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.
Yes, because "mom" is defined as all these things. The modal mother gave birth to you, is the source of half your genotype, including the chromosome that doesn't determine your sex, is your legal guardian and is the wife of your father at the same time. And then you can play Jenga with this definition until you end up with your adoptive mother who wasn't even known by your adoptive father when you were adopted, because she is a "mother figure" in your life, which is somewhat of a circular definition.
A modal woman has XX sex chromosomes, is born with female genitalia, grows boobs and a butt during puberty, can give birth, has lower than average testosterone, doesn't grow coarse facial hair, has lower than average upper body strength, is sexually attracted to men, prefers people to things, seeks validation instead of advice, wears skirts and so on. There's a certain scale of "womanness" each trait conveys: most people in the first world will agree that someone who has all these traits, but doesn't wear skirts ever is still a woman, still a woman if she prefers things to people and advice to validation, still a woman if she's sexually attracted to women, still a woman if she can do more pull-ups than the modal mottizen. But the remaining traits are still challengeable: you can remove any one of them and the result is still a woman if the end goal is getting an answer to "do I treat this person as a woman or as a man".
Including wears skirts on this list is silly. Clothing is different across cultures and generations. Removing it from the list would strengthen your argument. I'd also change the first to female reproductive organs, actually, because of certain intersex conditions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link