someone for a hypothetical negative externality?
No. I don't know on what basis I could say the marker was wrong.
A gender marker is extremely useful. You're talking about, at a glance, being able to distinguish between 50% of the population. Gender is often the first thing that people notice about others. Cops will call out "suspect is a male" (among other attributes) and so when they are searching, they effectively have 50% of their search space reduced just by ignoring females. Names have to be asked for, weight and height are estimable but fallible at a distance. Race is also helpful, but given that there are more than two races in the world, the reduction in search space is less than 50%.
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