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 -
Well, they're closer to it, so they have a better view, and their statements are the best data I have.
I reread your comment, and I apparently mis-interpreted it. I apologise for the error.
Then whence the concern about a man claiming to be a trans-woman 'being given free rein', if he is not doing anything wrong with the acceptance given to him?
We don't, or at least shouldn't, tolerate cis-women harassing other cis-women in the restroom; thus, if trans-women aren't allowed to do anything cis-women aren't, then trans-women, or cis-men claiming to be such, are not being given 'free rein' to harm anyone.
Those are circumstances under which I would compromise from the pro-trans maximalist position. That is not the same thing as endorsement of the anti-trans maximalist position.
"For most purposes" means that some contexts might call for a different definition.
Other than being fairer to certain people who, to be honest, are having a terrible enough time of it already.
("Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?")
Are there trans activists who have rejected offers of 'gender-neutral bathrooms for everybody, as long as the wash their hands'?
I don't know how else one would enforce the bathroom bills being proposed in the red states, given the overlap between, at a minimum, the most female-presenting quintile of trans-women and the least female-presenting quintile of cis-women.
That just means the best data you have to support the existence of gender identity roughly rivals the data we have to support astral projection. It's not skin off my nose if you want to believe in it, but if you're demanding a sweeping reform of society, I think you need to back your demands with something better.
I just meant that he'd be allowed to take advantage of any benefits stemming from "identifying as a woman". If you don't see anything wrong with that, what exactly has Mr. Mustache Twirling Villain done wrong in the exact same situation?
a) Telling someone they're supposed to use the other bathroom is not harassment.
b) I don't recall phrasing "free rein" in terms of harm. I just meant there'd be no barriers to entering into women's spaces.
If it's a compromise then it's not a definition. The point of a definition is to communicate a concept between different people, so that they can reason about it and debate it. It sounds like rather than trying to do that, you are first trying to reach a specific goal, and are tailoring the "definition" to how far you think you can get.
Oh, fair enough, the conversation is going long enough that I forgot that.
I don't think it would make it fairer to them in any way, or how that they're having a terrible time when all of society is not forced to buy into their belief system.
No one I ever talked about responded with "oh, that sounds lovely, actually" when I made that argument, and I'd say that the burden is on the trans activists to initiate the conversation with that demand, if they want to use the "civil rights" argument.
a) I notice you're showing any examples of Karens demanding genital checks, or denying my point that no Karen has ever actually done so, in any way, thus proving this is a pro-trans shibboleth.
b) An honor system + resolving corner cases with government ID's with sex-based markers, sounds like more than enough to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link