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 -
Contrapoints released her newest video yesterday. As someone who has found a number of her past videos to be well done and interesting (they're generally better the further back you go), this one was disappointing. Some random thoughts:
Contrapoints made a name for herself through actually engaging with the "alt-right" and by being willing to make real arguments in response to conservatives; now it seems like she's totally bought into some of the worst argumentation styles of the woke left. Most annoying to me is the frequency with which Natalie begs the question by referring to "trans rights" as if they're some unobjectionable, neutral thing that only "bigots" could oppose. Interestingly, the only time she actually concretely discusses a supposed "trans right" (males competing in women's sports), she agrees that there is a debate to be had here. Of course, no mention of kids transitioning, males in women's prisons, etc. Just "trans rights" in the abstract. The one thing Contrapoints is clear about is that not acknowledging that "trans women are women" is at the least "transphobic" (if not a violation of "trans rights" in some hard to define way), which is interesting. What does it mean to be "transphobic"? Could one not be "transphobic" and still refuse to acknowledge that "trans women are women"? Because I would like to say that I'm not "transphobic" on the basis that I don't think trans people should be denied rights that we accord to others, or that they should be forcibly prevented from dressing like women, or even (if over 18) allowed to surgically alter themselves to match their desired gender identity (perhaps with some reasonable safeguards).
I think she makes some good arguments about the fact that there are always limits to debate. She talks about how LGBTQ activists essentially "cancelled" an old anti-gay activist Anita Bryant, with the implication that most people nowadays would agree with that cancellation. Of course, I would simply say that there are meaningful differences between gay activism and trans activism (e.g., gay people were fighting against laws that criminalized consensual behavior between adults; trans people often are fighting to allow children to mutilate themselves). Nonetheless, I do take her point: Arguing against "cancellation" or "illiberal" tactics in the abstract is kind of pointless, because almost no one is a true free speech absolutist here. If, say, someone was going around and gathering a following by literally advocating for the murder of Jews, I think a lot of us would agree that public shaming (at the least) would be appropriate. That means that one must always have some object-level discussion about what people are being cancelled for before one can reasonably argue that any given cancellation is unacceptable. It's hardly a groundbreaking observation, but it's true nonetheless that there must be a line somewhere that would make "cancel culture" type tactics acceptable; we're all just debating where that line is.
Finally, I was surprised to see how much more aggressive Rowling has gotten in her anti-trans rhetoric. Not that I necessarily disagree with her, but it looks like I can no longer say that she's being unfairly smeared as an enemy of the trans movement.
Anyways, I would be curious on others thoughts here (assuming anyone is willing to watch a nearly two hour video by someone most would consider an ideological opponent.
I personally think it would be more helpful to break things down along two axes. The first axis is how one thinks society should deal with trans people, and the second would be one's "trans metaphysics" or how they answer the question of what trans people are, and whether there are any important differences between trans people and cis people.
Obviously, in some people those two would be connected questions. If one thinks that trangenderism is a fetish that children are being brainwashed into to mutilate and sterilize themselves, then one might have a different attitude towards trans acceptance than if one thinks that medical transition is the least bad option for a group of sick people who would commit suicide at an unacceptably high rate otherwise.
I think I'd reserve "transphobic" for people who are illiberal on the social axis, but I think many trans advocates take a wider view, and consider a trans metaphysics that doesn't allow for "transwomen are women" to be a true statement to be transphobic as well.
Here's a transcript of Veronica Ivy on Trevor Noah:
The two can no longer be separated, because TRAs are now using the metaphysics to push for more things on the political front. The silliness around women's sports and prisons imo only makes sense once the metaphysical belief of TWAW is set. So to ignore it helps no one but the people pushing that.
Theoretically we had them separated in the beginning, when TWAW was less likely to be believed literally (and people didn't demand that) and people just wanted to be kind to gender dysphoric people. But that position clearly didn't hold. It collapsed into TWAW and metaphysical transness (probably because otherwise we're essentially maintaining that this sexual minority is mentally ill and needs to be medically gatekept- which is dangerous territory politically) and then that metaphysical transness is assumed and used as we can see from Contrapoints' videos to demand more concessions or smear any obstacle as transphobic.
So I'm not sure why anyone would try to build on this unstable foundation again. Fool me one time..
I do think it's only a tiny minority of trans people claiming to be "biological men/women" of their identified gender. "Biological" as a modifier for sex and gender is one that fell by the wayside years ago - but I think words like "gametic" or "chromosomal" are much more specific while emphasizing the point being discussed.
Veronica Ivy might be viewed as an "honorary" woman, the same way adoptive parents are "honorary" parents despite their lack of biological connection to the children they're raising. But with current technology, "honorary" women lack many of the feature of cis women, such as the ability to produce large, immobile gametes or XX chromosomes. Maybe that technological barrier will be overcome some day, who knows?
Does it matter?
Like, we continually have to run around playing this exhausting game: when activists overreach and push for (and perhaps get) things that are liable to piss off a reasonable normie then we need constantly be reminded that Ordinary Transpeople don't think or act like this and deserve respect. But then activists also hold moral authority to speak for the community of normie trans (especially the Suicidal Trans Child), who you will be accused of attacking whenever you make any critique of their more absurd positions.
JKR never attacked Ordinary Transpeople. She made a specific point about policy. By your argument that should have worked out fine, yet JKR is a "'transphobe" and here we are.
And, of course, when they dogpile you people like Natalie Wynn who claim to be the reasonable types will be nowhere to be seen or they will be carrying water for the crazies and their tactics with the standard "it's not ideal but in this political context..."
We're dealing with what we're dealing with. Activists don't get to have their cake and eat it too.
If Veronica Ivy was just an honorary woman why didn't Trevor Noah correct her?
What would we do if someone with an honorary degree decided he was going to teach a full class of undergrads cause "it says right here I'm a doctor." Do you think Noah would find it as hard to laugh that one off?
The shadow cast by the metaphysical stuff is long, even if someone like Noah may not say "okay, it's true in the strongest sense".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd say that anybody who says the word transphobic seriously, is medicalizing a political ideology as well as hurting people with debilitating mental health conditions such as arachnophobia, claustrophobia and other types of real phobias, by implicitly insinuating that they may also be based on some personal choice or ideology, such as in the case of transphobia or homophobia.
Of course I am very much aware that this opinion of mine will make me a transphobe in eyes of certain radical groups who are pushing this term in the first place.
And would you likewise say that chemists who describe a molecule as "hydrophobic" are medicalizing a simple physical phenomenon as well as hurting people with debilitating phobias?
If it isn't clear, I am saying that a word with the suffix -phobic does not necessarily imply a phobia in the medical sense. No one is claiming homophobia or transphobia is a phobia, i.e. an irrational fear of those respective groups. That is a strawman.
It’s not a straw man, it’s something I’ve seen being claimed constantly - that right wingers are actually afraid of muslims, or gays, or trans people or immigrants or black people or whatever. Happens quite often in fact
Yea. "Why are you afraid of them?" is a frequently-posed rhetorical question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Except that for instance in the case of homophobia according to this article it was coined by the Pschologist George Weinberg and then used by activists of the magazine Screw in late 60ies. Here is what Weinberg thought about the term
So no, this is not like hydrophobia.
More options
Context Copy link
People with rabies, in that particular case.
But no, chemists are just using the jargon of their field, which does not derive from medical phobias but from the original greek roots; "hydrophobic" is basically an anthropomorphism. The same does not apply to "transphobic" which is being used as a general term, and is definitely coined by analogy to "homophobic" which was used to denigrate those who were politically opposed to homosexual rights.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No! Axes are a demonic religious lie!
They don't have to be axes if you don't want them to be. You could just view them as two different components of a person's view of trans people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are these axes really independent? Who's that person that is metaphysically OK with transgenderism, but isn't OK socially?
I think there are religious people who basically believe this. That a person can be "born trans" in a metaphysical sense, but that it's a sin to act on it. In the same way they might think someone could be "born an alcoholic" but it's still incumbent on them to avoid the sin of drunkenness.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm imagining the trans-related equivalent of the Catholic who is morally opposed to abortion, but doesn't think it should be illegal. Or the gay man who lives with his male partner, but doesn't believe being gay should be valorized and celebrated as much as it is in society, in favor of more "traditional" family structures.
I'm sure there are people disgusted by transgenderism who don't believe that medical transition should be illegal for adults who want it, and who are okay with pronoun hospitality on a case-by-case basis. Or people who say that "transwomen are women", but who still think social contagion might be a factor that should be quelled as far as possible.
Yes, that's called "internalized homophobia", AKA "you're being gay wrong/working against (what the powers that be consider) your own interest".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am! ( @arjin_ferman ) I'm agnostic on how real the idea of being born in a wrong body is, but I think no persecution of trans people is too strict, no measures against them are too cruel, because they are one of the most fanatical factions of my enemies, and because of my personal disgust reaction to them.
More options
Context Copy link
That quadrant might indeed be empty, but I kind of fit in the opposite one. I'm mostly ok with transgenderism socially, once we iron out the wrinkles like sports, prisons, and kids, but I'm vehemently opposed to trans metaphysics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, this seems like a useful distinction. Also highlights how unspecific terms like "homophobia" and "transphobia" are. People tend to use them to cover both social and metaphysical phobias, which confuses these issues. I guess most activists would argue, 1., most people who hold "metaphysical" transphobia tend to have "socally" transphobic ideas as well (probably true), and then also, 2., even if someone only holds metaphysically transphobic ideas, the expression of those ideas will lead to more hate crimes and more "social" transphobia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link