site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   37956 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Prelude: The Nashville school shooting is definitely peak toxoplasma, a day later: people cheering everyone who entered that school with a gun, both the shooter and the police. Aidan/Audrey’s acts are a near-perfect scissor statement.

The statement on the shooting by the Trans Resistance Network is particularly toxically tribal. It hearkens back to the days of trying to sympathize with the Columbine shooters, where the narrative is shaped solely by early reporting and people were asking “What made them do it?”

Tangent: drag shows. But the use of the word “genocide” in the TRN’s statement made me stop and ponder: the modern term “genocide” includes not only the actual killing of group X, but also the halting of cultural practices as a lead-in to the eventual rounding up and killing.

Here’s an odd little dynamic: halting drag activities in children's spaces is trans genocide for both sides, but in different ways!

  • For pro-trans activists, halting them is halting a ritual cultural activity, and hints at a wider cultural desire for eventual trans elimination through murders of the outed and the suicides of the closeted. It also removes an avenue for trans youths to discover their true gender and thus leaves them in a spiral of depression heading toward suicide.

  • For social-contagion theorists, halting the drag activities in children’s spaces is useful for preventing cis children from being memetically contaminated, and thus memetically sterilizing the trans community. Reasoning: since full transition includes sterilization (thus committing traditional genocide upon themselves rather effectively), trans people don’t breed genetically, but memetically.

halting drag activities in children's spaces is trans genocide for both sides

Drag =/= transgender. Not even close.

If this was true, then you’d have legions of trans people aligning themselves with everybody else who is pointing out that drag shows for children is completely inappropriate.

But of course you don’t see that. Again with the revealed preference (I hate that I use this term twice, but IIWII). Trans people see drag performers and see themselves, which is why they can’t oppose them.

The question is not whether trans people support the right of people to perform drag shows, for children or not for children. That was not what OP said. Rather, OP equated drag performers with transgender persons, and that is empirically false.

@07mk (in the other reply to this post, and the thread following) indeed approximately caught my meaning. I’m starting from what I’ve seen on reddit, from leftists who take the time and effort to comment there. I’ve seen them saying that laws stopping “drag queen story hour”, the exemplar drag activity in children's spaces, would constitute genocide against trans people.

Now, I am pretty clear on the separation between trans and drag. The former is about living one’s felt identity and societal role. The latter is about performing/playing about identity/role, which makes it a form of clowning, like pro wrestling kayfabe, pulp SF, cosplay, fursuiting, and even religious ceremonies and televangelist preaching. (Osteen, looking at you.) I am familiar with this split from seeing it in my years in the furry fandom and two adjacent fandoms. I was even in theater growing up, and the similar-but-different onstage/backstage split behavior dynamic is always on my mind as a customer service rep at work and as an A/V tech at church.

Leftwards reddit has given me the impression they believe that children experiencing drag activities in public, and especially in children’s spaces, gives children awareness of gender realities they’ve been sheltered from by repressive churches, conservative schools, and uptight parents. I will take them at their word. I then connect that idea with their description of halting such activities as genocide.

That was not what OP said. Rather, OP equated drag performers with transgender persons, and that is empirically false.

I don't think that's what OP did. I think the relevant parts of the OP are (correct me if I missed something):

Here’s an odd little dynamic: halting drag activities in children's spaces is trans genocide for both sides, but in different ways!

For pro-trans activists, halting them is halting a ritual cultural activity, and hints at a wider cultural desire for eventual trans elimination through murders of the outed and the suicides of the closeted. It also removes an avenue for trans youths to discover their true gender and thus leaves them in a spiral of depression heading toward suicide.

I bolded the parts that I think are particularly relevant. The claim seems to be that "drag activities in children's spaces" is a form of "ritual cultural activity" for trans people. This could be taken to mean that "trans people have a ritual cultural activity of doing drag in children's spaces," but I don't think this necessarily means that. Rather, it could be taken to mean that having drag performers performing in children's spaces is a type of cultural activity for trans people. This is, in itself, suspect, and the most charitable way I could interpret it is that it's claiming that trans people value such subversion of traditional gender stereotypes for helping to enlighten potential trans kids of their innate trans-ness. Which I still find very suspect, to say the least. But it doesn't require an equality between drag performers and trans people.

I think it implicitly equates them, because drag performances are indeed a type of cultural activity for drag performers or perhaps for some gay men. So by saying that they are a type of cultural activity for trans people, isn't OP conflating them?

So by saying that they are a type of cultural activity for trans people, isn't OP conflating them?

I don't think the OP was saying that drag performances in general are a type of cultural activity for trans people; taken literally, the statement seems to be that drag performances for kids are a type of cultural activity for pro-trans activists (which, notably, is a different set of people from trans people, something I myself missed in my previous comment). Drag performances for kids (or, to use the OP's exact terms, drag activities in children's spaces) is a sufficiently specific and niche thing even among drag performances in general that it wouldn't even occur to most people to characterize it as a type of cultural activity for drag performers. I think the interpretation that the claim is "having drag activities in children's spaces is a type of cultural activity for pro-trans activists" makes at least as much sense as the interpretation that the claim is "performing drag activities in children's spaces is a type of cultural activity for trans people."

Which is itself a pretty suspect claim. Maybe it is a form of cultural activity for the activists who encourage and organize these performances - I haven't asked - but I feel like it's more of a "fuck you" to what they see as the conservative establishment and its oppressive gender norms. Which, to be fair, might be a form of cultural activity in itself, but then that gets into a more philosophical/definitional question of what is a "cultural activity" anyway?

I see your point, but it seems to me that OP's reference to genocide doesn't make sense under that interpretation.

Which one is the one cross dressing for sexual gratification?

Neither, as it happens.

It’s kind of interesting the extent to which trans and drag get lumped together.

Not by social conservatives- ‘it’s gay and super weird and a hot topic for no apparent reason’ is kind of our dominant thought process about both things, and it makes a lot of sense that we’d get confused between the two. But progressives seem like they should know better- to my understanding most drag queens are cis gay men, and progressives at least claim that is a very different thing from trans.

most drag queens are cis gay men, and progressives at least claim that is a very different thing from trans.

It may be different, but just the use of the term "LGBT" shows that progressives often think they belong together.

the extent to which trans and drag get lumped together

Maybe it's just that they share the same type of aesthetic unpleasantness for what would appear to be the same reasons? The vast majority of obvious MtFs are (trivially) either not trying to pass or stuck in the uncanny valley, and they know it. The unshaved body hair does it every time.

The ones that can reliably pull off acting white the appearance of the opposite gender, or just don't do it in public, have a higher chance of not being seen as a problem... or at least, that's my read on how "yes, I'm different, but from my appearance and mannerisms I'm also not going out of my way to intentionally alienate you" goes over.

and progressives at least claim that is a very different thing

I accept the claim that was made here some time ago that they're both womanface; it's just that one's a caricature of the appearance and the other's a caricature of the social role too. (The denial of a gender binary yet acceptance of transgender as a concept is not something I've ever seen a convincing answer for.) Forcing either at gunpoint is bad faith.

But at the end of the day, it's "I'm trying to have you believe that dressing in a way suggestive of forcing everyone else around me to make accommodations for me and my special brand of ugliness, and that ugliness shall not be questioned ever", or to be a bit plainer, "in the Prisoner's Dilemma, I come with the Defect button already pushed and am of the faction that wants to force you at gunpoint to hit Co-operate".

And... that's why I'm leery of this faction's weirdness. It's definitely benign on an object level/in a vacuum, but at the subject level it's a weapon, and the fact that it's a weapon is intentionally ignored by the people using it as one kind of makes me sympathetic to the side that will come and take their gun away, so to speak. Guess I'm not that great of a liberal, but the best weapon against liberals thought is the Paradox of Tolerance.

(The denial of a gender binary yet acceptance of transgender as a concept is not something I've ever seen a convincing answer for.)

There are many genders and a person can transition from their gender assigned at birth to any of them? I don't see any internal contradiction.

My own extremely fringe position that alienates every side in this discussion is that there are two genders and a person can transition from one to the other.

subject level

I believe the term you are looking for is "meta level".

and a person can transition from their gender assigned at birth to any of them

Trans is very specifically about claiming one's gender is directly opposite other biological sex; gender dysphoria isn't (yet) claimed to people becoming intersex even though that's the practical result of the hormone therapies.

My own extremely fringe position that alienates every side in this discussion is that there are two genders and a person can transition from one to the other.

I'll do you one better: the genders are "capital" (value-by-existence) and "labor" (value-by-doing). Men-presenting-as-woman are transcapital, so they're distrusted by both genders (as they're assuming privileges not provided by their biology); woman-presenting-as-man are translabor, so they're generally accepted (as they're ditching those privileges to compete against those that are biologically predisposed to succeed in labor).

To steelman, a lot of the trans community's objections to 'drag show' bans is that they seldom can cleanly distinguish between non-drag trans stuff (and seldom recognize non-prurient drag as a thing period). And, to be fair, the complexities of legal cases, pressures toward plea bargaining, and threats of prosecution without intent to follow through are all serious issues even if a statute was perfectly well-drafted, and most of them aren't.

In most cases, I don't think the statutes are that unclear : contrast here vs here, where like some of the Florida bare bookshelf stuff a lot of this is pretty clearly intentional showboating rather than just drawing a thick line around the law. But in turn there's been a number of bills that had to be revised pretty late in their readings (eg Texas) to keep to actual obscenity-or-harmful-to-minors stuff, and others that are poorly worded and depending on the courts to handle.

I agree that the statutes passed thus far are not unclear. The TN law, for example, only bars performances on public property or in a venue where minors could be present by "male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest." I have never been to a drag show, but as I understand it, classic drag shows are guys dressed as Marilyn Monroe singing show tunes. Maybe nowadays it is guys dressed as Beyonce singing pop songs. Neither appeals to the prurient interest, which is generally defined as "an appeal to a morbid, degrading, and unhealthy interest in sex, not just an ordinary interest." US v. McCoy, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (Dist. Court, MD Georgia 2013); United States v. Isaacs, 565 F. App'x 637 (9th Cir. 2014). I suppose there might be grey areas, such as twerking, but the idea that the laws "ban" drag shows seems pretty dubious to me.

I have never been to a drag show, but as I understand it, classic drag shows are guys dressed as Marilyn Monroe singing show tunes.

Only time I was at a drag show was when I was getting shitfaced with my mates at DNA Lounge during a bachelor party, and suddenly, a bunch of drags went on stage and started squirting the crowd with milk from their huge-ass fake breasts.

Now, a night club like DNA Lounge is obviously not going to have children present, but drug shows appealing to prurient interest is very much not something of an exception: if you follow right wing Twitter accounts, you'll see sexually explicit clips of drag shows with children in audience on a regular basis.

drug shows appealing to prurient interest is very much not something of an exception

How do you know? But how representative of drag shows do you suppose are a set of clips curated by right wing Twitter accounts? I am sure that there are left wing accounts showing people opposing gender assignment surgery for kids while spewing homophobic invective, but I am 100% sure that they are the exception among those who worried about such surgery.

It seems pretty obvious that even the authors of the bills in question do not think that drag shows are typically prurient; if they did, they would ban kids from attending all of them.

Regardless, the point is that the bills that have been enacted don't ban drag shows, as is commonly claimed.

(But then, with maybe one exception, the "anti-CRT" laws that have been enacted don't ban the teaching of CRT or anything else, but activists and politicians on both sides have an interest in continuing to claim that they do. So perhaps it is a losing battle).

Yeah, they're definitely making a slippery slope argument, but elements of the conservative movement loudly proclaim how much they'd love to slide down that slope.

It'd be nice to have a term for this sort of recurring phenomenon where maybe you agree with your opponents about the first step in a certain direction, but elements of their movement keep proclaiming they want to take thirty, so then you refuse to take even one because you don't trust that you can stop the momentum once it starts.

You may find the concept of "yut" useful:

I’m simplifying, but I think there are meaningful distinctions between

  1. dismissing some phenomenon or event as having no moral significance,
  1. acknowledging the significance but keeping it contained to this particular case, and
  1. making that significance generalize to a much larger narrative.

Let us, then, take into account the actual facts of life, and not be misled into following any proposal for achieving the millennium, for recreating the golden age, until we have subjected it to hardheaded examination. On the other hand, it is foolish to reject a proposal merely because it is advanced by visionaries. If a given scheme is proposed, look at it on its merits, and, in considering it, disregard formulas. It does not matter in the least who proposes it, or why. If it seems good, try it. If it proves good, accept it; otherwise reject it. There are plenty of good men calling themselves Socialists with whom, up to a certain point, it is quite possible to work. If the next step is one which both we and they wish to take, why of course take it, without any regard to the fact that our views as to the tenth step may differ. But, on the other hand, keep clearly in mind that, though it has been worth while to take one step, this does not in the least mean that it may not be highly disadvantageous to take the next. It is just as foolish to refuse all progress because people demanding it desire at some points to go to absurd extremes, as it would be to go to these absurd extremes simply because some of the measures advocated by the extremists were wise.

Kind of the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt's thoughts on he matter, then.

Most "trans umbrella" diagrams include cross-dressing

No doubt most trans people dress in the garb of the sex opposite to that assigned at birth. But the vast majority of drag performers are not transgender, and indeed dress when on stage. They are very different phenomena.11

You're trying to distinguish between trans and drag, but it's all queer, it's all pride, it's all rainbow schlock and inclusion. It's all the same thing, it can clearly be seen as the same thing, it's all commonly lumped together as the same thing, and you're just splitting hairs.

I can understand why you say they're different. Can you understand why I say they are the same?

No, I am afraid I can't. You are simply saying that they belong to the same category. That does not mean they are the same for all purposes,and certainly not for OP's purposes. Drag queens are generally cis. So, by definition they arenot trans.

Yeah, which is the trans community nearly unanimously agrees that the desire to keep drag events out of schools is not an attack on the trans community itself.

Why might trans people be worried about people who don't recognize them as the gender they identify with banning cross-dressing?

If that's what they are afraid of, how does pushing a sexualized dance routine in front of a child audience help them?

Why wasn't it necessary to do so, say 10 years ago, when there was less trans acceptance?

Conservatives are mad about drag queen story hour and that's just reading a book not doing a dance. There's a lot of ambiguity in determining whether a performance is sexualized and it's reasonable not to trust a political movement that doesn't think you have a legitimate place in public life to draw those boundaries in a fair way.

Conservatives are mad about drag queen story hour and that's just reading a book not doing a dance.

What's this then? Or this?

it's reasonable not to trust a political movement that doesn't think you have a legitimate place in public life to draw those boundaries in a fair way.

Sure. Just as it's legitimate not to trust a political movement that demands access to your children to make important decisions about their life without informing you.

If conservatives are merely concerned about sexualized performances near/involving children, one might wonder why they don't have similar issues with, e.g. child beauty pageants, dance recitals, or cheerleading?

Uhhh dance recitals? what are you even talking about

Probably competition dancing that can include styles like this.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=82WwqXyyWXg

Child beauty pageants are Red Tribe but not particular conservative, and they're generally associated with those with no class ("trash").

If conservatives are merely concerned about sexualized performances near/involving children, one might wonder why they don't have similar issues with, e.g. child beauty pageants

Do schools sign up kids for beauty pageants behind their parents back? Do they invite kids from other schools to perform?

dance recitals, or cheerleading?

These aren't necessarily sexualized. And last I checked (and from what I remember growing up) conservatives do care about kids not dressing/acting sexually.

Because the people making the arguments are different.

The conservative (as in, liberal/labor) argument is "I'm trying to have you believe that dressing in a way suggestive of forcing everyone else around me to make accommodations for me and my special brand of ugliness, and that ugliness shall not be questioned ever", or to be a bit plainer, "in the Prisoner's Dilemma, I come with the Defect button already pushed and am of the faction that wants to force you at gunpoint to hit Co-operate". (That doesn't roll off the tongue as well as "we're coming for your children" does, though.)

The conservative (as in, traditionalist/capital) argument is just to complain at the object-level, but they do that about cheerleading and dancing already anyway. The current progressives complain about cheerleaders too, for roughly the same reasons- you're just more likely to see progressive complaining than (yesterday's progressive) complaining because the latter already lost the culture war over them.

Every political stripe complains about child beauty pageants being sexual. None of their arguments are convincing.

Cheerleading also has a safetyist attack given it's injury rate and lack of protective equipment.

just reading a book not doing a dance.

An odd way to describe a person in sexualized clothing reading a book. Drag queens rarely dress in a Hillary pantsuit or Barbara Bush style coat and skirt. The medium is inherently either sexual or offensive.

Yeah that's my point. Why would gay/trans people support bans on 'sexualized' drag performances when straight conservatives will get to decide which performances are sexualized and they think drag is inherently sexual.

I don't go to drag shows and don't really see the appeal but Andrew Sullivan, an old school non-woke gay, doesn't think they're inherently sexual.

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/drag-queen-conservatism-eb1

His best picture is a person in heels reading a book that says, "its ok to be different?" Really reaching here.

More comments

I suspect that this is sarcasm. While drags queens do have some overlap, the motivations aren't the same.

Technically. It's still raises the question why drag events are being pushed so hard, supposedly in the name of inclusivity.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats