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 -
Who's complaining? Please point out to me where in my:
implies in any way that this is a bad thing or that I'm complaining about it.
With all due respect, this suggests to me that you haven't actually spoken to people on your "side" (an aside: what an ugly word to use in this sort of conversation). I'm basing this on actual conversations I had with actual trans activists who I was on the same "side" as all the way through around early 2020s. I used to be an intersectional feminist (still a feminist today, just not that kind) who was very much on the entire "break down all social norms and queer everything" train (heh) up to that point and know for a fact that, yes, trans activists do draw a very clear distinction between trans women and drag queens, but they certainly see the normalization of the latter as a good tool for normalizing the former, via attacking heteronormativity and opening up people's minds to the possibilities of human expression and sexuality and etc. that are being suppressed by our current oppressive system. My comment did not, in any way, conflate trans women with drag queens, nor did my comment imply such as a base assumption.
The tone of the entire paragraph certainly suggests that you disagree with what you have dubbed "dualism".
If you don't mind sharing, what made you change your mind?
I'll have to concede on this, as I am not personally involved in activist circles and am not privy to this kind of strategizing.
That suggestion you notice is accurate; I certainly do disagree with dualism in general and this form of dualism specifically. This doesn't imply that my statement:
is a statement of complaint about some real events, rather than an illustration of the reasoning being explained.
A combination of a lot of things, many little, a few big. The big/overarching ones would be: being tired of how much motivated reasoning I had to engage in; reading primary sources of the most highly-regarded "scholarship" that underpins intersectional feminism and realizing that there's no there there; noticing the complete lack of self-awareness by the supporters of the ideology in analyzing their own motivations for believing and supporting the ideology (i.e. searching for self-serving reasons that explain one's genuine belief in the ideology), which extended to punishing people for attempting to be self-aware themselves. This led me to conclude that this truly was a secular religion that was faith-based to its core, with, at most, one grain of truth (i.e. people sometimes treat other people unfairly due to their biases) which had already been incorporated into basic liberalism for decades anyway.
I would say it's reasonable to expect an illustration of reasoning you disagree with to be a somewhat plausible application of that reasoning to a somewhat plausible scenario.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I have long been sceptical of "intersectionality" and related ideas, but it's never led me to oppose trans people as a whole. If people share bad arguments in favour a position, or if bad people share arguments in favour of a position, that doesn't imply (in the sense of logical implication) that the position is wrong.
I would say it isn't reasonable, because that's actually not engaging with the reasoning. The thing with reasoning is that it's an abstraction that explains the interaction between real things, not an expression of real things in themselves.
You seem to be implying that I "oppose trans people as a whole," which is plainly not evident in the comments that I wrote here (or anywhere - because I don't oppose trans people as a whole or even in any meaningful way - I oppose certain types of trans activists in their specific activism). It's also not that bad people make bad arguments in favor of a position, it's that the only arguments in favor of a position are bad arguments (whether they're from bad people or not is neither here nor there; some of them are bad, others aren't, but they all engage in bad reasoning when making these arguments).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link