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 -
a) I don't see how. People are perfectly within their rights to tell anyone day-in, day-out that they are delusional and wrong. Christians, vax-skeptics, climate change deniers, opponents of Critical Race Theory, and indeed people with gender critical views... take your pick, people are being told their beliefs are delusional and wrong, and as far as I can tell, that's exactly the way things should be.
b) Please do go on and tell me how the people who're draping entire cities in their flags, inserting mastectomy scars into marketing materials and children's cartoons, adding genderwang into school curricula, get people fired from jobs, and terrorize venues into cancelling events, are that one's being followed around, and who just want to let the matter rest.
Not at all.
The benefits vary, anything from an earlier retirement age, lower physical test requirements, scholarships, carveouts for seats on various boards. Rather than extending them to men, I'd be in favor of removing them from women.
Another benefit is safety from people of the male sex, who are disproportionately more dangerous. You can't extend that to men, because we've found no way to as easily and accurately corral the individuals, as separating males from females does.
He'd be doing the exact same thing your examplary trans woman would be doing, except twirling his mustache villainously as he does so.
Yeah, but females are far less likely to engage in that sort of behavior, which is one of the reasons we give them their own spaces.
The only way this argument makes sense is if you are arguing for abolishing segregation. It makes no sense in the context of keeping segregation, but allowing "trans women" in. And if you're in favor of desegregation, then there's no need to modify the definition of "woman" to begin with.
Don't you mean it's not the definition? Either way, it's not a definition either, and that's my point. Like I said, the point of definitions is communicate concepts between people, not to pre-define the kind of categorization schemas you'd prefer for people to use. Your categorization schema may be better than mine, but you have to provide an argument for it being so, and to do that, we need some definitions for the basic concepts we are discussing. Trying to tell me we should use your categorization schema without defining these concepts is absurd.
And who is demanding assent to their beliefs? Go ahead and believe in "gender identity". If you want to change the definition of "woman", I can step over that and use another word, like "female" for the concept I'm referring to. You're free to believe what you want, and I'm still making the argument I wanted to.
The possibility space for different ways of doing things is nearly infinite, so if you want to change things, you need to show how your way is better than all the other possible ways. On the other hand "it's been working fine all this time" is a perfectly valid reason for keeping things the way they are, because change requires energy, and that energy could be spent on more important things.
...which is why I explicitly postulated a sex-based marker.
More options
Context Copy link