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 -
'I suspect he's pretending to be trans for satiric purposes' was merely the first possibility that came to mind. I can't think of any others off-hand, but I do not categorically reject their existence, and I suspect I'd know it when I see it. '[She's] a convicted rapist' is not such an indication because convictions for sexual assault are not the exclusive province of people born with male genitals.
First the definition of the word "woman" depends on the context, and has something to do with either having concave genitals or really wanting them. Then you admit that wanting concave genitals has nothing to do with it and it's all about self-identification. Then you admit that even self-identification has certain arbitrary carve-outs which you are unable to enumerate.
What this means in practice is that, in your framework, the word "woman" is undefined. It has no formalised definition. It is a floating signifier.
Do you understand how you've completely vindicated the effectiveness of the "what is a woman?" gotcha question, when by your own admission you literally cannot define the term under discussion and it ultimately boils down to "you know it when you see it"? Do you understand how frustrating it is to have a debate with you, when you're constantly changing around the definitions of the words you're using, how it makes the act of talking to you feel like a shell game? Do you understand why most people find gender ideology alienating, incoherent and intellectually unserious, when it proposes taking a commonsense word like "woman" with a simple and intuitive definition based on anatomy, and replacing that definition with "idk whatever you want lol but don't ever make fun of us or we'll call for you to be murdered"?
The word "woman", as used by you, means nothing. In future, I will simply disregard any sentence you write which contains the word "woman" or it's derivatives, as I have absolutely no idea what entities you're referring to by the use of said words. By your own admission, neither do you. You literally cannot provide a working definition beyond "I know it when I see it". You cannot define one of the basic terms on which your ideology rests, and yet expect the rest of it to accept that ideology at face value.
Note the elision here. Yes, female people can commit sexual assault (although they commit a tiny, near-negligible proportion of sexual assaults every year – 1% according to these stats). In many jurisdictions (including the UK, Ireland, Queensland and others), rape is defined as forcible or non-consensual penetration with a penis, which female people definitionally cannot commit.
I don't know if your acceptance of people committing the most quintessentially male of all crimes in the category "women" can be attributed to sheer unbridled gullibility, or an outright (but unacknowledged) hatred of female people. What's that saying? Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice?
You casually describe others as misogynistic without once stopping yourself to ask if your own attitudes are misogynistic, in practice if not by design. A man using the word "female" is misogynistic. But forcing a female person to share a prison cell with a male person with an intact penis who has used said member to penetrate multiple females without their consent and proudly declared his intent to do so again at the earliest opportunity – progressive.
"Why should I have to share a cell with this rapist?! He's going to rape me too!"
"Well, he's a woman."
"He only started 'identifying' as a woman post-conviction! In what possible sense could be be considered a woman?"
"Eh – you know one when you see one. His raping is so femme-coded. It's like, yass kween."
Is that seriously the argument you would present in this case?
If so, does it seriously not strike you as utterly repulsive and abhorrent?
What the fuck is a female-coded rape with a penis? You ask your victim their star sign while overpowering them, or inquire about their skincare routine?
The fact that you can look at a male person who has forcibly inserted his penis into a female person without her consent, has no desire to remove said appendage and proudly declares his intent to use it for that purpose again – you can look at him and announce "I know a woman when I see one, and boy are you ever one!" – just, honestly. This worldview, to my mind, seems far more misogynistic than those people who want to repeal the 19th amendment. After patiently listening to you expound on this ideology for months, the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that anyone who endorses this ideology is either ignorant about what it really entails, or has a profoundly deep-seated hatred for female people as a group.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link