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 -
Banning discussion of the legimitacy of elections, discussion of whether the neovaccines/masks are effective or not, discussion that homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic mammalian species on the one hand,
and explicit content parental advisory lyrics on the other hand.
Personally, I think that's a false equivalency.
I don't think any major political coalition goes so far as to deny "sexual dimorphism."
I hate to keep ringing this bell, but I actually think the disagreements of fact between well-researched pro-trans people and well-researched anti-trans people is fairly small.
Ask any empirical question, and you'll get agreement on what our technologies and medical interventions today can and cannot do, and what unknowns exist in this space. I've read the WPATH Standards of Care, and most of the objections people bring up (GNC kids mostly desist, puberty blockers might have effects on bone density, etc., etc.) are all discussed and given weight in the discussion. They acknowledge risks, and gaps in our current understanding all over that document.
On the other hand, normative discussions like:
Which sex-seggregated spaces should trans people have access to?
Which sports divisions and teams should trans people participate in?
Should trans healthcare be included as part of government provided healthcare?
aren't directly based on empirical principles to begin with.
Sports rules aren't handed down from on high - we very consciously make decisions about what form we want a sport to take. If including transwomen in a women's sporting division is undesirable to some, then another league that only allows cis-women could exist alongside it (much as weightlifting competitions have pro-doping and anti-doping competitions happily existing alongside one another.)
With all other questions, we have to determine what risk tolerance and error bars on current knowledge we have as a society.
That seems to be from 2012. A lot has changed in this discussion space in 10 years.
This is literally already the case, and the entire point. Sports have an "open" and a "women's" league, and the TRAs think that sectioning off the women's league for cis-women is intolerable bigotry.
More options
Context Copy link
"Well-researched" people aren't the ones who get you fired or kicked off of social media.
More options
Context Copy link
In a parallel reality where sense and rationality rules the land, your hypothetical utopia might possibly exist. But in this reality, there are very vocal trans activists that will hunt you down, dox you, petition your boss to fire you and try to get your kids expelled from their school if you say that homo sapiens are a dimorphic mammalian species.
And that's assuming that your account was suspended to begin with.
I'd like proof of this.
The case of Keffals et al versus Jesse Singal?
I'm not familiar with the details. What have Keffals and her allies done to Jesse Singal that would qualify as trying to "hunt you down, dox you, petition your boss to fire you and try to get your kids expelled from their school"? At most, I can imagine 1, maybe 2 possible confirmations of your list.
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