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 -
There are no insights to be drawn from the comparison, because you never stop to define what a "mom" is. If "mom" is defined as "the person from whose womb a child sprung," then step-moms are not moms, and nor are women who use surrogate mothers. If it means, as you hint is can, "the person who nutured you in the manner that our society associates with motherhood," then a step-mother can be a mother. As can arguably a man. And different definitions can be used in different contexts; for the purpose of determining who has the right to due process before being deprived of parental rights, a stepmother who has not adopted her stepchild might not be deemed to be the child's mother. But for purposes of determining who gets to go to mother-daughter day at the ballpark, she probably is.
Similarly, whether a transwoman is a "real woman" depends entirely on the definition one uses. And, that, of course, is the root of the dispute. People on the right think that self-identification is completely meaningless, while those on the left think that it is the whole thing, at least for the issues that they care about. And, of course, self-identification is often all that defines group membership in many contexts. But obviously not all.
Two problems with that:
If man/woman is defined through self-identification, then the definition becomes recursive, and therefore useless. I have no idea whether or not I am a woman, because I don't know whether I identify as one, because I don't know what a woman is.
The left does not think it is the whole thing. Relatively recently there was a shooting, where the shooter identified as non-binary. No one on the left believed him.
Not necessarily. There are many instances in which group membership is defined through self-identification, especially for practical purposes. A relatively trivial example: Political party membership in the United States is generally based purely on self-identification; if I declare myself to be a Republican, I can vote in my state's Republican primary. Another example, though one of group self-identification, is the concept of the nation, which is often defined solely in terms of self-identification.(Of course, others push back and dispute that, but that is the point). Another example: "Rape victim." For the purposes of access to rape counseling services, "rape victim" is often defined as anyone who thinks she has been raped, even if, objectively, she has not been. The key there is "for the purposes of access to rape counseling services"; apparently, those who make such decisions deem it sound public policy to define membership in the group, "rape victim" to be based purely on self-identification. For other purposes, eg, criminal conviction of an alleged rapist, public policy might demand a different definition. The same is true of the definition of "woman." For some purposes, sound policy might demand defining "woman" as anyone who identifies as a woman. (Eg: if a high school class is reviewing for a test by having a boys versus girls Jeopardy game, letting anyone who identifies as a girl compete on the girl's team might be sound policy). For other purposes, sound policy might demand defining "woman" using objective criteria (eg, for the purpose of who gets to play "women's" sports).
I don't think this is analogous at all. By your argument, rape counselling services are defining "rape victim" more or less as follows: "a rape victim is a person who believes that they were orally, vaginally or anally penetrated without their consent". The term is defined by reference to a specific factual belief the individual in question does or does not hold (without passing judgement on whether that belief is true).
By contrast, "a woman is a person who identifies as a woman" tells you exactly nothing about what the term "woman" means. It is, as /u/arjin_ferman points out, recursive: "a woman is a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a..."
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that as I understand it they do not provide an objective definition at all. Whether that is good policy or not, I don't know (but note that they seem to think it is, presumably because they want to err on the side of caution by providing services as broadly as possible).
Again, it depends on the purpose of the definition. Suppose I had a rule that says that men must open doors for women. Why? Because women get great satisfaction when that is done; they are aggrieved if that is not done (even if that is irrational); men don't care one way or the other; and we want to maximize total utility. In those circumstances, someone with a penis who identifies as a woman will be aggrieved if doors are not opened for them, and pleased if they are. Hence, if I wish to maximize utility, when someone asks, "how do you define 'woman' for purposes of your door-opening policy, I would respond: "Whoever identifies as a woman is a woman. If you you ask someone, 'what gender are you?' and they respond 'I am a woman,' then open the door. It is not recursive because it doesn't matter how they personally define "woman," nor does it matter whether they conform to an objective definition of "woman."
Let's suppose I provided counseling services for unhappy people. And I define an "unhappy person" as anyone who feels he is unhappy. Would you claim that that is endlessly discursive? I doubt it, because all that matters is how they feel, not what the "really" are objectively "unhappy persons," and not whether Joe, if he felt exactly as Fred does, would define himself as an unhappy person, while Fred does not.
Pedantic reply:
Since you have no first-hand knowledge of their unhappiness, you are smuggling into your definition “anyone who communicates he feels he is unhappy”.
Even more pedantic response: As it happens, I have a device that can directly analyze each applicant's brain and can determine whether they indeed are experiencing unhappiness.
You are conflating my ability to accurately determine whether criteria of a definition are satisfied with the the content of the definition. If I have a rule that says "intentional killers must get life in prison," the fact that I cannot know first-hand whether a person actually intended to kill does not mean the category "intentional killers" is illegitimate.
What? What does that make Joe? Do you force treatment on him?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link