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 -
I have still not seen a single quote or statement attributed to JK that reads as anything other than bog-standard third-wave feminism applied to a situation she perceived (correctly, I might add) is a threat to the gains previous waves of feminism made for biological women.
She's not come across as 'anti-trans' so much as 'pro-women' and defines 'women' in the terms that are directly related to biology and social roles that inherently set 'men' and 'women' apart.
VERY LATE STAGE EDIT: She confirms as much in her own words. You tell me whether you believe her or not.
If she's gotten 'more aggressive' it is probably just a result of the doubled and tripled efforts to redefine the aforementioned terms in the public eye and she, unlike many, can afford to actively fight back without risking her life being torn down.
If you're interested, the middle section of the video (starting around here) contains various screenshots of Rowling being fairly stridently anti-trans.
Wait, did she say, “self-described theocratic fascist Matt Walsh”? She knows that’s a joke right? Or is her saying that itself a joke? What level of meta-irony are we on?
You can quibble with fascist if you want, but theocrat pretty well describes a guy with Walsh's stated opinions lines up with wanting a theocracy, or at the very least, a laundry list of socially reactionary policies. Maybe it's not a theocracy theocracy, because Walsh would be OK w/ some form of representative government, as opposed to priests in charge, so insert what you best wording of a right-wing reactionary government would be.
He's quibbling with "self described". We got used to labelling people as fascist as an insult, but it's presumably different when they endorse the label themselves. Unless of course it was an obvious joke!
I mean, it is technically an accurate statement. He has "theocratic fascist" in his Twitter bio. There are in fact theocratic fascists out there. If someone is unfamiliar with Matt Walsh they may not understand the difference.
I am unironically updating against ironic profile descriptions. Seems like a bad norm.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I appreciate you linking directly to the argument.
However, the presented tweets, especially removed from any greater context, barely budge the needle from what I already believe, as stated above.
It still reads like she's simply sticking to her guns under heavy, withering attacks against her in a battle she never invited but is, at this point, willing to fight. Her guns being that women's rights are a distinct, important cause worth upholding and that redefining 'woman' starts to erode those rights in a subtle way.
Yeah, so right around the time trans rights were made into a central social issue in the culture wars. Could it be that it's just her being consistently pro-woman in her beliefs and responding to just the latest attacks on women's rights as she would on any other matter? I don't think she's been harboring hidden anti-trans beliefs all this time, or that she arbitrarily decided to turn trans rights into her defining cause in the past few years. How does one differentiate between someone who started singling out trans people because they hate them vs. because trans people have been getting much, much more attention than previously?
Also, maybe because she believes that there's an inherent contradiction between what trans-rights activists want and what is good for women as a class?
You can't square that circle unless you agree "trans women are women" which... J.K. by all appearances honestly believes is not the case.
And HOLY SHIT if that's the standard for determining who is a bigot and creating '-phobias,' then there's a laundry list of mainstream personalities who are apparently spreading, among other things. incelphobia, Russophobia, and constant, CONSTANT androphobia.
Maybe explain why she's not allowed to invoke anger and emotional pleas while everyone else throws them at her, and happily invokes them on other issues?
As with other groups, this starts to read as a special pleading. "The mere fact that you're criticizing [group] at all indicates you must hate them." But why is THAT group thus immune to criticism in a way others are not?
Why do I even feel like defending J.K. Rowling? I just get really sick of this whole "we picked a fight against someone and they didn't take a dive in the first round as planned, so we've doubled, tripled, quintupled our efforts and HOW DARE they continue to fight back" approach employed by activists.
I say this as someone who’s roughly on her side: the thing that bugs me most about the X-rights movement is the lack of concern for anyone else. These movements are narcissistic all the way down, and worse, no one is allowed to voice these very real concerns without being shouted down as a bigot, a terrible human being, or whatever other sneer term you can come up with.
She has a point on some of her stuff. Women are extremely vulnerable in women’s shelters and changing rooms. And especially since the de-facto policy is “if they say they’re a woman they are,” this means that some nonzero number of men who want access to women’s changing rooms or shelters with vulnerable women in them will simply put on a dress and go for it. And at present women aren’t even allowed to object. Women will almost certainly be raped in this situation (which I suspect has already happened), and it seems like all of society has decided that this is acceptable provided it’s kept out of sight.
And as far as children (which to my knowledge JKR hasn’t addressed) I think there are enough concerns that i understand the impulse behind the anti-movement. There’s at least some evidence that ROGD is a social contagion. Kids aren’t necessarily claiming gender dysphoria because they have some long standing issues with their natal gender, but because it’s cool and attention grabbing and makes adults squirm a bit. Or maybe they have trouble fitting in, and believe that as the opposite gender they’d have an easier time. My issue is that society has chosen the worst possible way of dealing with the issue.
When I was a kid, there were scammy CD clubs that you could subscribe to initially cheaply and later on would get really expensive. And they absolutely went after kids because they obviously weren’t mature enough to understand completely what they were getting into. And fortunately for them there’s a provision to protect kids from being scammed this way — until they’re proper adults they aren’t held to contracts, or at least can use their age to back out. Kids aren’t allowed to hold jobs or get tattoos until they’re old enough to understand what they’re getting into. Gender is different. The same kids who can’t get tattoos or hold jobs or sign up for CD clubs can absolutely at least socially transition with full support of the faculty of the school. If they tell their parents, the parents are not allowed to question it, or slow it. But, that’s only if the child gives the school permission to tell their parents.
So I understand the pushback here. Parents for very good reasons don’t want the schools keeping secrets from them. Especially for things that involve medical care or large social changes. Finding out that schools are conspiring with children to hide a major and potentially life altering decision from them is rage inducing for most parents. They know their kid and understand that kids need guidance from parents.
But to me a lot of the over-the-top responses are precisely because they’re shut out of the conversation. The only thing they can do is shout it down, to ban it, and to require an approval process for classroom instruction and books. Shouting in school board meetings is the only thing parents can do here.
I wonder if the whole trans kids issue might be a good way to get more people to turn against non-consensual circumcision. After all, if a person is horrified by the idea of their kid deciding to do a life-altering and probably unnecessary medical procedure because the kid wants to get it done, logically the person should also probably be horrified by the idea of the kid being completely non-consensually forced into a life-altering and unnecessary medical procedure. It adds to the parallels that in both cases it is primarily the sexual aspects of the anatomy that are affected.
The problem here is that you have a large chunk of the population who's experienced circumcision first-hand, and consider the anti-circumcision arguments vastly overblown. If you don't like the practice, don't practice it with your kids. There's no need for laws, you can just let people make the decision for their own children as they see fit.
If on the other hand circumcision were being mandated, or secretly being encouraged for children to get themselves while hiding this fact from parents, that would be a rather different matter.
Don't you see how that seems rather like saying "If you don't like the practice of double mastectomies, don't practice it with your kids"? Obviously double mastectomies are vastly more destructive than circumcision, but I don't see any principled difference. The foreskin exists for a reason and I suspect most guys who have one will testify to the anguish they'd feel if they learned they'd henceforth be deprived of it. For example, see the responses to the relevant question in the ACX survey.
I implore you to let your psychological guard down for a moment and sincerely examine whether your attitude towards circumcision is simply a result of having been circumcised (which I'm assuming with 95 percent confidence that you have been) and the distress you'd experience if you were no longer able to avoid truly reckoning with what was inflicted on you.
The fact that it's vastly less destructive is a principled difference.
Literally anything can be labeled "abusive" or "harmful" if one engages in sufficiently enthusiastic linguistic masturbation. If one is to retain one's sanity, it is necessary to understand that the application of a label does not automatically shift reality. Yes, I understand that circumcision impacts the mechanics of sexual pleasure. The thing is, they do not seem to impact it all that strongly, given that orgasms still fuckin' rock even with one, and sexual pleasure is not remotely the sum of human existence. The simple fact is that I and a lot of other men have had one, and it does not appear to us to be that big a deal. This is in fact born out by the survey you linked: those with their foreskin intact very much want to keep it. Those who've lost it mostly don't care.
This is quite absurd. What, exactly, was "inflicted" on me? I take it for granted that uncut men experience more intense sexual pleasure, but having experienced a goodly amount of sexual pleasure in my life, I do not find myself mourning the lack of additional intensity. What I have is good enough to be frankly dangerous; Having more would be nice, but why should its absence be some terrible crushing tragedy? Do you approach all pleasures this way, mourning that your car isn't a lambo and your house isn't a mansion, and that you didn't buy bitcoin for .001 cents a coin when you should have? How would it benefit me to obsessively mourn the things I theoretically might have had, rather than enjoying the good I do have in a spirit of contentment?
Why is it not good enough for me to freely decide that I won't continue the practice with my own children? Why is more than that needed?
I don't see why. You admit that foreskins provide more pleasure, and I assume you agree that's better than the alternative, so why would you support people allowing others to forever deprive someone else of that experience?
But it's not just the label you find objectionable. You find it objectionable to forbid parents from doing this to their children, unless I misunderstand you.
How would they know what they're missing? And if we have good reason to suppose that people who possess a foreskin very much enjoy it, why would you support the ability for people to deprive others of it for no good reason? Is inflicting blindness acceptable if the blind don't understand what they're missing? The fact that sight is thousands of times more valuable than a foreskin is not a principled reason to support the ability for people to deprive someone else of the latter.
The removal of your foreskin without your consent, and thus the permanent inability for you to ever experience the pleasure it provides.
You're right that in the grand scheme of things it's not a terrible crushing tragedy that should haunt someone and require therapy, etc. But, look, let me be brutally honest and introspective: I think the reason that strident opponents of circumcision like myself seem so disproportionately and militantly invested in it, often veering well into histrionics, is because of the astronomical ratio of harm to benefit. It's just so utterly inexcusable it blows my fucking mind that this is even a thing. There are few problems, practices, and quandaries in life that don't involve tough tradeoffs, the balancing of which reasonable people can disagree about. But the question of whether to cut off foreskins - like the question of whether to bind feet or sharpen teeth, and other such cultural practices - is one of the easiest questions we've ever had to answer. And still the majority of our society gets the answer wrong.
We are simply in the presence of a bizarre and pointlessly (mildly) harmful cultural practice that persists only because those subjected to it are used to it and would feel bad if they admitted how stupid and pointlessly (mildly) harmful it is.
I'm certainly glad to hear that you wouldn't continue this practice with your own children. But the fact that you believe it's acceptable for other parents to do this to their children is a problem, I think. Of course, you're only one person with one vote, but routine natal circumcision continues to be permitted by law because of millions of people who, like you, don't think it should be unlawful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, that's analogous to people who have had a double mastectomy then mulling over whether to let their kids undergo the same procedure.
I was circumcised for, in hindsight, unnecessary reasons, but I don't really miss my foreskin or care much either way, not that I'd do it to my kid without good reason.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is almost entirely a result of circumcision having been around for a long time and people being familiar with it. Most people who are fine with circumcision would not be fine with the idea of allowing parents to decide to cut off parts of their children's ears or fingertips or any other body part the non-consensual removal of which in infancy has not been traditionally practiced in the West.
I think that this would still be much better than parents having the right to get their kids circumcised in infancy. With the secret encouragement, at least there is some form of consent from the person who is actually going to be affected.
Well, sure. It being around for a long time shows that it's not a novel practice with unknown consequences, and people being familiar with it means that it's pretty tough to convince people that it's somehow disastrous or monstrous when roughly half of them have a lifetime of experience to the contrary.
More generally, it seems obvious to me that this entire argument is yet another round of the usual Progressive word games. Circumcision is not an obscure practice, the outcomes are not in doubt, and those outcomes do not justify the histrionics activists inevitably deploy. Circumcised men get on just fine. If some think the practice harmed them, they are free to act differently with their own children, but there is no crisis here, and attempting to force the outcome you prefer will cause vast amounts of harm for very, very little benefit.
Our current experiment with prepubescent transition rather indicates otherwise; we've just in the last few years started letting parents put their children through incredibly invasive surgeries on the very slimmest of justifications, of a sort that would have been absolutely beyond the pale as recently as a decade ago. In any case, it seems to me that circumcision is considerably less harmful than losing a fingertip, and I think if people decided they needed to do weird ear stuff with their kids, we'd probably let them.
I disagree. Kids don't have a good understanding of the consequences either way; parents do, because in most cases they've lived with the consequences all their lives. More generally, I do not see why we should consider children free agents capable of making serious life decisions. Baring the small fraction committing severe abuse and neglect, there is not going to be anyone more committed to a child's welfare nor more invested in good outcomes for them than their parents. I absolutely do not trust teachers or other agents of the state to make better decisions for children than parents on net, and deeply resent their attempts to usurp parental powers while conspicuously neglecting the attendant responsibilities.
I am not arguing that it is disastrous. Clearly millions of men live fine lives despite being circumcised. However, it does seem monstrous to me, a totally unnecessary and creepy violation of infants' bodies.
I am not a progressive. I think that banning circumcision is something that people of all political stripes should be able to get behind. As for histrionics, I mean I think that some level of histrionics is justified by the fact that parts of babies' dicks are getting cut off for absolutely no reason other than that a bunch of people are too stupid to not cut parts of their babies' dicks off.
How would banning circumcision cause vast amounts of harm?
I would be as against parents non-consensually forcing kids to transition as I am against parents deciding to circumcise their kids. If you want to compare apples and apples, we should compare teenagers deciding to get circumcisions with teenagers deciding to get gender transition medical intervention, not compare infants being forcibly circumcised to teenagers deciding to get gender transition medical intervention.
We would not. Current social norms are that for a parent to cut part of his or her infant's ear off would be a very bad thing to do, something worth serious legal penalties. It would be very hard for me to imagine such norms changing any time soon.
I feel the same way, but none of that is any justification for letting parents cut parts of their kids' dicks off for absolutely no good reason.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
This is not totally true. Circumcision was unpopular throughout the majority of the anti-masturbation hysteria, and became widespread in the US with the idea that it prevented the spread of STD’s. The middle class adopted it in the interwar era and it became near-universal following WWII.
It is true that circumcision was viewed extremely negatively in the west prior to the very late 19th century, but a lot of the reasoning behind that negative view was antisemitism(I hate to break it to you, but medieval theologians were not particularly concerned with safeguarding sexual pleasure). Yes, the RCC defined it as mutilation and thus technically a sin, but the dominant reasoning for opposition to circumcision among laypeople was anti-semitism.
I’m not saying this to defend circumcision; I don’t intend to circumcise my sons and generally support moderate measures to reduce the circumcision rate in the US. However, I do think it is important not to take the claims of anti-circumcision activists at face value.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe on the margins, but I doubt it’s going to make much difference.
More options
Context Copy link
If you think people are logical, I have a logically sound bridge to sell.
More options
Context Copy link
I was against circumcision before I knew what trans even is, but I don't think this idea is going to work. People are very good at compartamentalizing.
More options
Context Copy link
As a person who doesn't care about this issue, no not really. I don't see it as life altering in any meaningful way. i'm not sure what would move the needle enough to make me concerned, a high complication rate? But no, very different from chemical castration and brain growth retardation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be clear, I lean more on the open side in terms of Trans Rights/identity. I think it makes sense that some people are born with gender dysphoria, and I do think transition probably is a good treatment when this happens. (That said, I do think there's a socialized version that should be treated entirely different).
But the question really has to be asked. Is this special pleading...and let's be clear, it absolutely is special pleading...enough to oppose a group? It sucks that it is this way. I'm not a fan of this. But ultimately, I do believe it's entirely rational to oppose a group/identity who is claiming this power with some semblance of success. I'm not saying it's the best way to go about things. (Nor am I saying it's the worst, to be clear, although my personality/aesthetic leans towards a more pluralistic, open approach).
But at the end of the day, I do think this type of politics drives a large amount of the identity culture warring we see today.
I guess I see it as almost the reverse.
Identity culture warring is ingrained in the human species, and that drives our politics, and has since literally all recorded history. We notice the things that make ingroup similar and outgroup different, and we find reasons to attack the outgroup, often based on the things that make them different. In some cases this might even be justifiable.
In this way, trans people as a group provide a 'useful' wedge for cynically amoral actors to generate tons of heat and lend cover to their other cynically amoral activities that might bring ire upon them.
This doesn't answer the policy question, however. Stuff like "can a child who is too young to consent undergo this invasive procedure? Should their parent have a say? Should a transitioned person be legally entitled to be treated as their assumed identity?"
And the way we answer those policy questions is going to inherently impact how we answer many other, arguably more salient questions, and I can say that I, personally, am uncomfortable with the implications that come with denying parents input into their child's major medical decisions or forcing people to accept a person's "assigned" identity as a legally binding matter.
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