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 -
One problem is that when considering the effect of an intervention, this is basically an apples-to-oranges-to-licorice comparison.
The gold standard for determining the effect of an intervention would be a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Take a patient and then prescribe them either a puberty blocker or a placebo, so that neither you nor they know what they got, and then follow up on the outcome years later.
Obviously this is hard to do for ethical reasons. But anything else risks simply measuring confounders. Perhaps the people opting for intervention simply had a higher trust in their medical system, and consequently were also more likely to seek psychiatric help with other problems. Or a million other things.
This is not my experience. The anti-trans side believes very strongly in their conception of gender, hence all the bathroom bans. Someone who actually rejected the concept of gender might preach some kind of pansexuality where you simply do not care what kind of sex bit your partners have. They might reject the very concept of straight and gay couples because There Is No Gender, Man.
By contrast, the people most offended by trans people believe very strongly in the existence of gender, they just happen to think that it is identical to sex-assigned-at-birth.
This is a weird framing. I wouldn't say I believe in gender, but think it's identical to sex (not "sex-assigned-at-birth", just "sex"). I would say that, of the two, sex is the only thing that actually exists. No one actually has a "gender identity" (hell, no one can even provide a cogent, non-circular definition of what "gender identity" even is), but even if they did, it's a bad idea to design public policies around unfalsifiable claims people make about their own inner experiences. "Gender identity" meets this description, "sex" does not, ergo "sex" is a good basis on which to design public policies and "gender identity" is not.
I think we are just arguing over semantics. Of course, if "gender" and "sex" are co-extensive, then there is no need for two different words.
If we were in a society of peafowl or nudists, that would work. You just see the colorful plumage (or the penis) of the person you meet, and you know for certain that you are dealing with a male.
In most human societies, it is not as easy to identify the sex of another person. Asking them to show you their genitals is mostly frowned upon, so you rely on Bayesian evidence -- beards, breasts under clothing, gendered clothes, height, hairstyle, behavior, voice register. All of these can be mimicked, and depending on the social setting some trans people might pass.
"Sex and gender are co-extensive" is a claim which can only be made if one has two different words. Even if it was, it might still be worthwhile to keep the two terms around to discuss this fact. Physics has a concept of "inertial mass" and "gravitational mass", even though as far as we know both are co-extensive.
If I were to ask evangelicals if they supported "traditional gender roles", I think most would affirm (even if they would prefer the vaguer phrasing of traditional family values). If I asked them if they supported "traditional sex roles", they would likely be confused. Am I some freak talking about missionary sex, or an even greater freak talking about sexual roleplay, or am I talking about some ancient environment, as in "males specialize in hunting mammoth, females in picking berries", and could I please avoid saying the s-word?
For what it's worth, I am not a gender fanboy. My (mostly underinformed) impression is that while there are some social sciences who do an admirable job of cargo-cult science, gender studies do not even rise to that level and are probably about as epistemically useful as theology. I just do not think that the main concept they are (presumably) dealing with is devoid of meaning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, that's rich. When the Cass Review pointed out that the evidence for trans medicine is of low quality, the pro-trans side was claiming that it's oh-so-unfair that Cass would only declare a study "good" if it's double-blind (spoiler: she didn't), but now we're supposed apply that standard to studies with negative results, otherwise the interventions should be deemed good by default? How does that make any sense?
Thay sounds lime your belief in gender being so strong, that you can't conceive of someone having an alternative belief, and interpreting their thoughts through your lens. Why would I need to believe in "gender" to segregate people by sex?
That makes no sense. Let's say I accept "gender" exists, even under that belief system it's possible to say "even though we sometime segregate people by gender, in this context it's more appropriate to segregate them by sex". I've been told that by pro-trans people! So if I can segregate people by sex when gender exists, I can do so when I think it doesn't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link