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.
I don't think gender ideology and gynosupremacy are the same thing. Trans-identified males are famously filled with homicidal rage towards feminists who deny that trans-identified males are women. TERFs routinely decry the trans activist movement as a sexually frustrated men's rights movement, and it doesn't take a lot of squinting to see how they arrived at that conclusion.
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?
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...?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?)
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link