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 -
Harry Potter and the Vibe Shift
I actually was thinking about giving this topic a rest - it makes me feel like I'm being radicalized in slow motion - but...just when I thought I was out...some room for optimism: NY Times: In Defense of J.K. Rowling
To give a brief rundown of the situation:
NYTimes employees in conjunction with GLAAD released a letter putting pressure on the NYTimes for reporting in a "biased" fashion on trans issues recently and how it's being used by states to pass bills against gender medicine.
The NYT...actually shows some spine and refuses to bend, saying: “...But at the same time, we recognize that GLAAD’s advocacy mission and The Times’s journalistic mission are different.". Who would have thought that we'd get to the point where a basic recognition of the different role of activists and journalists would be noteworthy?
Apparently the NYT also posted an internal memo warning NYT staffers against public working with an activist organization against their own company stating that they: "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
Then, we see what the bruhaha was likely about and what the open letter was trying to preempt: we get the above op-ed yesterday, basically defending JKR against the criticism she faced - ahead of the release of The Witch Trials of JKR by Megan Phelps-Roper, an escapee from the Westboro Baptist Church.
In essence: the same strategy we've seen from wreckers and ideologues time after time played out, but the Times did the bare minimum and acted like adults. At a certain point - just as with wreckers like Felicia Somnez at WaPo - I suppose it simply became too much for too little gain. The constant fitna was fine when it was in service of popular causes with little cost, but now seems to be in service of a cause that is dragging many people down. So why not put out the op-ed, while also keeping the workers in line?
Said article's content?
...
Nothing here is new to anyone who spent any time checking on the actual words of JKR and her defenders. But it is interesting to see the NYT posting about it and fighting the pushback, especially as it follows the incredible failure of the Hogwarts: Legacy boycott and Sturgeon's fall from power*
The backlash can no longer be written off as the cultural peculiarity of "TERF Island" - a desperate rhetorical ploy used by activists to distract the blind. It's not just a European thing. It's everywhere.
My personal take was that transactivism was just the next, inevitable step in the march to atomization in liberalism. And it probably still is. But there may be bridges too far, even for liberals. I hope.
A good note to leave the trans issue on for at least a while and reset my brain before I become some sort of schizo, hyper-reactionary monarchist or something. Maybe go play a few new games...
* It's been a great month for her, after years of shit, I have to say.
I'm ready to call it now - preference cascade.
NYT publishing this article mere days after the abject failure of trans activists to organize a high-profile boycott is incredibly telling. And there's been lots of signs that public opinion (especially elite public opinion) has been getting brittle on the issue - no one likes getting bulled by moralists all the time, especially when they're your distant social lessers. Moreover, this isn't a dramatic turnabout & could get accepted fairly quickly by the laypeople - I had a leftist freind tell me umsolicited that they were sick of 'purity politics' on the left (though I checked, they didnt consider JKR cancellation to be an ecample - yet)
Cynical take 1- JKR got fed up & hired a big money PR firm. Possibly quite some time ago, with them waiting for (engineering?) a time and place to strike back. Her upcoming podcast series with the WBC escapee lady fits this theory nicely.
Cynical take 2 - Alternately, the powers that be decided that the TERF wars were sucking up too much oxygen & that it is now time for 'healing & reconciliation' and a renewed focus on squashing down the populist right. Which I've argued for before - right now is the worst possible time for leftist doctrinal infighting, their position is overextended and their enemy is visibly regrouping.
What do you think the results of the preference cascade will be? "hormones and surgery become 10% more difficult for minors to obtain"? Or what?
The amount of minors being referred to gender clinics drops to around 2010 levels
Trans people will no longer be sent to opposite sex prisons
Sports won't allow male athletes in female leagues
Slogans like "trans women are women" will go out the window.
Misgendering / deadnaming is seen as being rude, rather than beyond the pale.
Pretty sure the anti-trans NYT people would universally hold to 'trans women are women'. I don't see that going 'out the window'.
Not sure precisely what "rude, but not beyond the pale" means. Most trans people don't go into screeching fits of rage when misgendered, that is (I don't like saying this!) mostly an internet thing. Many of them are often misgendered by e.g. family members and go along with it.
I think many sports already don't allow transwoman athletes in female leagues, but could be wrong. Either way, that one seems plausible, although not any moreso than a week ago. I'd guess changes to prisons won't happen, but it's sufficiently noncentral to the trans movement that it might.
"The amount of minors being referred to gender clinics drops to around 2010 levels" - I don't see that happening. Most of the increase is caused not by lowered thresholds by medical professionals, but massively increasing interest in transitioning by minors (they learn about it via the internet or irl friends). So pulling back to 2010 levels would require much more restrictive standards.
"Going out the window" means you're not going to have that argument thrown in your face if you disagree about letting trans people into opposite sex spaces, that you won't be forced to recite the slogan, and that you won't be cancelled for denying it.
It means you won't be able to whip up a mob to go after someone who does it.
"Most" trans people are irrelevant. Like I said many times before I don't believe in the "democratic model" of society. It's the leadership of trans activists that's relevant.
Yeah, because that was the status quo pre-trans activism. I'm saying we're going back to it.
Funny, out of all the points this one is the one I'm the most confident about, and your arguments is precisely why I think it will go down. Yes, medical professionals have no way of telling whether someone actually has gender dysphoria or not, so the increase most likely had nothing to do with the medical / psychological condition being more prevalent, or more detected than before. The majority of referrals to gender clinics are between ages 12-16, with a massive drop-off around 18 years old. It is far more likely that the whole thing is a social trend, and all social trends are eventually replaced with new ones.
I'm sorry, the referrals to a gender clinic go DOWN at 18? That's very surprising to me. What about all the closested trans people with conservative parents that are finally able to make their own choices when they turn 18? Shouldn't it go up?
They desist. Turns out for most marginalized people, getting away from high school greatly improves the quality of their life.
More options
Context Copy link
Time for my regularly scheduled link to Tavistock data. The drop off begins at 17. This is the UK but I've seen similar age profile from a gender clinic in the US.
What you describe may still be happening, it's just their numbers are dwarfed by the number of minors.
Headline: "Referrals to GIDs level off in 2018-19"
Numbers
Should read "Referrals of males to GIDs level off in 2018-19" -- the tomboy genocide continues apace.
I should be rather interested to see crosstabs for age/sex -- not that we will.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've argued this before, but turning 18 does not magically grant one the actual ability to act on the agency they're legally considered responsible enough to have. Many kids who reach that age may still be stuck at home, especially in this modern era.
And how does this explain there being more referrals for 12-16 year olds?
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