site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12451 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 2026

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For most purposes, a woman is someone who either (a.) is of the gender identity found more commonly in people born with vulvas

So effeminate men are women, actually? And trans women, who aren't adopting the female gender role well enough aren't actually women?

So effeminate men are women, actually?

Not unless they identify as such.

And trans women, who aren't adopting the female gender role well enough aren't actually women?

They still identify as women, they're women.

(Perhaps you're thinking of gender presentation?)

Not unless they identify as such.

What would they be identifyng with?

(Perhaps you're thinking of gender presentation?)

If it has nothing to do with presentation, does that mean a burly lumberjack type, with no desire for hormones, surgeries, or cross dressing, and male behavior and mannerisms, is a woman, as long as he says so?

If she identifies as a woman, yes. (I doubt there are any transwomen fitting those specifications, though.)

If he is lying in order to pivot progressives to maintaining the black-and-white 1-bit oversimplification he was taught back when he was knee-high to a grasshopper, no.

(I doubt there are any transwomen fitting those specifications, though.)

Bless your heart.

If she identifies as a woman, yes.

Again, what would they be identifying with? What does this mean?

(I doubt there are any transwomen fitting those specifications, though.)

If he is lying

How would you know? How do you know that the trans women that do put on a dress and whatnot aren't lying?

Again, what would they be identifying with?

The gender identity which has a lot more people born with 🌮 than with 🍆.

Hiw would you know? How do you know that the trans women that do put on a dress and whatnot aren't lying?

It was revealed to me in a dream. I can make an educated guess; in the absence of indicators of bad faith, I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Again, what would they be identifying with?

The gender identity

So not only is a woman "anyone that identifies as a woman", not really answering the question of what a woman is, what they're identifying with is an identity, thus also not telling us anything about what the act of identifying is supposed to be, and also the type of identity they're identifying with is a gender identity, "gender" being the category that encompasses men and women.

In other words: a woman is anyone who identifies with identifying as a woman.

I appreciate the efforts to come up with a coherent answer in the aftermath of Matt Walsh's documentary, but I think you guys still have a long way ahead of you.

in the absence of indicators of bad faith

What would be an indicator of bad faith?

So not only is a woman "anyone that identifies as a woman", not really answering the question of what a woman is, what they're identifying with is an identity, thus also not telling us anything about what the act of identifying is supposed to be, and also the type of identity they're identifying with is a gender identity, "gender" being the category that encompasses men and women.

In other words: a woman is anyone who identifies with identifying as a woman.

It's not turtles all the way down; the first step, the foundation, comes from the peaks of the bimodal distribution: there are a large number of people who have XY chromosomes, a 🍆 between their legs, a higher T/E ratio, and a certain mental aspect that (if they have it at all) is of a certain type; there are a similar number of people who have XX chromosomes, a 🌮 between their legs, a lower T/E ratio, a different type of that mental aspect (if they have it at all).

To a first approximation, we call the first group 'men¹' and the second group 'women'. Then, we sort out the edge cases, including those in which the various characteristics do not align with each other, and those in which they impart a visceral feeling of wrongness to their possessor.

I appreciate the efforts to come up with a coherent answer in the aftermath of Matt Walsh's documentary, but I think you guys still have a long way ahead of you.

There was a time when the Abolitionists had a long way ahead of them.

What would be an indicator of bad faith?

The following account is an attempt to construct the strongest possible such indicator:

Henry has a long history of opposing gender transition, same-gender relationships, and gender-nonconforming behavior, especially among men. He has multiple criminal charges for harassing and assaulting men, and women he thinks are men, for not living up to his standard of masculinity, including three assault charges for attacking gay couples, one assault charge for trying to hit a coworker's hand with a hammer when the coworker came in wearing pink nail polish applied by his daughter, one assault charge for shoving a visiting Scotsman into a wall for wearing a kilt (Henry wound up in hospital), one charge for leaving a wood-chipper (with an "Insert groomers here" sign" on the front lawn of a local bar owner who hosted a (21+) drag show, and two charges for beating up women who were attempting to use the men's lavatory (one trans, one when there was a long line for the ladies' room).

A public referendum is held on the question of whether trans individuals ought to be allowed to use the WC of their identified gender; Henry campaigns vehemently against it; despite this, or perhaps because of it, the referendum passes with a clear majority,

The next day, Henry announces: "I now identify as a woman; therefore, you either have to let me use the women's room, or make the [redacted]s use the men's room! Either way, they'll get what's coming to them if they don't man up, ha ha ha!"

I would state with a minimum of 95% confidence that Henry is acting in bad faith.

¹Originally we called them 'were-men' and the other group 'wif-men'; 'man' without prefix was gender neutral.

So rapists trying to avoid serving their sentences in male prisons are not acting in bad faith when they suddenly "discover" a female gender identity immediately before going into trial, not even if they make zero effort to medically transition and only the most token effort to socially transition.

The only people you see as acting in bad faith when they "identify" as something they aren't are the people doing so ironically in order to expose how nonsensical your worldview is. You are more comfortable admitting rapists, murderers and pederasts than you are admitting infidels and gadflies.

And you wonder why the trans activist movement attracts so many bad actors.

I fear you already know how he's going to answer.

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