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 -
Why? They have sufficient power to force you to accept the bad actors wholesale in the first place; that's how the man got his sinecure in the first place. And while I'm very much "equality feels like oppression when you're privileged for so long" to female bad actors claiming "that means you're oppressing women" I can't magically summon guns to enforce that viewpoint.
Anyway, we already know who is and isn't acting in good faith- the test is very simple. (I'm sure the reason I don't see many examples of this is because they're inherently invisible, and not because they make up a vanishing minority of cases.)
If you're wearing unisex clothes, you're in good faith; this is what "dressed as a woman" is for women, so you would naturally do that if you wanted to fit in as one.
Casual dress is not fundamentally that different between men and women and hasn't been for the last 40 years (insert 70s-80s scandals of "women in pants" here), so if it's just "wearing women's clothes" that fixes an assumed fundamental psychological need, that is exactly what I'd expect to see from someone just trying to cope rather than call attention to it (or someone just wearing female undergarments and a properly-fit bra- the latter is required to make the shirts fit right anyway).
The difference when it comes to skirts (the only unisex clothing that men don't currently wear) is fundamentally their transparency; casual and business ones are usually opaque and don't have cuts in them (some of them have more pockets than their jeans), while the ones designed specifically to accentuate one's legs are... neither of those things.
If you're wearing the showier female clothes (in an environment where the real women aren't similarly dressed), you're in bad faith/it's definitely AGP. This is what "dressed as a woman" looks like for men and makes no attempt to change that impression. This generally applies to dresses, the "sexier" skirts, low-cut shirts, those transparent shawl things whose proper name escapes me, etc.- the stuff that you don't see women wearing more generally. Brinton pretty obviously falls into this category, as do all of the most egregious examples.
Now, the obvious counter-claim from someone in these kinds of clothes is that "I'll get constantly misgendered if I'm not in the
sluttiestshowiest getup I can muster", and the value difference ultimately comes down to "that's a you problem, because a nontrivial number of women have manlier faces than you do and nobody has a problem telling male from female there". The "but I should be wear whatever I want to without other people judging me" is also invalid; I can change the judgment of others by changing my clothes (and have to, when on the clock) and you can too.It's important to note that this actually can't go the other way (for ex-women exhibiting autoandrophilia) because men have no gendered clothes (men don't wear packers for what should be obvious reasons)- even the part of male undergarments that you can occasionally see have distaff counterparts that look very similar and nobody will question boxers in general despite them being impractical while on one's period since the pads won't fit.
More options
Context Copy link