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 -
Well, not as such, but neither would many old-school feminists. I suppose an unstated background assumption of my worldview, here, is that generally speaking it is bad to treat human beings differently due to their biological sex except in contexts where genitalia are directly relevant, eg sex itself. In this trans activist's optimal scenario, therefore, the widespread adoption of trans-style definitions of "man" and "woman" should be part and parcel of (indeed, it should be a footnote to!) a gradual shift into of a properly non-sexist, indeed a properly sex-blind society, a culture where, by default, nobody cares what you've got in your pants any more than they care about the shape of your earlobes. (With any luck, this shift will be expedited by a Singularity that makes old-school physical bodies themselves optional, but we'll see.)
Accordingly, I would regard a widespread adoption of 'X24' and 'X25' as unfortunate because it would constitute a backslide in that respect, not so much because of how it would reflect on trans issues in particular. Outside of a dating context, "this person has a vagina" should not be a fact on the forefront of anyone's mind any more than "this person is Asian" or "this person is left-handed"; it is deeply unpleasant that our culture trains people to mentally divide human beings into Vagina-Havers and Penis-Havers as the two foremost boxes, with anything else as parallel subcategories. Introducing new euphemisms for Penis-Havers and Vagina-Havers would reopen that Pandora's-box and risk reintroducing all those petty, demeaning sex-based biases to people's default way of perceiving the world around them.
Broadly, yes; I'm rather big on free speech. By the same token, of course, if there are people in that office who disagree with the worker on how it is appropriate to refer to Jenner, I do think they retain a right to criticize him however they like. But certainly I don't think the worker should get disciplined for it, whether by the employer or by the state.
Right, so when you said the following, it was not entirely accurate:
The real goal is to have a world where, generally speaking, people DON'T distinguish between men and women as those terms were traditionally defined, but instead distinguish between men and women based on the new definitions: A man is someone who self-reports to be a man and a woman is someone who self-reports to be a woman.
Agreed?
Well according to the principle of "treat people how they want to be treated," it would be inappropriate for anyone to criticize this worker who referred to Bruce Jenner as a "he." Agreed?
I don't think the passage you quoted actually conflicts with your restatement; they're different facets of the same thing. See also the nuance about whose "real goal" we are talking about. Trans activists' primary goal is a specific subset of the broader goal of anti-sexists. But your restatement sounds fair enough on the merits.
That depends on what you mean by "inappropriate". In a hyper-analytical sense, you can, in theory, try to calculate how ethical it is to make any statement at all in conversation based on whether it will heighten or lower other participants' happiness, but I am not so much of a utilitarian as to think "ethical microtransactions" of this kind are useful to keep track of. The mild emotional inconvenience of a good-faith disagreement does not meet the threshold necessary to even start talking about morality, and is, in the grand scheme of things, trumped by other concerns like the society-wide benefits of free speech, and most people's preference for people to be honest when talking with them rather than insincerely walking on eggshells all the time. Criticizing the worker would be no more or less "inappropriate" than the fact that you're criticizing me right now, or that I'm criticizing you; neither of us is acting unethically, because I think we both prefer to live in a world where disagreements can be discussed openly in good faith.
Ok, thank you for answering that question.
I mean the same thing you mean when you say that "it is generally morally good to treat people the way they wish to be treated"
i.e., according to your principles, it is -- generally speaking -- morally good to refrain from criticizing someone who refers to Bruce Jenner as a "he" in a conversation where Bruce Jenner (or whatever he calls himself (or herself or whatever)) is not around.
(And to make my example even clearer, I will stipulate that the worker has expressed that he does not believe in gender ideology, and that he would prefer it if nobody corrected him or criticized him for referring to Bruce Jenner (or whatever he calls himself (or herself or whatever)) as a "he.")
Agreed?
Yes. It's not nice to start beef with people about their beliefs when they've explicitly stated that they don't want to have an argument about those beliefs, and people shouldn't do it, especially in the workplace. (In theory, attempting to persuade a person with harmful beliefs could be worth the discomfort to them if you think it has a genuine chance of convincing them to change their minds; but people systematically overestimate how likely they are to persuade people, never mind people who've already said they don't want to argue the point.)
Of course, to the extent that it causes you discomfort for the worker to misgender Jenner in your earshot, the optimal equilibrium is for you to communicate that fact to him, and for both of you to avoid discussing Jenner at the office altogether, or, if bringing them up becomes absolutely necessary for some reason, to default to their last name and avoid gendered language. If such a gentleman's-agreement is in place, your coworker would be breaking the non-aggression pact slightly by letting a "Bruce" slip through, and you might therefore be justified in retaliating with a mild criticism to reestablish balance; but even then you should be careful not to escalate, and it's often better to just let it go by unless it becomes a pattern and you start to suspect that your coworker is trying to boil the frog. This framework has served me very well at extended family dinners re: the trans issue, and it's the time-honored way to handle value differences between coworkers in general: don't talk politics at the office, don't talk religion at the office, generally don't start arguments with people minding their own business and avoid doing things that might provoke others into starting arguments with you.
Ok, thanks for answering that question. It occurs to me that the principle of "treat people how they want to be treated" goes further than that. For example, if someone is communicating with me, I prefer that they not refer to Bruce Jenner as "Caitlin" "she" or anything like that. Can we agree that under your principle, people should, generally speaking, respect my desire?
In theory. Terms and condition apply, of course - starting with the fact that it might cause me discomfort to refer to Jenner as male, and if that discomfort is equal to or greater than your discomfort at hearing them referred to as male. For example, I might have trans people in my life who would be saddened if they could not trust that I always respect trans people's chosen names, and not want to be keeping secrets from them. At the end of the day, if hearing the words "Caitlin Jenner" irritates you more than the ability to have a mutually-honest conversation about Jenner would please you, we round back to the fact that we are probably not two people who stand to derive much happiness from discussing Jenner with one another, and should probably talk about something else if we talk at all.
(In the event, of course, I think Mottizens, by virtue of participating in the Motte, declare themselves to be people who would prefer to confront political and ideological disagreements head-on, at least within the context of the Motte. And generally I think true friendships require that sort of mutual-preference-for-the-other-guy to be honest, which is why the topic-avoidance strategy is most relevant to contexts where people are forced to interact regardless of personal inclinations, such as coworkers.)
Well that's not really my problem -- you are the one saying that -- generally speaking -- people should be treated as they desire. And my desire is that anyone communicating with me refer to "Bruce Jenner" not "Caytlin" and use "he" and not "she"
In any event, I think you've answered my questions sufficiently. Based on your answers, I am satisfied that, as I had strongly suspected, gender ideology (or whatever you want to call it) is a bunch of ridiculous nonsense on the level of astrology. To be sure it can be defended on the principle of "treat people as they want to be treated," but only if this principle is applied selectively. Which means that it's no principle at all.
Among other things, a sizeable percentage of the population -- perhaps a majority -- would prefer to distinguish between men and women based on the traditional approach as opposed to self-reporting. And yet trans activists frequently trample roughshod over this desire, sometimes even to the point of publicly criticizing, shaming, canceling, etc. such people. I can't really take it seriously when these activists claim that they follow the principle of treating people as they desire.
Anyway, thank you for answering my questions.
But "people" includes me; it includes how I treat myself, and how you ought to treat me viz. what requests you make of me. Anyway, would you mind answering a couple of from me in turn?
I'm fairly bemused by this. Of course a principle on how you should treat people by default can be nullified by specific circumstances, but should still be followed in the absence of these circumstances; e.g. the general principle "it's not nice to kill people" vs the specific circumstance "you can kill in self-defense if they attacked you first". I don't see how this is any different. Hence, first question/set of questions: on what basis do you think people should in general be treated? Do you have a principle that applies in all circumstances and correctly models the ethical way to behave with any human being in any context? How and why does this principle demand that you always refer to a Homo sapiens with a penis by the word "he"?
I don't see how any of my answers could lead to that conclusion. Even if you disagree with some of the judgement calls involved, I staked a case based purely on materialist concerns, with none of the references to a magic transcendental True Gender written on the soul that less sophisticated trans advocates sometimes refer to, and which would validate a comparison to astrology. Put another way, I did not expect to convince you to support trans rights through this comment chain, but I did hope to make you see that I do not have any factually-erroneous object-level beliefs about the world on the subject of what gender is and how it works, in the way that a believer in astrology does; I merely have a value system that's fairly exotic compared to yours. So, my second question: would you in fact agree with that statement? If not, why not?
Finally: I made references to the possibility of a Singularity forcing the issue. Where would you stand if, in 30 years, we've all been converted into shapeshifting telepathic nanite clouds, only taking anthropomorphic form if we wish to? (For the sake of argument. Let's not get into whether you think a Singularity will happen within 30 years, or whether you believe it's possible for a brain-upload to have qualia.) Would you insist on only referring to people by the pronouns of their original, long-since-discarded flesh body's physical sex? Or would you say that the Earth was now exclusively populated by "it"s, and refuse to refer to anybody as "sir" or "madam" ever again?
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