site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33038 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 17, 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.

8
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's not sufficient evidence to justify this anecdotal opinion and while you're welcome to have your opinion, especially about yourself, I'd suggest you think about how you don't have the counterfactual, even for yourself.

P.S. I would think the ethical bar and evidence standard would need to be very high for the puberty blockers, then HRT treatment for children when we know the majority of people who don't go through their natal puberty, will be infertile. Not to mention the problems with inability to orgasm. Can a child make that decision?

the majority of people who don't go through their natal puberty, will be infertile.

To be clear, that's an effect of HRT (cross-sex hormones), not puberty blockers.

Not to mention the problems with inability to orgasm.

There's no evidence for that. Even trans women who start puberty blockers early are as likely as cis women to be able to orgasm.

That link is not very good evidence even if you have access to the paper.

I know it might be hard to believe, I thought it was a right-wing talking point at first but when you think about it, it makes sense. Biological sex does actually mean something.

The sterility is all about not going through natal puberty (so puberty blockers). Puberty is the process of gaining sexual function (who knew?) What do you think happens to your body if you stop the process and go straight onto cross-sex hormones? For boys, this will lead to permanent sterility as sperm production doesn't occur, for girls the ovarian follicles don't develop (though girls could preserve their eggs which they are born with).

Another important feature related to the use of GnRHa is the fertility issue. Adolescents that undergo puberty blockade, invariably display a scarce maturation of the gametes, as happens in hypogonadism. In addition to this aspect, there is the scant attention that the subjects with GD/GI shows towards this topic, given the psychological distress related to the condition, associated with the anxiety of wanting to transit to a more congenial body, as fast as possible. In male to female subjects, the only possibility is the cryopreservation of testicular tissue, given that, at Tanner stage 2, only 20% of transgender girls will have begun spermatogenesis. In the case of a blockage in later stages, it would be possible the collection of mature sperm via ejaculation, but the problem of the appearance of secondary sexual characters would occur [54]. In female-to-male subjects, the situation is quite similar: ovarian tissue cryopreservation is the only option available if the follicular stimulation is ineffective, as happens in the first Tanner stages (prepubertal ovaries). On the contrary, during later stages, it would be possible the oocyte cryopreservation, as done in oncological patients [55, 56].

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40618-023-02077-5

The effects of puberty blockers on sexual function:

Even less is known about the effects of puberty suppression on sexual functioning. Jennings, who started on GnRHa at the age of 11, has no libido and cannot orgasm. Jennings’ surgeon, Marci Bowers, who has performed over 2,000 vaginoplasties, acknowledges that “every single child … who was truly blocked at Tanner stage 2, has never experienced orgasm. I mean, it’s really about zero” (Bowers, Citation2022).

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238

Side effects of GnRH agonists are related to sex hormone deficiency and include symptoms of low testosterone levels and low estrogen levels such as hot flashes, sexual dysfunction, vaginal atrophy, penile atrophy, osteoporosis, infertility, and diminished sex-specific physical characteristics. They are agonists of the GnRH receptor and work by increasing or decreasing the release of gonadotropins and the production of sex hormones by the gonads. When used to suppress gonadotropin release, GnRH agonists can lower sex hormone levels by 95% in both sexes.[2][3][4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonadotropin-releasing_hormone_agonist

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