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 -
I did read the entire sentence and, again, no they're not. Trans people are not forbidden from using toilets. No conservative politician is demanding that trans people be denied access to toilets of any kind. No conservative politician is demanding that trans people be forced to shit on the street. Conservative politicians are demanding that trans people use the toilets concordant with their sex, just like everyone else. You might disagree with this policy, but lying about what it entails helps no one.
But the outcome of some of the competing issues might have that happen.
The Womens Institute might be a good example. Some groups didn't want to include trans-women. They wanted to limit it to biological women (which would include trans men). Not unreasonable in my view at least. Others disbanded over that change.
However some groups didn't want trans-men (because they look like/act like men). So the "anti-trans" women side does have a split here. They don't want biological men in womens spaces, but alot of them also don't want anyone who looks like a man either.
If that gets carried through, neither trans men (biologically female) or trans women (biologically male), get to attend.
While most conservative commentators do want trans people to use the bathroom their biological sex would suggest. That does mean some pretty masculine looking bearded trans men in womens bathrooms and locker rooms. And we've already seen that can be a problem..
This isn't just hypothetical, given the UK supreme court ruling (and draft EHRC guidance off the back of it) says you could ban a trans-man from a mens bathroom (because they are biologically female) AND from a womens bathroom because their presentation as male may make women uncomfortable, so this outcome is legally supported.
See the problem? There are competing strands of what people want or don't want within the broad "anti-trans" tent and the intersection of those might well mean in practice some trans people can't use either bathroom.
Note: I put anti-trans in quotes as a short hand, but I don't think many of these people are necessarily what I would call anti-trans in actuality. I have high regard for many Women's Institute groups and I think both of their positions on the exclusion of biological men and women who look like/act men can both make sense depending on your criteria.
More options
Context Copy link
Do I have to spell it out for you? Can you not infer from context that I meant banning trans people completely from using toilets or doing other sex-segregated activities concordant with their gender?
Trans people are demanding that they be allowed to use the toilets concordant with their gender, just like everyone else.
If they knew trans men existed, they'd want to exclude them from both men's (because "they're women") and women's (because they look like men) spaces. This is not hypothetical. Regarding last year's landmark UK Supreme Court ruling:
What about people like me, who insist we do not have a gender identity of any kind? Which toilet do we use?
Trans activists claim that the women's toilets are intended for anyone who has a woman's gender identity, and that bathroom bans are denying them access to a facility that female people are entitled to. People like me, by contrast, deny that women's toilets are intended for anyone who claims to have a female "gender identity", but are rather intended for individuals of the female sex.
"Gender identity" is an unfalsifiable concept, and basing public policy on unfalsifiable claims individuals make about their subjective inner experiences is a bad idea.
My flippant response was meant to highlight that you're just assuming that your viewpoint on the central topic this entire debate is about is correct and framing it as obvious and uncontroversial.
Indeed, which is why I believe there should be some minimum standards for trans people to be allowed to use their preferred facilities beyond just stating they're trans.
Well, it is obvious and uncontroversial that sex is an objective fact which can be trivially verified and falsified, which "gender identity" is not. Hell, it can't even be defined in a non-circular manner, although countless people have tried.
Testing chromosomes is not trivial. A hundred years ago, Imane Khelif would have been considered a weird woman. No one would to think to classify her as male because she doesn't menstruate. And what about people who have a set of chromosomes other than XX or XY? What about people with mosaicism?
How about defining gender such that "my gender is 'woman'" means "I want to be treated, in most social situations, as you would treat the average person with XX chromosomes (however you refer to such a person)"?
This definition is internally consistent and non-circular. The only problem with it is that it doesn't match how any trans person uses the term "gender identity".
Trans-identified males don't claim that they want to be women. They claim that they are women, in some ineffable sense of the term which transcends mere anatomy.
It also makes every associated word collapse into incoherence. According to your definition, the term "woman" refers to both "a person with XX chromosomes" and "a person who doesn't have XX chromosomes but wishes to be treated as if they did". Doesn't it strike you as strange, using exactly the same word for the thing itself and for people who wish to be the thing itself? Is this how any other word in the English language is defined? The word "billionaire" solely refers to people with a net worth of 1 billion or more; we do not use it to also refer to people who wish they had a net worth of 1 billion or more (for that, we have "aspiring billionaire"). The word "lawyer" refers to someone who is licensed to practise law; we do not also use it to refer to people who wish they were licensed to practise law (for that, we have "aspiring lawyer" or "lawyer in training"). I genuinely can't think of an example of a word in the English language which refers to both the thing in itself and to anyone who wants to be the thing in itself.
More options
Context Copy link
"What about these edge cases that don't describe >99% of the population?"
The existence of some weird edge cases doesn't mean that sex can't be trivially verified almost all of the time.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link