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 -
For most purposes, a woman is someone who either (a.) is of the gender identity found more commonly in people born with vulvas, or (b.) has no gender identity and has a vulva.
For ONE purpose: To alleviate the dissatisfaction a small number of people feel because they remain unable to change their sex.
For any purpose that is. if you aren't interacting with the trans individual's body, any of your beeswax.
(Also, some definitions of 'biological sex' can be changed.)
Sophistry and semantics can't turn a man into a woman.
I meant the 'hormones and secondary characteristics mediated by hormones' definition, and the 'what plumbing one currently has' definition.
Why have you stopped at that point in particular? Why not say that anyone who can hold a baby is a woman, and anyone who can throw a punch is a man?
Those are definitions of 'man' and 'woman' which are both biological and alterable with the tech package of our current civilisation.
Because, under that definition, almost everyone would be simultaneously both a man and a woman.
If you've carefully chosen the point where the binary is alterable to accommodate the people who both want to alter it, and to allow their alteration to qualify for the definition that you've chosen, while also upholding the binary, then I return to my original point: That particular point was chosen solely to alleviate their dissatisfaction with being unable to be accommodated through any superior means.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not endorsing the examples as the true definition of 'man' and 'woman', merely stating them as examples to support my statement that not all biological divisions are unchangeable.
(Man, woman) can mean 'has (XY, XX) chromosomes', 'was born with (dangly bit, hole)', 'currently has (dangly bit, hole)', 'has (high, low) T/E ratio', or 'identifies as (man, woman)', and there may be still more possibilities. The first four are all biological in nature, and all of them are potentially useful in different biomedical contexts; two of them we have the ability to change, and two of them we do not as yet.
I'm sure you can see the flaw in the argument that 'the first two criteria given are the true definition of biological sex because biological sex is unchangeable, and biological sex is unchangeable because it is defined by those criteria.'.
(I'm not asserting that that is your reason for choosing those criteria, if indeed you do so. If you have some other reason for defining it that way, to which you would adhere in a hypothetical world in which they were changeable, or if you define 'man' and 'woman' by some other factor, I am willing to consider your arguments.)
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