site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33100 thread views

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I believe you can induce puberty medically in adults who never went through it because of birth defects and medical syndromes, though?

Ofc ‘completely reversible’ is an obvious tall tale and that leaves out all the other side effects. And of course you can’t undo going on cross sex hormones.

Yeah, delayed puberty as a category has long been believed to have only small impact on height and bone density. It's not clear how true that was -- constitutional delayed puberty does seem to correlate with a difference in height, it's just a question how much of that from the puberty itself as from family history... but the family history often includes delayed puberty -- and puberty blockers have further ramifications that could have results not present in conventional delayed puberty (although the only good evidence I've seen is from much larger doses than used for blocking puberty in trans kids).

That isn't to say that it's obviously true, or even likely true, but it's not self-evidently wrong from any knowledge of the topic.

That said, I think bone density is a pretty big distraction from the underlying questions: we're not having knock-down drag out fights over bad federal school milk policy, even though that impacts more students and probably manages to be even dumber. The soc con objection is that children on puberty blockers are far more likely to continue to identify as trans into adulthood, which there's pretty strong evidence in favor of, and, more controversially, that people who were on puberty blockers pre-transition may have long-term sexual issues in either their birth-assigned or transitioned genders into adulthood. These are going to have entirely unrelated answers.

Well yes. My objection to puberty blockers is more ‘being trans is a near-postulate bad thing, both for the individual and for broader society, and so we should be very concerned not to encourage it even if there’s legitimate debate about whether to treat individuals with white kid gloves’. I mean I agree that puberty blockers aren’t completely reversible and that long term side effects are part of the discussion, they just don’t seem like a generally important part.

Interestingly, I believe one of the common ‘anti-trans laws’ passed this year was for any insurance company which covered puberty blockers to pay for de transition costs, which would seem like it’s going to increase the data available to us on this question forthwith.

That said, I think bone density is a pretty big distraction from the underlying questions: we're not having knock-down drag out fights over bad federal school milk policy, even though that impacts more students and probably manages to be even dumber.

This sort of argument really bothers me, it's reminiscent of lefties trying to tell me the culture war is a distraction, and we should focus on the economy or workers rights. We don't have knock-down drag out fights about school milk policy because, to my knowledge, no one is trying to say malnutrition is fully reversible. Also, I can just buy milk for my kids.

If people don't think the impact on bone health is a big deal, just list it as one of the possible effects, explain why you think it's not important, and move on. Don't gaslight parents into thinking there's no permanent changes, and immediately flip to "well, ok, but that one's not so important" as soon as someone points to a permanent change.

The soc con objection is that children on puberty blockers are far more likely to continue to identify as trans into adulthood, which there's pretty strong evidence in favor of

Funnily enough I'm somehow skeptical of that one. I did hear a plausible mechanism for how it could happen (puberty being one of the things that resolves dysphoria for a lot of kids), but somehow my first thought on it is that's it's just the sunk cost fallacy, rather than something inherent to blockers.

If people don't think the impact on bone health is a big deal, just list it as one of the possible effects, explain why you think it's not important, and move on. Don't gaslight parents into thinking there's no permanent changes, and immediately flip to "well, ok, but that one's not so important" as soon as someone points to a permanent change.

Yeah, that's fair, and there's certainly some people who make the position dishonestly. I do think there's at least some who had people skeptical of puberty blockers bring the matter up, went by either a gut check or relayed information, and then had that response to further concerns, rather than going to full "it's happening and it's good".

Also, I can just buy milk for my kids.

Ehh.... federal policy has strictly limited the types available for sale or purchase in schools (that accept federal funds, or are in New York) to types that are less palatable to most people.

I did hear a plausible mechanism for how it could happen (puberty being one of the things that resolves dysphoria for a lot of kids), but somehow my first thought on it is that's it's just the sunk cost fallacy, rather than something inherent to blockers.

I think there's a lot of reasons to contest the proposed methodology, and the available data is so small and so time- and space-sensitive that it's definitely not strong evidence in any direction, so that's fair.

Ehh.... federal policy has strictly limited the types available for sale or purchase in schools (that accept federal funds, or are in New York) to types that are less palatable to most people.

I meant buy whatever I want in a store, and put it in my kid's lunchbox. That's still legal.... right?

but somehow my first thought on it is that's it's just the sunk cost fallacy, rather than something inherent to blockers.

The actual mechanism is kind of irrelevant, no? I mean the objection is ‘we should encourage desistance’. Why puberty blockers run contrary to that doesn’t matter.

At least some mechanisms are 'portable'; for something like sunk costs, one could easily invest in social transition, clothing, make-up, moving to a pro-trans location, so on, without having access to pharmaceutical or surgical transition.

That’s true, but some of the suppressing effect on trans from banning puberty blockers is probably also portable.

You might replicate a number of hormonal processes but it's hard to believe a developmental process could be so malleable, especially brain development. We actually don't even know very well what changes puberty induces in the brain.

If you have had a child you will see that evolution gives us a development cycle that is as rapid as possible factoring in the complexity to get us to adulthood as physically developed, socially competent adults. This involves various critical periods that it seems unlikely allow for years long pausing. Not to mention becoming out of sync with our peer group, which is how our identity is shaped.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats