site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33498 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Meanwhile, I can't trace a single actual harm to any trans person that could be attributed to JKR, who is apparently the final boss of transphobia.

I think the clearest examples of "harm" would be JKR publicly speaking out against the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill that would have made it easier for people to transition, and which was blocked from receiving royal assent by Scotland Secretary Alister Jack. It's hard to say if the Scotland Secretary would have acted the way he did without prominent voices like JKR preparing the public with arguments about why it should be shut down. To the extent that JKR made it easier for this to happen, she could be blamed for throwing her weight behind the movement to stop the bill from becoming law, for those who believe the law would have been good, pro-trans policy.

The only other "harm" I can think of is the cis-only women's shelter JKR opened up. I'll admit, the argument for harm is a little more esoteric here. It's the same kind of "harm" that the Salvation Army does in occasionally turning away gay people. Is it better that a flawed charity exists than no charity? Absolutely. But perhaps in an ideal world gay homeless people would also have shelters in such places, and trans-women who are the victims of violence would have a space they could go as well.

She's not some cackling villainess ladying over the only shelter within 1000 miles; she provided another option in the market. The real complaint is that there can be no dissent.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that she merely "added another option" to the market. The shelter is private property, and she has every right to deny service to anyone she wants of course (subject to any laws her area may have about discrimination against protected classes.)

However, I think if some eccentric billionaire opened up a new homeless shelter in a town that already had one, and denied service to people whose names started with the letter U, the billionaire would probably be within their rights and also be acting as an arbitrary jerk. Don't get me wrong, the good the billionaire is doing is almost certainly outweighed by any pettiness or arbitrariness he is exhibiting, but I think it would be completely reasonable for people to protest and advocate for the billionaire to start admitting U-namers to his shelter. The main thing here is that A) the infrastructure to help is already there, and B) the group being denied service is small enough that adding them to the pool of people served won't dilute the resources by an appreciable amount.

Ciswomen are obviously capable of sexually attacking ciswomen, and I am sure women's shelters already have ways of dealing with potential abuse between the women they are helping. Especially considering that something like 50% cases of intimate partner violence are "reciprocal" with both partners acting violently against one another.

I have heard anecdotes about the very first women's shelters having to find ways to deal with violent and abusive women who made things worse for other women at the shelters. That being the case, I don't actually see much reason to be concerned about transwomen being admitted - screen them with the normal risk-assessment profile they use for everyone being admitted, and if the risk is too great ask the woman involved to find some other service to help them.

trans-women who are the victims of violence would have a space they could go as well.

perhaps even after that men may get their own shelter.

Sure, in an ideal world there would be sufficient resources for society to organize to help all people no matter what difficulties life throws at them. In our imperfect one, we're left to rely on what limited resources charity and government intervention can bring to bear on various problems.

I've already said that I'll accept imperfect charities as a practical matter, but I think the criticism with something like the Salvation Army or JKR's Beira's Place is that the populations they're denying service (gay people, trans women respectively) aren't going to add that much strain on their resources, and it seems petty to deny them.

Hopefully, if it is felt that there is some large unmet need for rape crisis centers for men in the Lothians area, someone will try to open such a facility.

Do you think there are more transwomen in need of shelter or more men in need of shelter? would a shelter for traumatized men be unable to handle trans women?

I suspect that the number of transwomen is low in the first place (around 1 in 1000, iirc) so the answer in raw numbers is obviously going to be cis men, unless there's insanely high amounts of abuse against transwomen, which doesn't come out in the statistics I've seen.

I do think a shelter for traumatized men would probably be able to help transwomen, but I don't think one can ignore the argument that traswomen might be more vulnerable than other people at a men's shelter. The sad fact of intimate partner violence is that appx. 50% of it is reciprocal, so many of the men in a men's shelter will be both victims and perpetrators of violence. Women's shelters already have ways of screening for and dealing with victimized women who are themselves abusive and toxic and who make recovery more difficulty for other women at the shelter, and I'm not sure what will have to be done for a shelter for male victims of intimate partner violence to ensure they don't victimize other vulnerable people at a men's shelter.

I suspect that the number of transwomen is low in the first place (1 in 1000, iirc) so the answer in raw numbers is obviously going to be cis men, unless there's insanely high amounts of abuse against transwomen, which doesn't come out in the statistics I've seen.

Then it strikes me a pretty ridiculous to worry about the care of trans women when you have already discarded their entire birth sex as not a big deal to be uncared for.

but I don't think one can ignore the argument that traswomen might be more vulnerable than other people at a men's shelter

This is just the flip side of the same argument for keeping transwomen out of women's shelters.

Then it strikes me a pretty ridiculous to worry about the care of trans women when you have already discarded their entire birth sex as not a big deal to be uncared for.

Have I disagreed with you anywhere that shelters for men would be a nice thing to have? I've already stated that in my ideal society, individuals and groups would coordinate to help all people who need it, and that would include men.

I'm also pragmatic, and realize that an already existing women's shelter is a slightly easier thing to advocate a change about, than a completely hypothetical men's shelter is.

What I'm saying is we already don't care about abused males enough to get them their own shelters or house them with women, why should their gender identity change this in any way whatsoever? What is your actual objection to throwing them out on the street like we do men?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats