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 -
How? Demanding that new definitions for "man" and "woman", and a belief if in "gender" be adopted is far beyond anything I recall seeing in a Chick Tract. The practice of Gender Affirming Care can also be rejected on the basis that it's pseudoscientific garbage, rather than "Jack Chick didn't like it".
Still a lot more universal than pro-trans people like to believe. A lot of the cultures they like to portray as having a concept of "trans" or "third gender" didn't, and they're just reinterpreting them through their values.
There is nothing kind about accepting transgenderism, though.
The parent poster fantasises about stoning, a punishment that is only known/relevant in our cultural context due to its preservation in the memetic time capsule of the Levant ca. 500BC that is Old Testament Christianity. The reference to Jack Chick, as one of the most internet-famous proponents of Old Testament morality, is apt enough.
(All the more so because I don't even think the Old Testament, or other historical texts, tend to opine particularly strongly on transsexualism or crossdressing per se. Once you get into "apply Old Testament punishments to modern American bugbears, while entertaining the belief that this is a human universal" territory, Jack Chick becomes a very iconic choice indeed.)
No, the old testament very explicitly condemns cross dressing- although from the perspective of believers who hold the prohibition still in force, the more common example is women in pants.
The point of the OT prohibition on cross-dressing is that the two sexes should be visually distinctive so you can tell from a distance whether you are dealing with a man or a woman. The practical application of this rule is easy in almost all cases.
For example, male and female Highland dress are completely different, despite both involving a skirted bottom.
Similarly, although some women wearing trousers are doing so to be deliberately androgynous, nobody could think a Hilary Clinton pantsuit was anything other than ladieswear and a man wearing one would be cross-dressing.
In the context of western culture, "men only wear a skirted garment as part of full traditional Highland dress, and women only wear a garment with divided legs when doing work or sports for which a skirt is unsuitable" is a good fence around the rule against cross-dressing which I find broadly reasonable if you accept the rule.
More options
Context Copy link
This kind of creates a circular reference, though, since the OT has nothing carved in stone about what 'women's clothing' and 'men's clothing' is, and who/what the deciding factor as to what article becomes for what gender is.
(If 'intent of the person creating the clothing', then pants are women's clothes and skirts are men's clothes [re: kilts], so it can't be that. If interpreting that as 'the clothes that provide sexual designation', that seems like a better dividing line, but it still suffers from the fact that to everyone else, pants aren't sexual designators any more- dresses and undergarments, sure, but that's not usually what they're restricting themselves to.)
I think that "women must never wear pants" is just an excuse to be traditionalist for the sake of traditionalism (or "fostering group cohesion by believing odd things"/"set apartness", if you prefer), or at least that appears to be the intent behind doing that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If that was his objection, maybe he should have quoted that part?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As far as I've been able to tell, the vast majority of them are simply "failed male, useless for the normal purpose of men". Spartans would have yeeted these off a cliff. These other cultures allowed them to live, and found something marginally useful for them to do.
More options
Context Copy link
The progs are reinterpreting those foreign/ancient culture through their own values, yes, but so are you. Those ancient foreign cultures were sexually degenerate; they were not exemplars of traditionalist Abrahamic sexual ethics, they were the thing that traditionalist Abrahamic sexual ethics defined itself against. I think the progs' "they had a third gender!" read of the situation is, though entirely incorrect about right and wrong, still closer to the truth than your "the entire world stoned these people to death until just now". There's nothing new under the sun. Modernity did not invent rampant culturally promoted sexual degeneracy.
Uh... Where have I said that they were?
Perhaps I overinterpreted:
and
?
One of these was not written by me.
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