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 -
In this subject it’s way easier to be against something than it is to be for something. Both on a wider level and the details!
Epistemically it’s interesting that someone presents a relatively cogent view and you say “but that’s not what I’m mad at”.
My point is not a criticism of you though. It’s that this works in the opposite direction as well, and creates a lot of confusion. What you depict or want to depict as a monolithic and coherent gender ideology is also best understood as being “against” a caricature of conservative/religious gender ideology.
As an example you might say “there are two genders” or “two sexes” and they might get all worked up and excited since there are all of these edge cases both historically and individually.
It’s actually my observation that there are very loosely two camps: one says that gender is a social construct, and this should be ignored since people can do whatever they want. And individuals can and should be able to discard the baggage on demand since that’s an inherent right/is just. The second says that yes social constructs are real but we need to modify said social constructs in order to better represent the true underlying diversity of things. This camp believes that the constructs are stifling or harmful and need to be consciously expanded. In a way you can see that these don’t actually fit together very harmoniously.
Layered on top of this are various attitudes towards individualism and its sorta-opposite (however you want to phrase it, but the idea that societal or economic or other macro forces are overpoweringly strong). That’s why you see such a disconnect between the libertarian approaches and the other more “oppression” based narratives. The “gender ideology” camp as you describe it doesn’t actually care about reconciling these, since as long as you externally talk about your opposition to the conservatives you are usually going to be accepted.
And this works in reverse as well. You see everything from “gender dysphoria isn’t real” to “gender dysphoria is real and should be treated X way” with varying X’s to “gender dysphoria is ‘real’ but misunderstood or misinterpreted in Y way” and varying degrees of prescriptivism. “Defined” mostly as being in opposition to something.
Can you give me a few examples so I know what you are talking about?
Ok, I'm going to stop here for a couple reasons. First, coyly saying that something is "interesting" tells me that you want to imply something without plainly stating it. I don't have the time or energy to puzzle over what you are trying to say. Second, whatever your point is, if you need to misquote me to make the point, then it's probably not much of a point to begin with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link