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 -
Two points:
A colonoscopy is a routine medical examination which, under ideal circumstances, has no permanent effect on the child's body. As the child is generally sedated during the procedure, it is entirely painless and the child will have no conscious recollection thereof. This is quite obviously not the case with mastectomies, penectomies, phalloplasties, puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
You are correct to note that the child's parent or guardian must give their consent before the child undergoes a colonoscopy. Trans activists are notorious for their belief that medical transition is a fundamental right for children, which any child can and should undergo even without their parents' knowledge or even in specific contravention of their wishes. For instance, the aforementioned Mermaids charity was embroiled in scandal when they agreed to send a chest binder to a journalist posing as a fourteen-year-old trans boy, who had explicitly stated that their family did not accept their trans identity and were unaware of their desire for a chest binder. California just passed a law which makes affirming a child's stated gender identity (or not) a factor governing whether parents are entitled to custody of their children. Again, there's a big difference between "we support the right of children to undergo this medical procedure provided their parents consent to it" and "we support the right of children to undergo this medical procedure even if their parents are unaware that their child wants to undergo it, or knows about it and has explicitly said they don't want their child to undergo it."
On the latter point, one could draw an analogy with children being taken into care because their parents don't consent to their receiving life-saving treatment (as in Jehovah's Witnesses) and the child's doctor seeks a court order to overrule their guardianship. The analogy doesn't quite work, however, as a) the extreme trans activists I'm talking about generally support a child's right to transition regardless of whether they have been formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria (in which case medical transition might be medically indicated) and b) most children with gender issues desist without any need for medical transition, the evidence base for the efficacy of medical transition in alleviating psychic distress and suicidality is decidedly mixed, and trans activists have consistently overhyped and muddied the waters on the efficacy thereof (e.g. "I'd rather have a live daughter than a dead son"). For the above reasons, taking a child out of their parents' custody for refusing to "affirm" them is nothing like taking them out of their parents' custody because the parents don't consent to a lifesaving blood transfusion.
More options
Context Copy link