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 -
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.
More options
Context Copy link