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 -
Feminists of all kinds claim it's all men's fault, all the time. Why take them at their word on this?
TERF vs. not-TERF is at its core an intra-woman slapfight. The not-TERFs are pretty blatantly betraying the revolution for personal gain (as strivers do), the TERFs notice it, but they have no words for "women at fault" (every mechanism to restrain them from bad ideas has been destroyed) and no rhetorical tools to express it, so they just reach for the usual and hope it does the job.
I don't personally know any TERFs. All my woke friends, all their woke friends, all say bad things about TERFs. I don't think my woke friends (who are male and female, of course) are betraying the revolution for personal gain? It's just the oppression totem pole.
"Women at fault" is called "internalized patriarchy" or something, right?
I don't get the sense at all that trans activism is a frustrated men's rights movement. Maybe I'm just in a bubble with all my woke friends?
As I've argued before, if you go on /r/MTF and take a shot whenever you see a post which boils down to "why won't cis lesbians fuck me even though I identify as a woman?", you'll be dead of alcohol poisoning before the day is out. MtF spaces and incel spaces are alike in that they largely consist of male heterosexuals complaining about feeling sexually frustrated.
It's also a men's rights movement in a very literal sense in that it's a subset of men demanding special privileges. The reason I characterise it as such is that it's primarily asymmetric: while trans-identified males are keen to be housed in women's prisons and keen to compete in women's sporting events, the reverse is generally not true of trans-identified females. Consider this article about trans identification in the penal system. In California, well over 90% of the requests to be transferred to the opposite-sex prison came from male inmates. Some trans-identified female inmates were even housed in the male estate, but requested to be transferred to the female estate. Shock, horror: heterosexual male rapists in an environment thitherto devoid of female people don't care how a female person "identifies" or even if they've undergone a double mastectomy. Heterosexual male rapists are not attracted to anyone with "big femme energy": they are attracted to female people. Kind of surprised it took you being physically incarcerated in a men's prison before you figured this out.
More options
Context Copy link
From the point of view of the original gynosupremacists, "let's declare supremacy over all men" turning into "except if they put on a dress, then they have even greater privileges than women ever did" (and are given the permission to be even greater sex pests than they ever were before) is pretty blatantly a betrayal. A real "4 legs good, 2 legs better" moment.
Naturally, those who are trying to do it don't see it that way.
That is what I said- it's mostly woman vs. woman here, nothing to do with men (outside of their being an incidental/token). [Insert stereotype where men think it's all about them here.]
Kind of. That phrase is generally used to complain about there being any standards for female behavior, but it runs out of steam once you're past the initial conditions of the revolution outside of a meme to convince low-information/former revolutionaries.
It does make me laugh that the reason women who want to maintain their privileges can't in part because they forgot to invite any men (in the sense that there are very few men who actually understand women enough to effectively argue/aid against the ways women go to excess), though.
If I understand, you are saying the raw social power that caused wokeness (it certainly wasn't any mechanisms to detect or restrain bad ideas) is anti-TERF because the powers that be personally gain somehow? Are the trans sex pests running the universities?
I definitely agree the TERF
intersexintersect squabble is a fight between women, and I certainly think its a little funny (because I hate women). Your last comment -- you're saying TERF gynosupremists wouldn't even let transphobic men come to their aid? It seems unlikely to me. What does this look like, all the NYT columnists and writers being women nowadays, or something else...?Well that is the dispute: are the trans women really women, or men LARPing as women? If you think trans women are indeed the exact same as cis women and you hate all women, then too bad gay man, the trans men are coming for you as well and that fight will happen on your doorstep.
The TERF fight is between two camps of cis women: those who feel their intra-gender status is threatened by trans women and those who feel their intra-gender status is reinforced by them. As with all feminine competition, the visible topic is just a facade for the real conflict.
So all the screaming types online calling for the head of J.K. Rowling on a spike are, in fact, actually cis women in disguise only pretending to be trans women? Thank you for enlightening me!
Behold, the cis woman fighting TERFdom!
No, the cis women sit back and let their knights do the fighting for them, as women have always done. You are too focused on the puppets to notice the puppeteers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The raw social power that caused wokeness was basically just the revolution turning on itself after achieving its original goal. Women at large pounded the laws flat (the ones that would have prevented the transgender 'enforcers'; the 1950s would have solved this with them being
genocidedphysically removed with the requisite violence), then the Devil turned 'round on them.They don't have the 'cultural' (for lack of a better word) vocabulary to stop the badness- and why would they, being that men generally do that for them.
No, they're just the enforcers/auditors of the power of the subset of [the striver women] who are running them.
How many black members did the KKK have? Why do you think that would be? (Was it for lack of effective outreach, perhaps?)
What's funny, in a Schadenfreude way, is Scott Weiner getting unpersonned by the trans activist set. Gay yourself, Scott? Leather kink gay? Couldn't do enough for the T in LGBT+? Sorry, it wasn't enough! It is never enough! Get out of our space, you monster! The leopards are now eating his face, to nobody's surprise.
(The bit about praising him for protecting queer people on the sex offenders registry - uh, what???)
"State-mandated girlfriends" continues to be a popular political kickback.
(Actually, that's another clear "betrayed the revolution" marker there- women fought that battle specifically to minimize the amount of sexual welfare/unwanted taxes that could be demanded of them. Now, witness the vanguard bravely trying to force them back into paying sexual welfare to pay back their Brave Allies. As Britain proves, this is also a tax disproportionately levied against the poor.)
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