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 -
True, it is sometimes difficult to separate out the trans advocate group and the trans group. I have some qualms with both on epistemic grounds but despite me thinking the trans group is wrong about their fundamental claims I have no problem living and let live with them. The trans advocates, or whatever I'm to call them, are the problem.
Just note that this difficulty in separating them is the point.
They want to be able to claim that any backlash or counterarguments against their advocacy for trans people is hurting actual trans people.
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, too, could easily accept a "live and let live" posture and would happily advocate for protecting trans persons from violence from bigots.
But I just notice that once you grant the motte of "trans people are people and should be accorded full human dignity" then the advocates aggressively pull you down to the bailey:
"That means you have to let them use whichever bathroom they choose;"
"AND you have to let them into womens' sports leagues;"
"AND you have let them into womens' prisons;"
"AND you should be arrested if you misgender them;"
"AND you can't reject sex with them just because they're trans;"
"AND you have to permit pubescent children to get hormone blockers and invasive surgery:"
"AND you have to let us teach your kids that they might be transgender;"
"AND we don't have to tell you if they decide they're transgender, that would put them at risk."
And if you suggest that maybe it would help to slow things down a bit and discuss the implications of all this and set up some reasonable policies this gets you accused of transphobia or maybe even fascism.
And of course there ARE legitimately transphobic people out there who genuinely do see trans people as less-than-human so being lumped in with them is incredibly distasteful to say the least.
I just find it even more distasteful to be gish-galloped into a position that doesn't follow from the premises I actually agreed to.
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.
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.
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.
This is just the flip side of the same argument for keeping transwomen out of women's shelters.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link