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 -
As someone with the letter X on their driver's license, I find this a little funny. Let's assume you're correct, and I fall smack dab in the middle of the side of a high dimensional bimodal distribution with other AMABs.
It still comes off as weird and subversive that I eat estrogen pills for breakfast no? The doctor is still going to be confused if I tell him I'm a man and hand him my hormone test results. TSA still stops Trans girls for having a dick in their pants.
If some of the dimensions of your gender expression are off the charts outliers, I think it still makes sense to make room for the term 'non-binary' in relevant contexts, if not as a personal identifier.
That's a common experience. But no. I wouldn't recommend modeling anyone with so little nuance, regardless of what they insist upon. I think it's common for people to oversimplify one another in general. If you can get a good model out of starting with a gendered cluster then listing divergences from that cluster that's great. I find it's easier to start with a sub-cultural cluster.
Realistically, everyone has more eccentricities than they show the world, and if you want to really get to know someone, you're going to end up personally tailoring a model to them. Moreso with people that won't or can't slot into neurotypical norms, where it might be best to just start out that way.
Negotiating norms is a more complex matter. You certainly have to do less modeling if you're in a subculture with a tight set of well delineated standards for how people ought to behave. You don't have to negotiate how you treat each person, and get to have a tight standard for misbehavior. But you also get less versatility with regards to what interactions can occur and how you can ask to be treated.
It sounds like in the case of the most masculine cis-identified woman you know, your social circle is giving a lot of leeway to her. I'm not sure how the rest of your circle feels about this- what each of their perspectives are on this woman being a git. It sounds like she is effectively playing the game on both the feminine and masculine side of the spectrum and gaining the benefits of both sides. I think this is the most interesting version of the social game, but I get that it's frustrating that your social circle doesn't have your back on the things that annoy you about her. You might have an easier time of it if you bonded more closely with the members of your circle. But if they won't let you do that- Obviously you're at a disadvantage if you yourself are not permitted to use the synthesis of masculine and feminine social techniques and she is.
You realise that what you’re saying is not really much of a response to @raggedy_anthem, right?
She’s noting (via anecdote) that male humans and female humans, in fact, act qualitatively differently and are more accurately modeled separately, notwithstanding how “masculine” a woman is or “feminine” a man is.
You’re essentially replying “we need to treat individuals on a person-by-person basis” and nothing else (even defaulting to the standard modeling of “man” and “woman!”), which…doesn’t relate to her statement at all except in a bullshit non-answer way that conveniently sidesteps any actual response to her point.
(Edit: I appreciate that there are passages that have substance — that “playing both sides” can garner an advantage, for example. But I don’t think that changes the gist of my comment — from my perspective, you didn’t actually respond to the point of the comment you were replying to in favour of superficially analyzing the anecdote.)
If this is what you want me to address, I can address it directly.
...
Actually no I can't address it. My life is too weird. The reason I didn't add my own anecdotes is because I understand that most people weren't finally taught to socialize at the age of 20 by transgender-rationalist group houses. Didn't go to a private high school with the cast of an anime, didn't go through middle school with the hippie fifth of the school- the only fifth of the school that inexplicably goes to class in repurposed trailers outside and goes on hikes every Friday. In my life, male and female humans do not act qualitatively differently. They are all queer fucking autists doing their own thing in some galaxy brained direction.
Most people don't go through every stage of their life surrounded by the strangest possible cast of weirdos. I'm sure many, many people actually do get utility out of gender as a modeling tool. I only ever get utility out of gendered 'things'. Yin and Yang, left side and right side kabbalah. Things that different people pick and choose according to their need, regardless of what happens to be in their pants. Culture and biology as tools that you tear apart and reassemble to fit your need.
I didn't argue that the 'gender spectrum' idea is useful to me, because it's actually insufficiently intricate for me. I didn't argue that it would be useful to raggedy_anthem, because it doesn't sound like it would be that useful. The gender spectrum as an idea is good for one thing, and that is being the antithesis to the gender binary. That is to say, if you are so stuck on the gender binary that you cannot conceptualize why a man would want to wear makeup- then the special sauce: 'Male and Female are not thin edged monolithic categories, there is some blur, you have to model a bit more finely than that.' might be just what you need. But raggedy_anthem claims to be doing alright with their conception of males and females +/- small variances. They have enough of the special sauce to conceptualize the gender weirdest woman they know.
It seemed like delving into their anecdote would mean more to them. I'm easily empathy-sniped by people sharing their social troubles. I blame the estrogen.
Are you claiming the male-female spectrums overlap a lot more than others above claim (among the people you've spent a lot of time with)? Or are you genuinely claiming the distributions male and female behavior don't have any obvious or strong differences (again, among those people)?
Even among rationalists, there seem to be strong differences between the way men and women act. Do you not agree? (and the "blame the estrogen" seems to agree at least a bit).
My perspective is heavily shaped by the fact that most of the people that I interact with are AMAB, and the fact that most of the AFABs I interact with are oddballs that have chosen to dwell in AFAB spaces.
Yes I think estrogen vs testosterone makes a difference, I can feel the difference. Testosterone is... grindy... unsatisfied... demanding... estrogen is... a lot more chill... empathetic... similar to the vibe of an SSRI... the degree to which my gendered associations exaggerate the effects via placebo is unclear to me. But at least part of the effect is real, and the end result is real regardless of how much of it is the 'placebo alcohol' effect.
But mind you, most of the people I've socialized with who are on estrogen were AMABs. So I don't associate estrogen with AFABs to begin with.
There is definitely a difference between how AFAB cis rationalists and transgender AMAB rationalists act as well, transgender AMABs are more likely to be techie programmers for one. Whereas AFAB cis rationalists seem to be more likely to be close to EA. Meanwhile AFAB trans rationalists seem more likely to get into internet fights than AMAB cis rationalists. AMAB trans rationalists are more likely to be occultists than AMAB cis rationalists (or AFABs for that matter), more likely to be autistic, AMAB cis rationalists are less likely to take up social space in the room, are usually more relaxed and have fewer quirks to contribute on game night. They might have more to say about tech but they're less likely to go on an infodump.
At least among rationalists, this feels like at least 4 different "genders" to me. The early socialization matters, but the direction a rat is self-directing matters too. How they self direct is both less impacted by socialization (because they question it all), and further less impacted by traditional socialization (because they aren't spending time in the traditional sphere).
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