site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   23551 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.

And I'm a little uncomfortable with the "therefore" which gives the whole the appearance of some sort of logical deduction. I brought up the way we treat non-gender-related chosen names as an analogy for how I think we should think of trans people's chosen genders. I do not claim that you can rigorously derive trans rights from the practice of chosen names on its own; it's merely a good reference point for how I, as a pro-trans person, think of the former, which is what the OP was attempting to grok.

As @Jiro pointed out, names are typically just arbitrary in the sense that they don't imply anything factual about the person being named. In situations where names do imply something factual, suddenly situations start to arise where it's NOT clearly correct to call a person by their chosen name.

In any event, since your argument apparently does not rest on that analogy, and since it apparently did not help me to understand your position, please just lay out your argument for why trans people should be treated by society as their preferred gender without reference to your name analogy.

TIA.

In situations where names do imply something factual,

But trans activists' whole thing is to alter cultural and linguistic norms so that "she/her" or "woman" no longer imply anything factual about people's reproductive organs. We want a world where everyone knows that some "women" have penises rather than vaginas. There is no deceptive intent, as there would be in the Michael Jordan example. Moreover, until the linguistic expectation that a "man" necessarily has a penis becomes as universally quaint as using "gay" to mean happy, which I grant might take some decades yet to filter through from the wokest Blue hubs, I am generally in favour of trans people actively making their transness transparent in any context to which sex is relevant. And frankly, so many trans people are (physically or digitally) bedecked in pins and pride flags that we're a solid chunk of the way there already.

please just lay out your argument for why trans people should be treated by society as their preferred gender without reference to your name analogy.

Well, my main reason isn't so much a positive argument as the root preference-utilitarian claim that it is generally morally good to treat people the way they wish to be treated, and that any exceptions to this require a proactive case for why normal rules of courtesy should be suspended. Going along with trans people's preferences constitutes being nice to them; misgendering them constitutes being mean to them. I believe in being nice to people unless there are overwhelming reasons not to, and I've never seen a conservative make a convincing case as to why trans people, as a bloc, should constitute such an exception. (They occasionally make cogent utilitarian arguments about specific situations; I can respect the opposition's view re: the convicted-rapist problem, for example. But that would only justify making exceptions to the general refer-to-trans-people-as-their-preferred-gender rule in those highly specific contexts; it is not an argument for ignoring them all the time.)

But trans activists' whole thing is to alter cultural and linguistic norms so that "she/her" or "woman" no longer imply anything factual about people's reproductive organs. We want a world where everyone knows that some "women" have penises rather than vaginas. There is no deceptive intent, as there would be in the Michael Jordan example.

Well, suppose for the sake of argument that pro trans people got their way and "woman" and "man" get redefined. And suppose further that a couple of new words come out, let's say "X24" and "X25" which mean basically what man and woman previously meant. And the new words become so commonplace that you might hear a Christian Pastor say something like "This X24 and X25 will make a great husband and wife" Or you might see a sign at nightclub: "Free admission to X25s!!" In your view, would trans activists be okay with this situation?

Well, my main reason isn't so much a positive argument as the root preference-utilitarian claim that it is generally morally good to treat people the way they wish to be treated, and that any exceptions to this require a proactive case for why normal rules of courtesy should be suspended

Ok, so if a worker is having a conversation in the office and refers to "Bruce Jenner" and uses the word "he" to refer to this person, can we agree that it would not be "nice" -- and in fact it would be "mean" -- to criticize, shame, discipline or otherwise sanction this worker. Because it's better to treat the worker the way he wishes to be treated and Bruce Jenner (or whatever you want to call him) is not in the room to be offended?

Not any ruder than you calling someone an asshole if they call you it first.

Or in otherwords the order of meanness matters. If we assume that misgendering is rude then the person being rude first can then indeed be shamed in return.

You shouldn't punch someone, but if they punch you (or someone else) you can punch them back.

Thats only if we are granting that misgendering is rude of course as per the hypothetical.

But no if someone is mean (however that presents) it is entirely fine to be mean back. They have forfeited the protection of courtesy themselves.

Thats why framing something as a courtesy issue is a powerful tool.

Not any ruder than you calling someone an asshole if they call you it first.

Or in otherwords the order of meanness matters. If we assume that misgendering is rude then the person being rude first can then indeed be shamed in return.

Note that I stipulated that Bruce Jenner (or whatever you want to call him) is not in the room. From the principle of "treat people as they would like to be treated," perhaps it follows that when you are talking to Bruce Jenner directly, you should call him "Caitlyn" But how does it follow that you should do this even when he (or she or whatever pronouns he uses) is not around?

Setting aside the pronoun example. If you and i are co-workers in a room together and you call Bruce Jenner an asshole and i don't agree with you then you've still committed a faux pas.

If I agree with you it doesn't matter of course (just like the pronoun example) because I'm not going to think you're bring rude if I feel the same way. These scenarios are only an issue when we feel opposite ways. You think Bruce is an asshole, I like Bruce. If I too dislike Bruce, or don't care either way then i'm just going to keep eating my cheesesteak.

But if you call someone an asshole, even if not present then you may be called an asshole in return.

"Bruce Jenner is my hero, you're the asshole!"

If you and i are co-workers in a room together and you call Bruce Jenner an asshole and i don't agree with you then you've still committed a faux pas.

According to what principle?

Calling someone an asshole unprompted is rude. You failed to read the room and did so in front of someone who cares about that.

Calling someone an asshole unprompted is rude.

Ok, so it sounds like you are saying that the principle of "treat people how they would like to be treated" must sometimes yield to the principle of "don't be rude."

Do I understand you correctly? And if I do, what's your point? Are you asserting that it's "rude" to refer to Bruce Jenner (or whatever he calls himself (or herself or whatever)) as a "he"? Or are you making some other point?

More comments

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