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 -
I don't know specifically what gender identity means more specifically, because I do not personally experience it. If I woke up tomorrow in a body with the opposite plumbing, I would consider myself to be a different gender from what I had previously been; other individuals would experience acute dysphoria and be strongly motivated to reverse the change.
That was something I forgot to mention; not only are most people with a certain mental aspect born with 🌮, but a sizable number of the remainder have a strong sense that they should have been, and mutatis mutandis for the other common type of that aspect and 🍆.
That is why we call those types 'man' and 'woman' instead of 'veeblefetzer' and 'wakalix'.
So now we have the question of "Are the transgender activists more like the former, or the latter?". I believe that the relevant distinction is "Does this thing hurt anyone?"; to borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, "Does it pick my pocket or break my leg?". A legalisation of the sexual abuse of children would be harmful; the abolition of slavery was not harmful; a more nuanced understanding of gender is not harmful.
A minimum of 95%.
I do not support allowing either a genuine trans-woman or a cis-man pretending to be a trans-woman to do anything from which we forbid a cis-woman. On the other hand, if Mr Burly Lumberjack claims to be a trans-woman in order to go into the women's room, do his business, wash his hands, and leave without bothering anyone, I would prefer him to the Karen insisting on inspecting between the legs of any woman she thinks is insufficiently feminine (many of whom are cis-women).
It's a bit weird then to define "man" or "woman" by it. For all you know no such thing exists. Even if it does, we have no way of telling whether the "gender identity" possessed by trans women actually matches that of actual women, or whether it's just a man's idea of how a woman feels.
I believe that convincing adolescent autists to block their own puberty, pump themselves full of exogenous hormones, and surgically remove healthy body parts, does actually hurt them quite a lot.
None of the drama is related to trans women being allowed to do what cis women aren't, so this seems irrelevant.
Mr Burly Lumberjack entering a women's boxing tournament, demanding a Brazilian wax, or demanding to be put into a women's prison seems plenty problematic to me, whether he's "pretending" to be trans, or actually is. Even the toilet thing obviously causes discomfort, or else the issue wouldn't be so controversial.
Somehow we managed to achieve sex segregation all these years without resorting to that, so I don't see why we would need to start now. I also haven't seen Karens demanding it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link