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 -
Hello Motte world! Some of you may remember me as /u/M_T_Saotome-Westlake on the Reddit incarnation. (I've since dropped the pseudonym which I was using for my political writing.)
I recently published the first two parts of my memoir telling the Whole Dumb Story of my conflict with the so-called "rationalist" community about (at first) the etiology of gender dysphoria in males and (later, much less excusably) the philosophy of language regarding categorization, which I would like to share with you today:
It really does strike me that Scott Alexander, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Aella et al are putting on the kid gloves tight when it comes to the proposals of transgenderism.
Take Scott, for example, responding to the 4chan post about trans-Napoleonism. He basically says "just let him wear the silly bicorne hat" and points to "Emperor" Norton of San Francisco as a happy-go-lucky story of just going along with what a trans-emperor says because it's easier. But he doesn't ever adequately address the hardball arguments - a Napoleon-gender that demands absolute power over the French Empire and its satellites in Europe (as the 4chan post said), and a Norton that demands the head of President Rutherford B. Hayes (as you, Zack M. Davis, point out). As far as I can tell, Scott's response to people pointing out the demands for a French Empire and Hayes's head - although he doesn't explicitly state this - is "lol, that just doesn't happen".
This is a very troubling dismissal, because there are a lot of Rutherfords in transgenderism. The reason why people point out President Rutherford Hayes and demands for a French Empire is because transgenderism affects others - it has externalities - and attempting to cure someone's distress by agreeing to their false map of reality is not a cost-free action and is not something with no meaningful consequences to other people (hence, the story about putting the hair dryer in the passenger seat is simply irrelevant). In other words, "just be nice" is a really bad argument.
For example, the inclusion of trans athletes in women's sports, or the inclusion of trans people in women's bathrooms, or the inclusion of trans people in women's prisons. Everyone seems to agree that it would be a very bad thing if a trans-Napoleon today gained control over the countries that used to make up the former French Empire, or if Norton was given the head of Rutherford B. Hayes, so they just... dismiss those and say it could never happen. They say they would never demand Rutherford's head and that it's absurd to even consider the possibility that Rutherford might be decapitated to fulfill the desires of an Emperor Norton.
And then when those externalities do happen, and a male-born trans person wins against a female athlete (inherently, unfairly), or a trans person assaults a woman in the bathroom, or a trans prisoner impregnates a woman, those objections are at best handwaved away and dismissed as outliers or discredited, or at worst labeled "transphobic" and censored.
In my opinion, the refusal to honestly engage with these arguments reflects poorly on the leaders - or otherwise influential figures - of the rationalist community. To put it lightly, it's unbelievable how they make a simple mistake - that their own foundational writings (the Sequences) warned about - and how they have failed to correct their own mistake (at least, they haven't corrected it yet, although I'm not optimistic about their chances of doing so).
Off the top of my head there was the Loudoun County affair. Of course the trans activists went on to declare that the rapist wasn't really trans, it was just a guy in a dress... which I guess they didn't really think through.
That already sets you against the current batch of trans activists, which demand self-ID. That said, there hasn't been a valid argument provided for putting trans people in the opposite-sex facilities.
Apparently the rapist didn't identify as trans. I think it's fair to say that someone who identifies with their gender at birth is not trans. I don't think this is a no-true-Scotsman, as @jkf claims (I assume you are both referring to the same case).
More importantly, however, he didn't enter the bathroom to find a random person to assault – he already knew the victim and had had consensual sex with her in that bathroom previously, and the meeting that resulted in the assault was also pre-arranged:
So this is nothing like what anti-trans activists claimed would happen.
Yes, but it also sets me against the current batch of anti-trans activists, who claim all trans people are just perverts and none of their claims should be taken seriously. I think there should be some standards to prevent people identifying as trans in bad faith, but no one on the anti-trans side is arguing this. They're all saying that all claims of being trans are illegitimate.
If I understand correctly, you're asking why trans women should be put in women's prisons and trans men in men's prisons. Beyond the arguments that it makes them feel better when their gender is affirmed, there's a case to be made that a trans woman who passes well is in real danger in a men's prison. A passing trans man in a women's prison is not as endangered, but the women there would probably be uncomfortable with his presence.
"Any dude will be able to claim they're trans and walk into female toilets" is pretty much exactly what anti-trans activists said would happen. All the other details you mentioned are not relevant. Toilets are sex-separated, among other things, to help school staff to prevent horny teenagers from hooking up in them.
You're playing language games. No one says that they're not trans, just that being trans doesn't change your sex, and that some facilities need to be sex seperated.
No, I'm asking why trans women should be put in female prisons, and trans men in male prisons.
It would make men feel better if they were put in female prisons too, why is happiness from affirmation more important here?
There's also a case to be made that a trans woman will be a danger in a female prison.
Has anyone asked them? I'd bet most women would be more comfortable around a trans man than a trans woman, provided they knew for a fact it's a trans man and not a cis man.
I tried to phrase that so as to avoid language games. That some facilities need to be sex-segregated, and that people identifying as trans should not be allowed to use such facilities under any circumstances, is what I meant by "all claims of being trans are illegitimate" and "none of their claims should be taken seriously".
I tried to phrase that so as to imply that it is the typical argument, which means you have most likely already seen it and it is unlikely to change your mind, and I am therefore not putting much weight into it. Anyway, the specific claim is that it would make them feel better without making anyone else worse off.
A trans woman who has spent several years on HRT, or has had surgery, and is therefore unable to even get an erection? Again, I support having certain standards for trans people. All the cases of assault by trans women in women's prisons seem to be from prisoners who only realized they were trans after they went into prison and were promptly placed in the facilities meant for their claimed gender. This is a system that is very easy to abuse.
Well, I would bet that most women would be more comfortable around a passing trans woman than a passing trans man. But I admit I have no polling data on this.
Again, not relevant, the whole point is any dude can put on a dress and go into female toilets.
To be fair, the thing being pre-arrenged means it's not an example of what people were worried about, but I don't understand your fixation of the victim being random. If someone targets a friend or a co-worker and abuses the trans-policy to get access, then suddenly everything is fine?
The other issue is that other people gave you examples that fit better, and your response was only to nitpick further. Another attacker who did identify as trans also doesn't count according to you, because they didn't take hormones or get surgeries, even though the entire point of critics was that anyone can say they identify as anything. And you didn't even respond to the Oklahoma one.
Admittedly I have no access to a parallel universe where different policies are in place, but the fact that the school was trying to cover the story up, indicates they are feeling guilty about it somehow.
I suppose it's possible he was showing up in a skirt for a completely unrelated reason, but come on, at the very least it screams "dude trying to take advantage of a loophole", no?
I don't think the latter is a fair way to describe the former. "All claims of being trans are illegitimate" sounds more like "there's no such thing as gender dysphoria", or what you said earlier "all trans people are just perverts". Someone who believes trans people should not be allowed into opposite-sex facilities can (and often does) believe dysphoria is a thing, and that being trans for the most part has nothing to do with being a pervert.
I guess that's exactly the thing under dispute. Aren't all these women protesting precisely because they feel they're being made worse off?
Yeah, even though sexual assault is discussed most commonly, there's more to prison violence than sexual assault.
Yeah, I agree. Look, if we went from self-ID to medical-gatekeeping, that would definitely be better, but I don't like how all my concerns with self-ID were dismissed with "it will never happen", and after it did happen people like you are still trying to dismiss my concerns, after taking a step back to a minimally defensible position.
Again, I would agree with you when it comes to first impressions and initial reactions, but I'm pretty sure things would flip once you knew for a fact the person is trans. A lot of times people go for examples like "do you think Buck Angel should go to the women's toilet?", and my point is that I agree he might cause more distress in a public toilet, where you don't know people who you're going to run into, and will only see them for a few minutes, but if you hear these trans guys talk for a few minutes... they don't really come of all that masculine. So in a setting like a prison, where a) you'd know they're only there because of their biological sex, and b) you get to know someone a bit better, I'm pretty sure an average woman would rather share a cell with a Buck Angel, than a Blaire White.
But to be fair, I don't have polling data either.
I would expect the dude to at least have to declare that he is trans before being allowed.
No, of course that changes nothing. The point is that the perpetrator didn't specifically select the bathroom. The debate is focused on bathrooms because they're enclosed spaces where a victim may be alone, which makes them uniquely dangerous.
I assume you are referring to the 2014 California case. In another comment, I said that:
The point was not that he hadn't taken hormones or had surgeries, but that he didn't even identify as trans when he committed the crime. He only started identifying as trans afterwards. Therefore the case is completely irrelevant.
I hadn't responded because it hadn't been posted yet when I was responding to the others. I have now addressed it here.
They obviously have a strong incentive to cover up or downplay the occurrence of such a serious crime at their school regardless of the specific circumstances and regardless of whether it pertains to a current national political controversy.
Maybe he just liked wearing a skirt? It's a thing.
What protests are you referring to specifically?
You say it would be better, but presumably it still wouldn't be ideal? If so, why not? Using this as an argument in favour of the position that "trans people should not be allowed into opposite-sex facilities" (under any circumstances) proves too much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose it depends on the individual, but regardless of 'passing' a trans male is likely to be much bigger and stronger than a female -- outliers exist, but afaik none of the transing interventions change one's height very much. Also the females have a zero percent chance of having a functioning penis, so rape seems off the table -- what would a women have to fear from a transman?
Re: dudes with dresses in women's bathrooms -- this didn't used to be allowed. Accomodations for trans-dudes changed that, so whether the dude in question identified as trans or not is irrelevant to the goodness of letting him in the bathroom.
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