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 -
There's another meaning of trans that you are missing: transgress.
I had a thought recently which clarified my views on the trans issue. "What if there were no trans people because everyone was born with their correct gender. Would this be a good thing?". According to standard trans ideology, this would be ideal since people only transition to match their perceived gender. They are girls trapped in a boy's body (or vice versa). If Eliot Page were born a male there would be no need to transition. Right?
I believe that a trans activist would bristle at this suggestion. Changing one's gender is not the goal. The transition itself, and the struggle attached to it, is the goal.
In fact, if transition were perfect, the politics would change. Imagine again a magic wand which perfectly changed your gender with no side effects. If that existed, many people would change their gender. It wouldn't even be controversial. And in any ways, it'd be impossible to tell. I'd probably change my gender (temporarily) just to see what it's like to be a woman.
But that would defeat the point. Trans ideology derives its value from the extreme cost and sacrifice needed to change genders. You can't be stunning and brave when it's easy. And the uncanny appearance of many trans people also serves to highlight the immensity of their decision. In this way, I think trans people are similar to Christian or Indian ascetics whose emaciated appearance horrifies and awes the public. A person who believes in something so strongly that they are willing to mutilate their body is certainly worthy of some form of respect.
So what is gender transition if not the ultimate transgression against nature, your parents, and society at large? Like Christianity before it, post-modern ideology celebrates weakness, victimhood, and transgression. Trans people are the modern ascetics, whose extreme commitment to the cause cannot be questioned.
The goal isn't to change one's gender. The goal is to change one's body to match perceived gender.
I would like to see evidence of this view by activists. It's strong and uncharitable enough to require it.
Sure. The question is still how prevalent Chu's view is among trans activists.
More options
Context Copy link
Uh, what? I'm aware that Chu once defined femaleness as having the barest essentials of "an open mouth, an expectant asshole", but I'm not aware of any view of hers that would validate the view that struggle is itself the goal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is an important insight about Queer Theory and the Critical tradition more broadly: permanent revolution is the primary, central goal of the entire intellectual framework. As soon as something has achieved any degree of stable cultural acceptance, it becomes conservative by definition and needs to be transgressed and sublated in turn. What is today’s radical fringe will be tomorrow’s normie cringe. Trans people who get “bottom surgery” might be on the cutting edge of transformation today, but if the Queer Theorists get their way, 100 years from now the same people will be seen as utterly reactionary for reifying the very idea that the physical body has any necessary relationship to identity at all.
No, that doesn't follow. The goal of many of these people is socialism for a reason, the idea of a stateless society where everyone voluntarily works for authentic happiness without coercion is the utopia at the end of the road. It necessarily follows that they would not go the route of "actually, we need monarchy cause statelessness is now so traditional".
Indeed, the entire point of permanent revolution was about socialist/communist political parties not settling for democratic reforms, but to agitate for socialism or communism. They aren't revolutionary inherently, they're revolutionary because no one was giving them what they actually wanted. If I notice that you are hungry and give you one slice of an apple and you still insist you are hungry, it is insane for me to call you a thief who was never motivated by hunger at all.
You're out of touch with progressive rhetoric. This is already happening and has been a standard argument made for a while now.
I think that you are the one who is out of touch with progressive rhetoric, given that you’re still assuming that these people are operating in a Marxist materialist frame, whereas I think the evidence is substantial that in a post-Gramscian, post-Marcusian paradigm, things have moved past the simple drive toward establishing an anarcho-communist society free of material coercion of labor, and has instead allowed the Gnostic/Hermetic theological elements - present in Marxism from the beginning via Hegel - to transcend the materialist elements of Marxism. I’m drawing mostly from James Lindsay’s analysis of Critical Theory or post-Marxism as a religious/Gnostic faith centered around the Hegelian dialectic, which seeks to totally transcend humanity and rebuild God.
Again, it just doesn't follow. By and large, progressive intellectuals and activists are not interested in being permanent rebels, they want to be the people making decisions at the end of the day. It is true that they are more prone to infighting, but all of those groups have a utopia in mind, even if they don't crystallize it. Even your point about them wanting to rebuild God implies a religious utopia filled with moral people.
Moreover, you're dead wrong about my being out of touch on the trans point, or are you just conceding that? Because the entire premise of progressive gender ideology is that gender is innate and not determined by body at all. You don't have to transition physically to be trans in the trans activist camp, not one bit.
That's where next generation of rebels come in. You can't have a permanent revolution changing things toward the ideal society if you let one generation think it got it exactly right.
It's the struggle that matters - that's the only thing.
Can you define "permanent revolution" for me? Because I think you and the people in question have very different understandings of what those are.
Secondly, they're not creating a generation of rebels. They only become rebels insofar as the current system is undesirable. Progressives do not raise children with the terminal goal of fighting without respect to what is being fought for. Their terminal values are things that, if implemented, they would 100% not tolerate deviation from.
The idea marxists have - that by being extremely critical and active against injustices you feel exist in the world you can usher in a better world. That criticism while having no clear idea or plan on what to do is still the right thing to do. etc.
That's the beauty of it. Adolescent rebellion along with the right memes is enough.
Hasn't it worked out ? Didn't Marcuse get a heart attack confronting radical left students? Aren't the radical leftists who so infuriated Marcuse now entrenched in academia and being replaced by far more progressives ? Etc..
This is completely at odds with Marxist usage of that term. It does not, despite it's name, work as a transhistorical concept. The entire idea is that socialists and communists need to ensure they don't get corrupted and complacent by working with democratic institutions and allying themselves with less radical political parties. It refers to a practice that was in place in the 19th and first half of the 20th century and doesn't work once you get into the 1960s and even less so with the collapse of international socialism/communism as a serious force.
You're free to define terms how you want. But the people who you claim use it that way would disagree.
Literally every society ever has dealt with adolescent rebellion.
This only supports my point and contradicts yours. The people in question have a clear understanding about what their utopia is. Go ask any progressive, Marxist, etc. and they will tell you that their system is moral, meaning that they do not tolerate deviation from it.
Do not conflate long-term rebellion with the idea that they are rebels first and ideological second.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then why in God’s name are children, let alone adults, being given “trans-affirming healthcare”? What are all the puberty blockers, top and bottom surgeries, etc. for, if gender identity has no connection to the body? I’m fully aware that there is a gender-abolitionist and/or “gender-fucking” faction within the Queer activist vanguard, but it is very obvious to me that the actual Overton window is still centered on costly biomedical engineering of bodies in order to produce consonance between the physical and the psychological/spiritual elements of gender identity. Are you arguing that this is already the stale and passé approach of people who are not on the, ahem, cutting edge? Even though it is ramping up and expanding by the month and appears to be gaining more steam than ever?
Trans activists are consistently clear that some trans people want to transition and others don't, but both are equally the gender they say they are. This was a major point about the Attack Helicopter poem that was rejected for transphobia, people afterwards went around reminding others that the trans experience varies from person to person. Some want to physically alter their bodies, others don't.
The reason for gender-affirming care for children is that they're on a timer - if you wait until they are adults to see if the dysphoria goes away, you get some people whose bodies have been permanently altered via puberty and this causes significant distress. The idea behind the blockers is that delaying puberty doesn't cause any harm (the accuracy of this idea is irrelevant, we're asking why they do something).
As for why we talk about those who physically transition, that should be obvious. The ones who don't want to never get media attention on them. Action naturally attracts attention in a way that inaction doesn't.
Trans activists are fighting for all trans people, regardless of whether they transition physically or not. This has never been in contention.
Well, they sometimes do, in the context of specifically transwomen being allowed in female/women's spaces. The idea that any random male could declare herself a woman and expect to walk into a female locker room or bathroom is something that's caused some controversy. But it's the kind of thing that has happened rarely enough that it hasn't attracted as much attention as kids transitioning (beyond just the fact that controversies involving kids automatically tend to punch above their weight).
I think this is in contention. Perhaps I'm just being pedantic, but who trans activists are fighting for are trans people of any stripe who also happen to agree with the activists' ideology. I believe it's an open question as to whether this constitutes all trans people or enough to round up to all or even most trans people - trans people are so few and dispersed that I'm not sure it's even possible to do a credible random sampling of them to get some accurate view of what they tend to believe.
There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue in this as well, in that there's indications of a social contagion, especially among girls, where there's actual causality - people who were led to being trans from their ideology.
I think the context of what I was responding to isn't about the bathroom thing, but about the focus on surgeries.
Eh, kind of? Clarence Thomas benefits from the anti-racist fight even if he doesn't want to, same with any trans person who isn't aligned with the movement.
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
Your proposition is bristled at because they assume you're saying "what if" and sneaking in "it is". I assume that's a large part of it.
Some of it, of course, is bristling at an existential attack on one's community. Unfortunately, that tends to be counterproductive when a community is supposed to be transient (ha!) or transitive in the first place.
Yes, my point exactly. If perfect transition and acceptance were possible it would defeat the point entirely. There would be no trans people, only men and women.
The community claims to want to be erased, "trans women are women", but they don't actually want to be erased. It is the transition, the journey, that is the point. The actual destination is not just man or woman, but a trans man or woman. And to the progressive community there is great value in a "trans" identify which is separate from a gender identity. Because the presence of these people serves as evidence of the huge sacrifices people are willing to endure for the cause.
I think you're seriously underestimating the number of people who would still be opposed to the use of this gender-swapping magic wand because it is an affront to God or something to that effect.
There is some selection bias here: you generally only hear from the trans people who want people to hear from them, and you only identify ("clock") as trans those trans people who don't pass well (plus the occasional false positive). Trans people who just want to be seen as their gender and not as trans-their-gender, and who pass reasonably well, certainly do exist, but they are by their nature invisible.
Bruh, I really want to have the people who claimed those two women were trans subject themselves to a visual acuity test. They're so evidently not it's painful to me haha
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