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 -
The thing is, Freddie is a real live Marxist, which is part of the (far) left in American politics, but he otherwise has traditional leftist views of the remnants of the old socialist working-class type. So he doesn't realise that the Overton window has shifted past him, and he's being left behind on the wrong shore.
He's protesting for economic leftism, but the progressive leftism of right now (whatever about Occupy, which I thought at the time and continue to think was a steaming mess of clashing ideologies and even worse, no ideology, just 'let's protest and something something magic underpants gnomes profit! will happen') isn't interested in economics as such. Social liberalisation is way easier and cheaper to achieve, as all the formerly centrist-right governments (such as in my own country) discovered when they woke up to embrace the rainbow flag and legalise same-sex marriage. Instant popularity, doesn't cost a red cent to implement, the old problems of lack of housing and all the rest of it still remain but look - we've got Pride flags now!
So being a good old-fashioned leftist and liberal, he is exactly what he says - "conventionally progressive". So he thinks yeah, let trans people use the bathrooms they feel most comfortable in, yeah trans people aren't trying to trick anyone, they know they're not really changing sex, yeah let's just be tolerant and open and supportive.
And that's not enough any more. I don't think he gets the crazier extremes, so he just goes along with "well I'm not trans but if this is what trans people say, that's good enough for me". Hence the bits about biology - there is more to it that I didn't quote, and he does take the old line that sure, having XY chromosomes and a dick does indicate masculine biology which is how we identify men and the likes, but he just goes along with the line that the trans movement tells him they're taking.
So he's safe so far, but if he ever says the wrong thing (and it's very easy to do that right now), he'll be condemned just as harshly as if he had been one of the transphobes all along.
But it’s all crazy extremes, isnt it? If it was just “make getting a grc easier” the that would have been ok, but self identification is a clear extreme disaster.
And I don’t get how supposed rationalists don’t get that.
Because the motte of "XYZ is obviously bad" defends, as always, a more oppressive bailey: "so let's ban U, V and W just to be safe." The people who most loudly criticize self-ID are usually LGBT-unfriendly on various other issues. Maybe they thought DOMA was pretty great, or are on camera deadnaming someone, or sent their kids to conversion therapy. It could be for deep-seated beliefs, or it could be political strategy. Doesn't really matter. Why should trans supporters trust them to come to the acceptable compromise on GRCs?
It's more or less the same slippery-slope argument that gets deployed in reverse. Maybe a lesbian woman is capable of teaching kids, but what if she makes it sexual? Give an inch and those activists take a mile. They used to be aligned with pedophiles, too...next thing you know, they'll be defending MAPs in schools...better to cut this off from the start.
This is a negotiation tactic, and it's not unique to any one cause.
The people who most loudly criticize it are LGBT-unfriendly on other issues because an LGBT-friendly person has a lot more to lose by being accused of bigotry than a LGBT-unfriendly person, who's probably lost all that he could already and whose remaining friends and family won't care about the accusation. This situation is of trans supporters' own making.
It doesn't work in reverse unless the lesbian's environment is controlled by rightists who can easily make such accusations stick against even innocent lesbians.
I really don't think so. Fear of cancellation is not the deciding factor in the LGBT+ coalition. Either way, opposing self-ID is a pretty good predictor of opposing other LGBT policies. That means supporters are likely to cry "slippery slope!"
And yeah, that's exactly the environment I had in mind. Some employers clearly would fire people based on sexuality. I realize that Title VII preempts such an option, but it still shows up as a rhetorical strategy.
Really? Which other LGBT policies am I opposing then? Bonus points if you focus on the L, G, and B.
I dunno. How'd you feel about Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill? Was Bostock decided correctly? What about the whole cake-baking debacle?
The one that says schools have to keep sex/gender stuff out of lessons until the 4th grade? It's fine. How is it against LGBT?
From the summary I read a moment ago, yes I think so.
I'd be ok with it, were it not for the constant chants of "It's a private company, they can do whatever they want", whenever woke Big Techs refuse service to their outgroup.
The Florida bill was absolutely meant to curb gay influence. Er, ("kids trying on different kinds of things they hear about and different kinds of identities and experimenting."](https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/08/dont-say-gay-bill-passed-florida-lawmakers-heads-gov-ron-desantis-lgbtq-youth-public-schools/9422420002/), to quote the sponsor.
Mandatory notification of changes in services or monitoring of students' mental, emotional or physical health. "The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children..." I assume this is directed at gender or possibly closeted kids.
Preventing districts from withholding mental, emotional, or physical health information from parents, or encouraging students to do the same. Presumably targeting gender counseling or transition.
Prohibiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in K-3 or if not developmentally appropriate. This is a central example of erasure.
Constraining student support services to those approved by the state Department of Education. Again, targets gender or sexuality support.
Requiring districts to notify parents of any available healthcare services.
Requiring districts to run any well-being questionnaires or health screening forms by parents.
Establishing procedures for parents to reconcile their concerns with principals or, if unresolved, escalate to legal action. In combination with 5 and 6, this sets up a heckler's veto, since any sufficiently motivated parent can threaten the district with declaratory judgment. Seeing as
Bill text here.
The only provisions which are limited to K-3 are the questionnaire and classroom instruction ones. I would also read the classroom instruction paragraph as setting up a ban on such discussion regardless of age, judging by the qualifier "not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
Some of the provisions are obviously reasonable. Some of them are overreaches likely to be abused, a heckler's veto given to the most litigious parents. Both categories are directly targeted at LGBT politics, which has been actively pushing for support services and classroom instruction.
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