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 -
At the core, I really can't accept the attempt to both reject the 'gender binary' whilst still defining all gender expression in terms of 'masculine' and 'feminine' identities. Indeed, claiming that gender is a 'spectrum' still implies ONLY TWO ENDPOINTS.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/spectrum
Quoth:
To me, there has to be an acknowledgement of the underlying biological reality. We don't have to give it moral weight, we don't have to believe it can't be changed, we don't have to use it to judge people as groups (lol). I grasp that the naturalistic fallacy applies here.
BUT.
If you were born with a uterus, ovaries, and thus produced the chemical known as estrogen in abundance, the physical development of your body, including your brain, is going to follow a predictable path.
If you are capable of bearing children, capable of producing milk to feed infants, and have a natural tendency towards socializing with other humans...
This is going to lead to a VERY different social role for you in a state of nature. And removing you from the 'state of nature' won't revert the biological factors.
Likewise, if you you have greater upper body strength and bone density due to having testes that produce testosterone, and a generally more physically aggressive nature... that ALSO implies a different social role.
And turns out that the definitions of 'masculine,' 'male,' and 'man' were forged over centuries of these social roles being acknowledged, as with 'feminine,' 'female,' and 'woman.'
So I don't see ANY way you can completely divorce the concept of masculinity and femininity from the biological differences that come from being a sexually dimorphic species.
At the very least, I think the people trying to turn those terms into floating signifiers whose meanings exist only in the minds of the individual have utterly failed to meet the burden of showing that these concepts are no longer useful or accurate and that a change is necessary.
They'd have a better case if they were trying to completely do away with the concepts and introduce whatever New Soviet (Wo)Man identity they want to apply to everyone which ignores individual differences altogether, methinks.
More options
Context Copy link