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 -
Does anyone who is pro-trans want to steelman gender ideology for me and try to field questions? It's always seemed rather ridiculous to me (for example, the idea that someone with XY chromosomes, a penis, and the physical size of a man might actually be a woman) but I realized the other day that I haven't looked carefully at the details of pro-trans arguments.
I realize that this is something I could probably look up elsewhere online, but I would like to follow up with critical questions so that the whole argument is laid bare without any motte/bailey pivots.
To start things off, I understand that those who adhere to gender ideology draw a distinction between "sex" and "gender." "sex" refers to the markers such as male versus female genitalia; XX versus XY chromosome; etc. which have traditionally been used to distinguish between human males and human females. "Gender" (according to gender ideology) refers to a person's internal feelings in regards to their sex. So that a person who is of the male sex, might possibly be of female gender and vice versa. The purpose of sex reassignment procedures (hormones, surgery, etc.) is to align the disconnect between the person's sex and their gender. But even in the absence of such procedures, a person who is of the male sex and the female gender should be treated by society as a female (and vice versa). Even to the point where a another person's sexual preferences should go to the gender, not the sex, of a potential romantic partner. So that a straight man or a lesbian woman should be okay dating an individual who is of male sex but female gender, and if not they are a "transphobe."
Is that a fair summary of gender ideology? If not, what did I leave out? Or what did I include that's incorrect?
I'm pretty sure you're not entitled to anyone else's sexual desire. I remember being told this by Social Justice during the NiceguyTM era of dating discourse.
This is also the crux of why I find gender ideology so dementedly self-centered; your gender is ultimately only truly relevant when it comes to who you want to fuck and who wants to fuck you, which is a basic drive of being human. If you're ugly enough that a very narrow band of people will fuck you, that sucks. If you groom yourself weird, act/dress weird, and mutilate your body into something weird that an even narrower band of people want to fuck, that's a self-own. You don't get to shame and berate people for their sexual preferences because you made yourself less attractive to 99% of human beings, who's sexual preferences are tuned towards finding a fertile mate that they can produce offspring with.
Well yeah, every -supremacy movement is kind of by definition self-centered (it's in the name), and gynosupremacy is not any different.
In the 99.9% case, it's a woman being angry at men for this. Transgender ideology is simply a projection of that (i.e. to solidify their right to do it) and the equalization of "women can be men too".
Why would it be? You don't even have to pair off, the State will take care of you in your old age.
More options
Context Copy link
This was already mentioned, but it’s the usual who/whom.
If a man isn’t able to attract a woman he finds attractive, it’s because he’s the problem.
If a woman isn’t able to secure commitment from a man she finds attractive, it’s because men are the problem.
If a transwoman isn’t able to attract a man he finds attractive, it’s because cishet men are the problem.
More options
Context Copy link
Oppression olympics, it's all who/whom. Transgender lesbians are entitled to the sexual attraction of real lesbians(and being women, they don't cure this with Antina The Butch and her strap on, but rather with freakouts), because being trans they are more oppressed than lesbians.
One of the dumbest things I've encountered IRL was a petite, plain-at-worst FtM complaining that gay guys didn't want to fuck him.
So, you want to fuck people with dicks. And you have a vagina. But, instead of dating one of the numerously eager people who like vaginas and have dicks, the dick that fucks you HAS to like dicks, which despite your grooming and manner of dress, you do not have. And instead of compromising on your rather esoteric preference, you choose to waste everyone's time with this woe-is-me bit. Also, I suspect you only have this preference for dicks-that-like-dicks because, despite being heterosexual, you've been conditioned by external influences to think dicks-that-like-vaginas are bad. And no one is allowed to tell you that your desires and how you go about seeking to satisfy them are back-asswards.
This is someone who’s oblivious and/or masochistic enough to choose living life on a higher difficulty setting, so I suppose wittingly or unwittingly nuking their pool of eligible sexual/romantic partners is part of the experience.
Them complaining about it is pretty funny though. It’s like the Bike Fall meme/comic of a man jamming a stick through his wheel. Damn, if only there was a way one could have been attractive to a larger population of penis-havers…
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that this is potentially a valid criticism of gender ideology, but I'd be interested to know if adherents of gender ideology agree that it's transphobic for a straight man (or a lesbian woman) to categorically rule out dating an individual who would traditionally be thought of as a man but is of the female gender.
I do remember that a few years back, there was an online commentator who declared that he was "super-straight," a sexual orientation which meant that he was sexually attracted to women as the term is defined more traditionally. As I recall, trans activists did not find this acceptable or amusing.
I'm pretty sure they do think that. Or at least that's what I've seen ostensibly-straight gender-ideology-adherent women posting angrily about on social media.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link