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 -
You mean like with the flags they're covering the entire cities with, the marketing materials and children's cartoons with mastectomy scars, and school curricula with gender ideology?
I appreciate the sentiment, but the argument was that contrary to your claim that trans people are the oppressed minority who are just trying to lay the controversy to rest, and are being fallowed around and harassed, they are actually the oppressor minority following people around and harassing them.
Like I said, given the lack of evidence, or even a coherent definition, I have no reason to believe that, any more than I do people who claim they engage in recreational Astral Travel.
Being told to go to the other bathroom is hardly belongs to the same category as getting sent to mandatory therapy because your hue was a bit too cloudy today.
Well, then you'll have to reformulate all the arguments we've been through. Why are we even redefining "man" and "woman" to take "gender identity" into account now? It doesn't matter, there's no segregation.
Right, so that's "the" vs. "a", the former implying there's a single definition, while the latter implies there are many. Also why are you bringing up "biologically female" here? We were talking about "woman". You said that for some purposes like sports, "woman" could be defined to not include trans women, and you said that it would be compromise. I said if something is a compromise, then it's not a definition. A definition is used to communicate concepts, so that you can later settle through discussion, on whatever set of social rules you deem reasonable. Using definitions to predetermine a conclusion doesn't strike me as a fair way of approaching a conversation.
Now, hold on there. I was specifically told in many conversations with people who believe in "gender identity" that "man" / "woman" are the terms for gender, and "male" / "female" are the words for sex. This would be consistent with the usage of "male" / "female" for other life forms on this planet. Also, demanding that I accept your proposed changed to the definition of "woman" while preventing me from using "female" to refer to sex is a blatant double standard. If I can accept your definition of "woman", you can accept my definition of "female" is not impolite.
This is just starting to look like you're trying to prevent me from arguing for my ideas, rather than honestly trying to come to an understanding.
That's just "female". There's no reason to specify "genetically", because it is understood it's our genes that determine our sex.
If you're already changing something, you might as well make sure you won't have to do it again soon, because it turned out that someone else's idea was even better.
But also: you haven't even cleared the "better than the status quo" standard.
That's not necessarily true. It's been a common pattern in the Social Justice movement to demand change, not because the new way of doing things would work better for them, but because they wanted to take control of the thing. The people who made the all-female Ghostbusters didn't do so because the old ones weren't working for them, and judging by the new one's popularity, it didn't work for them either.
You said you don't know how to enforce bathroom segregation without resorting to genital checks, my explanation should be sufficient. Yes, it would require certain states to reform how they do their IDs, but it definitely is possible.
In most cases she wouldn't need that. Like I said, on first pass it would work on an honor system, the ID would only be used to resolve disputes.
More options
Context Copy link