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 -
Can't the "bullet biting" just be done on a case by case basis? I see no issue with a negotiated settlement like:
Adding trans people to the list of protected classes in society, making it illegal to fire someone merely for being trans, or to deny them service on this basis.
Social transition allowed for minors, medical transition (including puberty blockers) banned or with many difficult hoops to obtain.
In public schools, trans minors participate on the sports team of their adoptive sex in non-contact, non-fighting sports. In fighting sports and contact sports, they participate with their natal sex.
For private sporting leagues, allow each league to judge for itself whether to be inclusive or exclusive.
Require all public schools and government buildings to have at least one unisex bathroom, and let private organizations do what they want regarding who can use what bathrooms. (Perhaps create standardized signage, or a sticker that can be used to let people know a bathroom is trans-inclusive or -exclusive.)
Keep all dangerous sex offenders, regardless of sex in male prisons.
Medical transition legal, but only covered under government healthcare for people with severe dysphoria. (Or limited to cost-effective options like hormone therapies.)
That would results in transgenders dominating every non-contact sport. Biological girls would have no chance at ever winning a sprinting or swimming championship. A lot of girls aren't going to be interested in sports if they have no hope of ever winning.
Admittedly, that line makes more sense in a permissive regime with medical transition for minors than the example set of a settlement I put together. Trans girls would possibly still dominate high school athletics after medical transition, but it would be a much closer competition, and it at least wouldn't be dangerous.
The main thing I wanted to highlight was that a negotiated settlement could treat each hot button issue separately. There's no need to for a maximally inclusive approach, if we have good reasons for splitting things up differently.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you apply your principles in half the cases, you haven't applied your principles. So I don't think a "negotiated settlement" will work.
There's also the problem you have with immigration or gun control, where any "compromise" becomes the new status quo and you end up constantly compromising on the remaining uncompromised portion. This has sort of already happened.
My principal is that "translegalism" (i.e. "transness as socially/legally adopted sex") is a firmer basis for thinking through trans issues than most TRA models of transness (including transmedicalism, identity-only, etc.) And because we're only approaching transness as a legal fiction along the lines of adoptive parenthood, it makes sense for society to negotiate which rules will apply and which ones don't.
After all, there's no universally agreed upon answer to the question, "if a man marries and becomes a step-father, then divorces his wife, should it be legally permissible for him to marry his former step-daughter?" When we created the fictive kinship relationship of "step-fatherhood" we had to make a decision about that. It's just that that was decided so long ago, that most people have forgotten it was ever a debate.
So too, the translegalist approach will have thorny issues to decide about when trans people are relevantly similar to cis people of their legal sex, and when they are not. I don't think it's about not applying principles, it's about trying to craft a rule in line with a pluralistic, inclusive liberal democracy that doesn't force anyone to have to confess a creed they don't believe in.
I think this is only right, especially on the issue of immigration. There's no objectively right answer to "how many people should we allow into the country to become U.S. citizens", so it makes sense to allow voters to elect politicians who will debate the various pros and cons of each proposal and find an amount of immigration that they're comfortable with.
I agree a "translegalist" approach will result in an ongoing back and forth of compromises, with each "compromise" becoming a new status quo. But I don't see how that's avoidable. When rights are being handled by statute or legal precedence, and not by constitutional amendment, they'll always be open to "easy" revision. We could decide tomorrow to strip women of many rights and privileges but not the right to vote, and so too we could decide to create more rights and privileges for trans people or to strip them of existing rights.
All rights have some conflict with other rights, and a liberal democracy has to determine how best to deal with conflicts of rights when they arise.
Except without the "back and forth".
"Let's compromise on 50% of my demands." Once it's done, it becomes status quo and the next one is "let's compromise on 50% of my remaining demands" and they get 75%, 87.5%, etc. of their original demands by repeatedly "compromising".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The issue is we then wrap around to these compromises not really being founded on a single coherent world model. The trans camp wants full social acknowledgement of their described reality, even the phrase "merely for being trans" falls apart if you don't agree that this is a thing someone can really be. It concedes the entire frame of the condition being a real thing, and any formulation that doesn't concede this would be unacceptable to the trans camp. It's an unstable equilibrium, once the foot is in the door on this stuff it's only a matter of time before sympathetic enough case in sympathetic enough jurisdiction erodes all of these compromises, the question will be asked "well are they women or not" and if you're not able to say "no" then none of these guardrails will survive scrutiny and if you are then they won't be acceptable to the trans camp.
You don't need to make it with reference to the condition - but to the legal status of being an adoptive man/woman.
That way, you can capture anti-trans discrimination either on the basis of natal sex, or legal sex. If an employer wouldn't fire someone for wearing a dress if they were a natal woman, they can't fire them if they wear a dress and are a legal woman. Etc., etc.
No need to acknowledge or favor anyone's version of reality. The "objective" legal reality of a person's recorded status becomes the basis for the discrimination claim.
I maintain it's only unstable because it is new. If the legislators craft a good enough foundation, there will be very little room for worrying about corner cases.
There is a debate now because the trans side is trying to frame it as all or nothing, but we can deal with things on an issue-by-issue basis or kick the issue to private groups or individuals to decide for themselves how they want to deal with things.
I think if the Federal government sets an example with how public schools and government buildings will be handled, as well as protecting against (at least) employment and housing discrimination, then we can leave it to states or private individuals to decide whether to have more protections than that. California and other Blue States could protect more, and more conservative states could be more restrictive anywhere not already covered by the Federal level.
I don't think this is really going to fool anyone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link