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 -
Ok, we seem to have gotten off-track on this one. So to clarify what I'm saying, I'm saying that by your standards, I can't say pedophilia is sexually deviant because the community says it is, because the community can be wrong, and because the community can be wrong (after all, the ancient Greeks thought pedophilia was fine), we have to play cultural relativism and pretend that any standard is as good as any other absent some other justification that can't be based on the community. Do you agree with that?
I didn't say your view was naive just because you disagreed with me. I said that your view is naive because you seem to not be considering the many important differences between men and women, which have been enumerated to you before.
No, the same does not apply. There are many more important differences between men and women than "one tends to be small and the other tends to be large". The smaller man doesn't have to worry about being forcibly impregnated by the larger man, for instance. We divide by gender because of the many important differences, not just because men and women differ by height.
The many trans-identifying males I have met in real-life look like men. If I wasn't paying attention, was inebriated or was looking at them from a sufficient distance, I might mistake them for women. But either way, in normal conditions I would see them as men, especially when they speak. The only way that trans people can pass is through online media.
No, that was not my response. That was a tangent and not something critical to the main point of my post. I explained how in a world where wig-wearers (claim to) feel oppressed for wearing a wig (much the same as trans people (claim to) feel oppressed for being trans), social norms would be established to not tell obvious wig-wearers that they were obviously wearing a wig, and this would result in many obvious wigs.
Your response is also confusing, even if "making a wig look natural is much easier than making a man look like a woman" was somehow my only point. I pointed that out because the "toupee fallacy" argument seems to rely on the assumption that the only differences between men and women (for the purposes of recognizing gender) are hair style, makeup, dress, maybe even body hair. In reality, there are perhaps hundreds of subtle differences that people may not be able to explicitly make legible but still factor in to their assessment, and most of them are not within reasonable control of the trans-identifying person wishing to present as the opposite gender. Whereas the only difference between successfully passing wigs and obvious wigs are, well, just the wigs.
My argument was not "X is easier than Y, therefore not-Y" as you seem to be implying.
This seems extremely confusing. I don't understand whatever you're saying about my use of the word "exponential" or how it's relevant to my argument, so I'm just going to say that if you don't like me saying "exponentially less", I can say something like "a significant reduction in" instead, as long as it properly conveys the point that gender segregation would is clearly a superior policy when comparing how many incidents of sexual harassment there are with it vs. without it.
So you concede that it's not going to happen, then? Most societal changes don't require a full rebuild of society to happen.
What's the practical difference between this and abolishing gender segregation entirely? A "passing trans individual" doesn't exist. A less-than-passing trans-identifying man (i.e. all trans-identifying men) is likely to be confronted by a woman or a security guard as a result of his entering the women's room, and if he can't be compelled to confirm people's suspicions that he is a man, then... he just gets to go in the women's room anyway? Meaning that any man who calls himself a woman can legally waltz in to the women's room, since no one can do anything about it. Is this not just doing away with gender segregation?
Policies are not mutually exclusive. We can and should have both policies of "don't harass others" and "men are prohibited from using the women's room." At no point did I say we should have only the latter policy.
There is also an important disanalogy with weapon bans, in that disarming average, everyday citizens places them at a severe disadvantage from criminals, who will ignore the law and arm themselves anyway, preying on the unarmed. "Gun-free zones" are just zones full of future shooting victims. Meanwhile, if I as a man am prohibited from going into the women's room, that doesn't disadvantage me in the slightest.
Exactly which adverse effects are there? If I as a man am not allowed in the women's room, where's the adverse effect? I'm perfectly fine with going into the men's room.
Meanwhile, in the other direction, if men are allowed to enter the women's room, there would be a tremendous amount of sexual harassment that would occur. Arguably, abolishing gender segregation is a shortcut to accomplishing the "justifiable purpose" of... making it so trans-identifying men can deny reality... at the cost of adverse effects on innocent women. Well, I suppose an important difference is that the number of innocent women affected would not be a small number.
My standard is more nuanced than that. I explained how if someone appears to support the Kiwi Farms, they will be confronted with the mainstream narrative that we facilitate harassment, we're linked to 3 trans suicides, we swatted MTG, etc. Regardless of the fact that all these claims are false, the person will be asked to disavow this lest they be considered a supporter of harassment/suicide/swatting, and more often than not, they will indeed disavow harassment/suicide/swatting.
So it's not as simple as "silence = disavowal" or "silence = approval". It's "silence = unknown, ask for further clarification". Now I ask you again, and I want you to answer the question this time: Do you genuinely think that, if a trans activist was asked to disavow the cotton-ceiling activists, that they would do so?
To echo @FtttG (replace sex with gender):
And as for this:
The former is an extremely rare issue and not a reasonable consideration for which word to use 99.9% of the time. If you need to disambiguate, you can just say natal women or even cis women, neither of which requires reference to genitals or gonads.
I brought up hair color as an example of an obvious trait to notice, as obvious as gender. I was not bringing it up as an example of a trait that's easy to change (which gender is not), or for any other purpose.
Why does it matter what they look like from the outside? If you want to discuss the validity of a claim, I'm happy to elaborate and make arguments for it. If you want me to elaborate, then say so. But what it looks like from the outside is not really relevant.
Again, if I have to care about what my claims look like from the outside, then I can't assert that the Earth goes around the Sun because from the outside, that claim looks very similar to the claim that the Sun goes around the Earth.
I was referring specifically to enforcing gender segregation by someone who asked everyone who entered, even obvious women, whether they had a penis. That just never happens, but you asserted that "usually happens", hence why I asked. Even in your examples, people only asked "are you a man or woman", nothing about genitals. So again, since enforcing gender segregation does not require asking about genitals, I would not characterize it as "prying into other people's bodies".
But since you brought up several instances of women accused of being men, I will address those too. I think there's an important confounder here with any cases like these, and this can be seen most clearly in the Staten Island case. It's obvious to me that the shopkeeper had a short temper, or was looking for an excuse to assault the woman. That he called her a "transvestite" doesn't mean that he assaulted her solely on the basis that he thought she was a man. (It doesn't even mean he thought she was a man, he was probably just insulting her looks, but that's tangential to my main point.)
My point being, there's always going to be people who start confrontations and incidents, because they had a mistaken belief, or even because they had a bad day and were looking for an excuse to take their anger out on someone. The fundamental attribution error applies here: I wouldn't attribute these incidents to anti-trans sentiment, any more than I would attribute a guy angrily pounding on a vending machine to him being the sort of guy who's just angry as opposed to external circumstances I don't have knowledge of.
I don't believe that abolishing gender segregation would have prevented these incidents, because the instigators were just looking for something to be mad about and would have found a different reason without gender segregation. However, abolishing gender segregation is sure to create a significant amount of sexual harassment, particularly from men directed toward women.
As for your claim that "so many cis-women get accused of being men", well, the number of cases here falls within lizardman's constant. I don't think there's an epidemic of women being falsely identified as men, that we have to abandon the use of our eyes lest we misidentify a woman as a man. I think that 99.9% of the time, women are accurately identified as women. In particular, I think the number of such incidents pales in comparison to the number of incidents of sexual harassment that would happen were gender segregation to be abolished.
I sincerely doubt that there is a "trans woman" who looks more feminine than 20% of women. And why exactly should gender be considered private medical history when... people can just look at someone and see? It's just like hair color. (No, I am not saying that we should segregate based on hair color, or that it's easy to change gender like it is to change hair color, or anything else besides that hair color, like gender, is obvious.)
And, gender roles? Exactly who is pushing gender roles, and what exactly are those gender roles? Because I would say narrow gender roles are being enforced when someone sees a boy playing with dolls and declares him to be a girl, and trans activists are far more likely to do exactly that than gender-critical people are.
I don't understand what this has to do with the right to refuse service. And even if it's true and even if it's morally justifiable in some "you wronged me, now I can wrong you" sense, it's not like literally every private business in the world participated in feeding their customers to Big Data in this way. There are many private businesses who have done no wrong, who should keep their right to refuse service to anyone.
More options
Context Copy link