site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12214 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.

I still don't understand why you want to prevent creepy men from gawping at women changing, unless said men purport to "identify as" women.

Because trans women are not men, creepy or otherwise. I want to prevent men from looking at them, too. They'll have breasts, and many men will find them interesting to look at even if they have a penis, and some don't even have a penis and are visually indistinguishable from cis women. Why do you only care about cis women's privacy?

Because trans women are not men, creepy or otherwise.

You don't consider any of these people creepy? Or how about some of these.

some don't even have a penis and are visually indistinguishable from cis women

I would love to see one of these trans-identified males who is visually indistingushable from an actual woman I keep hearing so much about.

Why do you only care about cis women's privacy?

Because, being physically weaker, female people are vastly more vulnerable to rape and sexual assault than male people. Unlike male people, female people can be forcibly impregnated.

You don't consider any of these people creepy? Or how about some of these.

The average trans person is not creepy. There are cis women who commit all sorts of crime, too, including sexual assault of women.

I would love to see one of these trans-identified males who is visually indistingushable from an actual woman I keep hearing so much about.

Kim Petras? She started hormones at 12, so she never went through male puberty that would give her masculine features.

Because, being physically weaker, female people are vastly more vulnerable to rape and sexual assault than male people.

Testosterone blockers and estrogen decrease muscle mass, and, if started at an early age, prevent masculine bone structure. The average trans woman who transitions late is weaker than the average cis man, though I don't know if she's as weak as a cis woman. The average trans woman who transitions early is as weak as a cis woman.

The average trans person is not creepy.

I agree. The average trans-identified male, however, I'm not quite as confident about.

Kim Petras? She started hormones at 12, so she never went through male puberty that would give her masculine features.

Afraid not, clocked them instantly. Very confused by the claim that it's impossible to distinguish male and female people until after they've gone through puberty.

though I don't know if she's as weak as a cis woman. The average trans woman who transitions early is as weak as a cis woman.

Wrong on both counts:

Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed.

With all due respect, I don't think you're quite as well-informed about this topic as you think you are.

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