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 -
Could you elaborate on if the trans-ness going away is kind of like a mental category thing, where onlookers know they are trans but it is as unremarkable as knowing someone's blood type; or if trans-ness going away refers to empirical predictions, where onlookers can't tell if they are trans?
Defining sex and gender as separate implies that someone can be obviously male and obviously a woman, I think. And there is not a woke consensus that trans people should pass as cis gender.
As for your trans allegory, what about the Matrix, or plastic surgery, or dyeing ones hair? Are these too mundane to be trans allegories?
I think the problem is the requirement for Virtue Signalling. A game or a book or a movie where 'it is the far-flung year of 2005 and transgender isn't even an issue anymore' and trans people don't stand out, or if they do, it's because non-binary, agender, gender-queer and all the rest of it exist and are socially acceptable so the people of that universe don't blink at someone with a bald head, full beard, breasts, and dressing femme, but it stands out to us isn't good enough for Representation Purposes.
If you have a trans character who looks (say) perfectly female and is accepted as such and is referred to as a woman (without the qualifier 'trans') so that they are indistinguishable from a cis woman, then that will not be good enough for a set of people. If they can't tell This Character Is Trans, they'll assume you are being transphobic or whatever by only having (presumed) cis men and women in the future.
So the creator needs to be able to signal "I'm fine with transgender, look here is my diverse and inclusive cast of characters, here are the trans ones" in order to be able to ward off such accusations. The problem is that this then conflicts with "in the far-flung future everyone is equal and accepted" because to be internally consistent, it has to be "we don't notice trans people, they're just treated like everyone else" but that conflicts with showing obviously "see, see how onboard I am with the right side of history? here's my trans non-binary queer differently-abled neurodivergent poly multiracial characters!"
More options
Context Copy link
I think, with the Ideal Trans Model, it's "onlookers can't tell if they are trans". I think the sort of archetypical trans person wishes they were born in their chosen gender and they never experienced the other gender in the first place; showing up in the wrong body was a bug in the genetic code and they would rather that bug never have existed.
I guess I'm not sure how this ends up practically working out. I don't think hair dye works; it's just too common. Plastic surgery isn't a bad allegory but it has similar issues, in that you can't tell someone got plastic surgery unless it's really obvious.
The Matrix is a pretty big plot thing to pin a game around, although there have been some cool ideas regarding that in this thread.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link