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 -
If society were built to tell anyone who believed themself capable of astral projection, constantly, day-in, day-out, "You aren't really capable of astral projection, that isn't a thing, you are Delusional and Wrong.", and never let the matter rest, I think that that would justify 'demanding a sweeping reform of society'.
If you, as a result of some preternatural phenomenon, woke up to-morrow in a body of the opposite biological sex, how motivated would you be to reverse the change?
Precisely what benefits are those, and why ought we not extend them to identity!men?
That depends on whether he is harming anyone with the latitude given him.
Either he is, in which case recognising the wrongness of his actions does not depend on a rejection of his claimed gender identity, or he isn't, in which case he hasn't done anything wrong.
I was referring to the oft-invoked spectre of 'cis-man claims to be trans-woman, goes into women's toilet, does Harvey Weinstein impression', which is equally bad if the perpetrator is a cis-woman.
And? If they aren't harming anyone....
It's not a definition.
There are multiple pairs of categories into which human beings can be divided
These categories are strongly correlated, such that the members of one category will have a >90%/<10% distribution of any other pair; thus we refer to all the categories in column A as 'woman', and all those in column B as 'man'.
The pro-trans maximalist position is that the 'gender identity' category ought be used for all purposes, and none of the other categories should be acknowledged under any circumstance.
The anti-trans maximalist position is that the only categories that are relevant are those which do not change, and that any category which places trans individuals with their identified gender ought be ignored.
What I am offering as a compromise is "Default to using gender identity, use others if you have a Very Good Reason, 'we've always done it this way' doesn't count.".
...and yet demands that they buy into its beliefs.
Alice, and a mostly left-leaning coalition, believe that Alice is a woman. A mostly right-leaning coalition believes that Alice is a man.
I see no reason why it is more justified for the latter group to demand assent to their beliefs by the former than vice versa; 'it's always been this way' strikes me as a very flimsy premise, given how many times it has been used to support things which are now widely considered indefensible.
That would last about five minutes before a woman with PCOS or endometriosis and a Maine or Minnesota driver license tries to take a leak at the same time as a TERF with an opinion and a mood disorder.
More options
Context Copy link