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 think it’s a bit simpler than that. The biggest drawback to natal males in women’s leagues is that it’s basically legalized cheating. And the real harms are economic: scholarships for women going to men, women being shut out of the Olympics (which often gives athletes enough recognition that they can endorse products), and women’s professional sports being entirely populated by natal males.
Women’s soccer is a case in point. Most colleges have a female soccer squad. But the physical abilities of women who play soccer is such that just about any decent male high school player can get a full-ride scholarship to play soccer on the women’s team. And schools knowing this will absolutely run with it. Find a guy willing to take just enough blockers and estrogen to qualify as a woman, wear a dress on campus, and get a free college education. It’s kind of reverse doping. But schools who make money by having really good female teams wouldn’t care much and would want as many natal males on their teams as possible. Which naturally means that for sports like that (and probably softball and tennis and lacrosse as well) any women trying out would be denied opportunities. They simply can’t keep up physiologically. So if these women needed a scholarship to be able to afford school, it sucks to be them.
More options
Context Copy link