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 -
This precise example occurred to me awhile back, but with stepfathers rather than stepmothers.
"Father" has two meanings, biological and social. A father is the male person who impregnated the child's mother (biological). It is usually expected that this individual will also be the child's primary male role model and jointly responsible for raising and/or providing for them (social). In certain cases the child's primary male role model and the male person who impregnated the child's mother may be different people, in which case we disambiguate them (stepfather, biological father).
In some instances, the stepfather has been so present in the child's life and has formed such a strong bond with them that we refer to them as the child's father. This is a social fiction done in the interests of convenience or courtesy, and nobody really finds this objectionable. There may be a few instances in which we must defer to the child's biological father, but for most intents and purposes the stepfather is the child's father.
But this polite social fiction can be stretched too far. If the stepfather came to literally believe that he was responsible for conceiving the child, and pointedly asked us if he could see the resemblance between him and the child, we would have to push back and say, no, I'm sorry, you are not literally the child's father. Claiming that there is a familial resemblance between you and the child when you have no DNA in common is pseudoscience. If the stepfather were then to become distraught, lash out and accuse us of "invalidating his lived experience as a father", that would surely bring his mental state into question.
Sure, but are trans people claiming to literally have wombs and produce eggs or are they claiming to be their preferred gender for all socially relevant intents and purposes? A step-father who is closely involved in his wife's kids life from a young age does have lived experience as a father. If you exclude him from father-daugher themed events or correct his kids whenever they call him dad are you standing up for scientific accuracy or being a jerk?
Accuse me of weakmanning or nutpicking or whatever if you please, but I've personally witnessed more than my fair share of trans people (or trans activists) making blatantly pseudoscientific assertions, like trans women claiming they experience something analogous to menstruation, or that there have been biologically male people who became pregnant, or that sex is a "spectrum". Likewise, the widespread and baseless assertion that biological males have no inherent advantage over biological females in sporting events (an assertion which implicitly undergirds any apology for trans women being permitted to compete in female sporting events) is a pseudoscientific claim, comparable in degree to a stepfather asserting a familial resemblance between himself and his adoptive child.
Or (even more relevant to the metaphor at hand) consider the case of the Guardian journalist who did not want to be listed as his child's mother on the child's birth cert, and brought a (thankfully unsuccessful) case to the High Court on this basis. What exactly could be more unscientific than a trans man claiming not to be the mother of the child who was conceived and gestated in his womb for nine months? Quoting Wikipedia: "McConnell announced his second pregnancy in August 2021, with plans to give birth in Sweden in order to be listed as the child's father, rather than mother, on their birth certificate."
As I said, referring to a stepfather as a father is a polite social fiction which no one objects to using in most situations. If a girl was attending a father-daughter-themed event and she had to choose between inviting the loving stepfather who's present in her life and the deadbeat glorified sperm donor who fathered her, I would have no objection to her inviting the former; in fact, I'd actively recommend it.
But there are situations in which we must defer to a child's biological father rather than their stepfather. For instance - supposing a child lapses into a coma due to an undetermined cause, which may be genetic in nature. The doctor will obviously want to take a family history to identify potentially relevant genetic factors. The stepfather's medical history is completely irrelevant here - the only medical histories which are relevant are those of the child's biological parents. If the stepfather got angry and defensive when the doctor informed him of this, and insisted that he was the child's father and hence that the doctor should take his medical history - well, I wouldn't think the doctors are the "jerks" in this situation. I also wouldn't think the stepfather necessarily had the child's best interests at heart.
More options
Context Copy link
I have seen trans women refer to their sexual organs as female penises, usually in the context of a spa serving female only treatment. The logic being, they are a woman, therefore female, therefore any sexual organs they possess are female, regardless of their function. But you will have to take my word for what it's worth because I usually see it on Reddit and Tumblr, two sites with terrible search.
I recall at least 2 distinct cases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link