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 -
https://unherd.com/2023/04/is-trans-the-new-anorexia/
I’m not sure exactly how culture war-like this idea is, but I’ve never actually heard anyone else compare Anorexia with trans people before. I can see the social contagion factor in both especially for women who are much more conforming than men tend to, and because women have higher neuroticism than men. What I’m not sure about is some of the other ideas, that being trans is about self-negation and a sort of renouncing of their body.
The 'social contagion' theory isn't implausible, although I think no small number of pro-trans people would frame it instead as people who were already trans but now realized that they were and that it was possible to do something about it. And they're not exactly wrong : it's rude to make guesses about people before/unless they come out, but the transhumanist philosophy (and even transhumanist aestheticists) has had no small number of people who have had decades-long fascinations with body transformation as a form of self-improvement who weren't exactly a surprise when they turned out to be trans.
((FTM examples exist, but are small-crowd enough that I'm not hugely comfortable linking them.))
There's some important philosophical and pragmatic arguments about this even within the pro-trans framework -- not everyone who thinks those thoughts actually wants them, some who want something end up in some non-binary variant, and there are a variety of tradeoffs and physical limitations of existing technology such that even people who want to transition might be better-served by using some things and not others in a way that's getting obfuscated by a lot of mainstream discourse.
However, even outside of that, both perspectives have missed that they're looking at a metric, not a measure. You don't have a magical "this many people are trans" marker any more than you have a good definition of what being "trans" even is, but under that you don't really have good measures on even specific events. "How many people are using Tavestock" isn't the same thing as even "how many people are injecting sex hormones", as anyone who's noticed bodybuilders can guess. There already was a small industry of XX-chromosone'd people injecting testosterone, going butch as hell, and wanting to be called "sir" in the late-90s; there's some fun discussions about whether they're more trans now that they've been able to get hysterectomies easier, but it's not exactly the most practical of questions.
And there's been a lot of moving these to be higher-visibility, both in the general sense (trans pride) and in the seeing-like-a-state one (required coverage for insurance providers, changing rules for various government IDs). I don't think it's enough to explain the entire change, but it makes any attempt to use the metrics without acknowledging their limitations more than a little frustrating.
I'm a transhumanist, and my position on the whole trans issue is that I sympathize with their goals, but simply disagree that they can be realistically achieved with the current science and engineering of the time. The day when it's possible to turn a natal male or female into the other gender while being biologically indistinguishable on the metrics I care about, we have no room for disagreement at all.
I'm certainly not trans, for what that's worth.
We've bumped into each other about this a few times but it's difficult to articulate the problem I have this this position, possibly because it sounds like a reasonable take but it is jarring unrelated to the actual question at issue. Trans people and the trans movement are not reasonable transhumanists that think it'd be neat if they could grow breasts/penises or satisfy whatever aesthetic/explorative impulse they have. These people are making actual claims based on a worldview that is very different to the one you've expressed here. You don't agree with the trans movement at all, to put it in another peculiar view you have, it's like if when debating whether a teleporter kills you or not there was a faction claiming that people who want to use teleporters are actually already at the destination not just that they'd be better off if they were able to get there.
I recall making a similar statement in the recent past, but I honestly don't recall if it was with you, or whether you said:
If you mean that they want to become the opposite sex of what they were born as, while asking for the same treatment as said sex before they "perfectly" transition, then my stance is that their aim to change their sex is perfectly fine in my eyes, and I only have mild resentment at being asked to treat them like that before they finish that (difficult) task.
What exact aspect of their worldview are you referring to?
They are not claiming to want to become anything, they are claiming that they already are that thing. The fundamental bit is that there is some element beyond simple desire at play.
In this regard, I certainly disagree with them. Self-identification only suffices for the purposes of one's choice of football club, not for things of real consequence!
If someone self-identifies as a doctor, I'm not a serious credentialist, I would merely ask that they prove they can pass the same exams and demonstrate sufficient knowledge before I'd let them do something with it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My understanding of the "mainstream" trans view is that the claim is they are the sex (well, gender, but they also claim any distinction there is meaningless, so...) they claim at any given moment. Any biological reality that contradicts this claim is considered irrelevant to their essential gender identity, which is all that matters. Any claim they made yesterday that contradicts today's claim is considered irrelevant.
Obviously, there are lots of different views in "the community" about this, many of which contradict the others. Sometimes, you get multiple, contradicting views from the same person. What I'm describing is my understanding of the concept of trans embodied by Twitter/Tik Tok/Corporate Approved Trans, which seems poised to be the ideology that defines the community under it's singular umbrella. Or at least the main Cathedral, opposition to which will define the heretics.
From that point of view, there is no process of becoming the opposite gender; your assertion that such (once possible) will earn them the regard they want in your eyes inherently invalidates their belief that there is no process other than their own profession of belief.
Thanks for elaborating, I certainly don't agree with that view, IMO, mere self-identification is insufficient for actually becoming something, you have to put in the work to become it first.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At that point in time, masculine minded abrasive assholes running around in sexy female bodies will be a welcome reprieve from the overall weirdness. I mean, how comfortable are you with child-appearing adults ? And that's the least of it..
Probably less creepy than hive-minded technologically telepathic genetically engineered geniuses no one can understand who can somehow pull off things ordinarily deemed miraculous ? Wouldn't that be creepy ?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's potentially interesting, though there's a lot of feeling from the pro-trans side that this is a space where goalposts either get set to pretty unusual places or moved there pretty rapidly. Some of that's due to nutpicking -- one particular radfem mistaking her own silhouette for a transwoman's is nearly a year old now and still goes around the tumblr-sphere, and there's a general class of people who start grabbing the phrenologist tools -- but on the other hand at least part of the drive toward earlier transition reflects adult transitioners who had an unpleasant puberty but also had some side effects from it that were either difficult to change or incompletely changed. And a lot of trans people regularly celebrate whenever tech related to things like cloned organs or less invasive surgical interventions are proposed or developed.
On the flip side, it kinda raises a "what about now" question. Not in a 'dissolve the question' pure-philosophy sorta way, but were it an actual possible proposal would it be acceptable. Presuming no massive technological or engineering changes in the near future, would you have issues if we instead had them put X (malex?/womenx? would at least be less dumb than latinx) as gender ID, widely available transition-as-currently-developed, and otherwise only have trans-specific rules for places where those metrics you care about are directly exposed? Do you think the general populace of trans-skeptics would?
((In practice, I don't think the trans side or the trans-skeptic side has enough trust to make such a compromise, or even the group coherency to make a decision on the matter -- you're going to have different perspectives from the socon catholics, just as the average trans dude's going to have different ones from the high priests of transdom. It seems relevant to explore.))
Yeah, it's definitely far from a universal pattern among transhumanists, and not even all transhumanists with the associated philosophical and aesthetic characteristics have the pattern, and some small portion who otherwise have the pattern aren't trans or don't identify as trans (or gender-whatever).
See if it weren’t for the children angle, I’m not convinced this is worse or better than any other body modification you can do. There are people who insert horns in their heads, dye their eye-whites blue, tattoo themselves on every inch of their body, and split their tongues. They’re freaks, and they accept that as do most of the rest of us. But when you’re talking about children making permanent and life-altering decisions, the issue isn’t trans human, it’s kids not quite having the maturity to understand the gravity of their decisions. If I choose at forty to dye my eye-whites blue (yeah eyes of iblis) I’m forty, I can understand the issues in that decision. I understand I could go blind. I understand that people will see me differently, and that I’m probably not getting conventional jobs after I do it. A kid just saw Dune and thinks it looks cool.
Body dysmorphia is just plain disturbing.
More options
Context Copy link
The issue is that for a lot of trans people, the goal is to look like an ordinary member of the opposite sex, not a someone with a unique appearance. And that’s achievable if the person transitions young: they aren’t going to be a freak who looks visibly different from the rest of the population, they’ll just pass as the gender they transitioned to. Meanwhile an adult transitioner is more likely to be conspicuously trans and require cosmetic surgery to look “normal” (especially in the case of MtFs).
While fewer seem to want to go “stealth” these days as opposed to in the past, many do hold conventional jobs. I know trans hairdressers, programmers, cooks, receptionists, etc, and most go through their daily life without having anybody stare at them the way people would stare at someone with horns or who tattooed their whole body.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I might mildly dislike it, if it extends to me being forced to use neopronouns at the risk of social disapproval, because I resent being dictated to, but not enough to really care. I'm sure that most trans-sceptics would have a far more negative reaction.
If they look like a duck and fuck like a duck, I'll have no qualms about calling them ducks, but until then it'll only be a minor nuisance and my general desire to be polite means that I'd go along for the sake of people I otherwise respect.
Autistic people are overrepresented in both the Rationalist community and in trans people. I would wager that accounts for what you observe. Scott has written about that association, and wagers that it's likely due to Autistic people being more suggestible and also prone to interpreting their discomfort at the bodily signals neurotypicals take for granted and considering them a sign they're not expressing as the gender they actually are. Since Rats are also more open to experience, they might have been among the first on the bandwagon.
Wouldn’t therapeutics to simply cure gender Dysphoria or any underlying conditions be the straighter line from A to B from a technological point of view?
The idea of an “anti-Dysphoria” vaccine makes more sense than a totally lossless surgical gender swap.
I swear, bringing this up in the debate makes TRAs and their ilk more incensed than anything than anything I’ve ever written. I’ve gotten banned and sent viscous DMs for even suggesting it.
But in this theoretical, transhumanist future with shiny happy people is it not simpler and more likely that no one feels the need to transition at all due to high quality therapeutics than the 24/7 all you can eat Barbie doll body part swap meet that the medicalists seem to assume is going to pass?
FTR, my reaction to the idea of medically altering the identity bits is something like "Could you kill me in a less horrifying way, please?"
That said, my issues are more age than gender, and the mental aspect is a significant part of that (which only grows more ... perplexing... over time). The trouble though is that it's hard to define what fixing that would look like. If I'm imagining a magical mind-alteration solution, I like to include a daily "revert the alterations, reflect on how they work" period, because that crap is scary and I expect easier to get wrong than not. I have no idea how this could be accomplished in reallity, other than simulations. But I'm not sure much of mine could be resolved outside of simulations. Ugh. Reallity is better than not existing, but I still complain.
All of which is to say, I get the vicious reactions you get for suggesting altering it mentally rather than bodily. I'd prefer people not be so vicious about it (I'm here and not there for reasons), fwiw.
I think the “identity bits” is where, from my perspective, an alien morality gets smuggled in.
No one suggests that if you give someone suffering from eczema a lotion that they are committing “genocide” against the “eczema community”. But wave the magic identity wand around and everything becomes moralized.
If we could make gender Dysphoria disappear tomorrow, from the perspective of alleviating real suffering the answer should be a no brainer. The fact that answering this question causes any consternation is indicative of a bait and switch.
I’ve suffered and continue to suffer mental illness in my life, if I could make it go away and restore my brain to full function I wouldn’t hesitate. I’m not part of a “community”, I just have a condition. The fact that people build a wall called “identity” around their maladies is at best an understandable cope, at worse adding fuel to the fire.
I think the primary mission of medicine should be the restoration of natural function of a person. Much like “Free Speech” has a strict legal definition but also heavily implies a cultural attitude, same with the Hippocratic Oath; “First, do no harm.”
Helping people take care, love and accept their bodies should take complete priority over modifying a healthy, functioning body. If you have to modify, do so only with the goal to restore healthy, natural function.
To me that’s the expansive vision of the Hippocratic oath as regards to body modification, and I find it goes into direct conflict with the transhumanist / cyborg vision of (un?)humanity that to my mind, includes transgenderism.
Someone out there coined the term “trad-humanism” and that more or less seems accurate to describe my view on this.
If I'm suffering from eczema and you conditioned me to stop suffering while the outward symptoms are still there, am I cured?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is rightly considered hostile to suggest just removing needs. How would you like a proposal for a communist state where the need to stand out and personal achievement is mentally excised from everyone?
I think that’s rather dramatic, do you feel the same way about depressed people taking SSRIs? Adult ADHD sufferers taking adderal?
Focusing on the “identity” aspect as opposed to the clear suffering of a painful & debilitating mental condition is a mindkilled framing from my perspective.
It’s one of the most bizarre and dysfunctional aspects of (post)modern society.
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
Which metrics are those? I might have differing metrics for different cases. In a partner I'd likely want a woman who didn't feel the need to transition to be a woman.
Do they smell female, look female, have a working vagina and can reproduce, whether sleeping with them is indistinguishable from a natal female.
Behave like women? Move like women?
Have the lived experience of a natal woman?
I don't particularly care about those myself. I'm pretty sure a lot of dudes have an ideal image of the first woman in their head as someone who has the body of a woman but the interests or behavior of one of the bros. A noble goal indeed, albeit they're rarer than hens teeth.
I have known several. They are rather unusual, disagreeable people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Smell is the one thing that’s pretty much guaranteed with HRT. Trans women smell like women and trans men definitely smell like men, even “down there”. Skin texture also dramatically changes.
Looking female will depend on this early the transition is and the individual’s baseline. Some will pass as female to the average person but remain “clockable” to people who know what to look for. Some trans women who started off hormones young enough will be indistinguishable, some are lucky to pass after a few surgeries. But we definitely can’t take any random biological adult male and making him fully look like a woman.
Reproduction isn’t there yet, but some results of sexual reassignment surgery are quite visually impressive, others less so (Thai surgeons for instance are known to have better results and use a different technique). For some, it has been enough to fool unsuspecting men before (plenty of reports of trans women going stealth) and it certainly is enough to reduce dysphoria and function as a sexual organ in most cases. However, it is a gamble.
I’d say current technology is good enough to alleviate dysphoria and at the very least there’s no point of delaying taking HRT in the hopes of a better transhumanist future. But if you’re just curious and want a magic gender swap to experience life as the opposite sex for whatever reason, obviously we’re not there yet and the current treatments should absolutely not be taken lightly as some changes are irreversible.
There are however reports that trans who were put onto cross-sex hormones before going through puberty are not going to ever have an orgasm, barring some medical miracle.
Yeah, I'm increasingly skeptical of current uses of puberty blockers as the scale and scope of their use has escalated. Some of the discussion seems to get taken out of context when repeated in socon circles -- afaict, Maria Bower's concerns and claims are specifically about Tanner Stage 2-3 vs 3-5, rather than all uses of puberty blockers, which is especially annoying since Tanner 4 and 5 are those which tend to be what trans people point to as particularly dysphoric -- but the rather blaise response by WPATH et all isn't encouraging.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trans men are certainly far more likely to be able to pass, at the very least as a rather short man. Testosterone is a helluva drug! Sadly that same fact makes undoing its effects on natal males exceedingly difficult, unlikely to happen before the Singularity, which ought to fix that issue if it doesn't kill us along the way.
I for one wish to overthrow the shackles of my flesh, and to the extent that Trans people seek to do the same, albeit for slightly different reasons, I can make my peace with them with hardly any issue.
Are you using "trans women" in opposite ways?
That was a brain fart on my part, I'll fix it!
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link