site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 12, 2023

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.

10
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The parallels with gender abound. How much does the biology matter? The relationships? The performance of the role’s expected behaviors? How much should we honor someone’s self-identification? Are there any useful insights to draw from the comparison?

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.

Well, all I can do is suggest that you write more clearly. Because you go around and around and around the issue, but never state it. You talk about whether X can be "the criterion" or Y can be "the criterion" and then end up saying that, in your personal opinion, one hypothetical woman is not a "mom" because of reasons A, B and C, and the other is not a mom because of reasons X, Y and Z. You never say whether certain criteria are necessary, or sufficient, or both, or neither. You never even say, "I am not sure what a "mom" is, but here is how to address such difficult definitional issues." How could that possibly be useful in casting light on the very different definitional problem raised by the transgender issue?

You never say whether certain criteria are necessary, or sufficient, or both, or neither.

Yes, because that is the question that's at issue! The OP was, I thought, completely clear on this point, then in the direct reply to you she said this explicitly. You even say yourself:

You talk about whether X can be "the criterion" or Y can be "the criterion"

Well, yes. How is it not clear that this is the question she's raising, not one she has a worked out answer to? What else would someone you'd describe that way be trying to do? This honestly seems like basic reading comprehension to me.

Well, yes. How is it not clear that this is the question she's raising, not one she has a worked out answer to?

The point is that she did a terrible job addressing the issue. As i said, "You talk about whether X can be "the criterion" or Y can be "the criterion. . . . [But] You never say whether certain criteria are necessary, or sufficient, or both, or neither. You never even say, "I am not sure what a "mom" is, but here is how to address such difficult definitional issues."

Again, as a result, her comment is useless.

Not as useless as repeating the exact point she and I have already addressed multiple times, completely ignoring everything either of us said about it.