site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10959 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 2026

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Okay, are we talking about toilets or locker rooms?

Regarding locker rooms, how does a trans woman's penis negatively affect the cis women in the locker room? Just look away.

And does it not equally violate social norms to have a trans woman's breasts, which look like normal female breasts, displayed in a men's locker room?

With this logic men should be allowed in the women's locker room. Those women are free to look away from my penis also. In what way is its mere presence wounding them? The only point of sex restricted spaces is to avoid this one situation. The social norm of private nude spaces for only one sex.

My understanding is that the reason for segregating locker rooms by sex is to prevent men from looking at women because that would make the women uncomfortable, not to protect men's eyes, and, to a much lesser extent, to prevent women from looking at men because that would make the men uncomfortable, not to protect women's eyes. Yes, this does ignore LGB people, but sex-segregated locker rooms originate in an era when LGB people were ignored.

It's also to prevent flashers from doing their thing. Indecent exposure is a crime. There are lots of men who get off on exposing their genitalia to women who don't want to see it, and yes, a non-negligible proportion of those are trans-identified males.

Indecent exposure is a crime.

Indeed, so we already have the means to prevent it. If a particular trans person is a pervert, prosecute them. Don't throw all trans people, most of whom are not perverts, under the bus. If a trans women isn't deliberately drawing attention from other women in the locker room, she is doing nothing wrong.

Ever hear the expression "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure"? I would much rather perverts not expose themselves to innocent victims in the first place over them doing so and arresting them after the fact.

Your argument is an argument for abolishing sex-segregation:

If a particular man is a pervert, prosecute them. Don't throw all men, most of whom are not perverts, under the bus. If a man isn't deliberately drawing attention from other women in the locker room, he is doing nothing wrong.

If your young daughter was getting changed in a locker room and you saw a middle-aged man in a trenchcoat follow her in, would you be concerned? Or would you wait until after he'd interfered with her before trying to have him arrested?

It being a crime is meant to be a deterrent, i.e., it serves to prevent it from happening and not just to punish people when it does.

Locker rooms are still necessary to prevent men from looking at women, as discussed in my previous comment. Using criminal prosecution or the possibility thereof to prevent this is unrealistic because it is something most men are inclined to do if given the opportunity, unlike indecent exposure, which only a small number of perverts do and which is widely condemned.

So are you in favour of abolishing sex-segregation entirely?

I made a mistake in my previous comment. It was meant to read:

Segregated locker rooms are still necessary to prevent men from looking at women, as discussed in my previous comment. Using criminal prosecution or the possibility thereof to prevent this is unrealistic because it is something most men are inclined to do if given the opportunity, unlike indecent exposure, which only a small number of perverts do and which is widely condemned.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats