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 -
A Vermont high school was expelled from the athletic association they were in, and cannot participate in any future sports, over said school's decision to forfeit a girl's basketball game against a team with a boy on the roster.
Coverage of the original incident:
Mid Vermont Christian School girls basketball refused to play Long Trail because of transgender player, forfeits playoff game
The latest:
Mid Vermont Christian School ousted from sports over transgender discrimination; Mid-Vermont Christian deemed ineligible by VPA; Mid Vermont Christian School ousted from Vermont Principals Association-sanctioned activities
A local letter to the editor called for a similar outcome last week.
The school is a Christian school, which I'm sure played a large role in all of this. For my part, I'm left wondering what Title IX was supposed to be for, in light of the Bostock decision and Gorsuch's but-for. If you are a boy, and claim to be a girl, and someone treats you as if you were a boy, then but-for your sex, you would expect to be treated as a girl, and therefore anyone treating you as a boy is discriminating on the basis of sex. Yet Title IX explicitly requires discrimination on the basis of sex, since it requires in practice equal numbers of athletic spots available for each sex.
The particular method of exclusion, through the state athletic association, seems like it would make a good target for a lawsuit under Title IX. The prescreens of a boy on the girl's team denies that spot to a girl (on the basis of sex), yet under Bostock that can't be the case.
How can you square this circle? How can you both require separate (discriminatory) athletic spots based on sex, while simultaneously requiring self-ID onto sex segregated teams?
There's another supreme court case currently being held regarding a high school football coach who was fired for praying on the field after games. I mention it because it gets at the religious aspect, rather than the sex aspect.
I found two particular parts interesting, aside from the question above. First, the boys defended the honor of their classmates:
And second, it's these boys who will also suffer for the girl's basketball coach's decision to forfeit, and for their Head of School's decision to comment. Their entire school, and all of their sports teams, are now without opponents against which to compete.
Title IX is just one avenue to pursue. This looks like a very likely 1st Amendment violation under a myriad of precedents.
What sort of precedents?
Christianity doesn't exactly address the question of playing sports between the sexes. That makes it a poor fit for freedom-of-religion. It's not establishing one religion over another, either. I'd assume it fails to harm any particular religion, and that there are secular sports teams making similar protests.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link