site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29956 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 2023

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No in your example they are, because they are punished for being straight and acting straight (I will cede that homosexuals were, in fact, punished for gay acts in the 90s, to some extent).

But a trans woman is a man, and thus when they are treated like a man, there is nothing odd happening, and no discrimination. They are asking for a special carve out wherein they, a man, are granted the privileges of women.

denying that straight identity is actually a real thing.

How does this affect me as me and the straight girls go on having sex? Society is like, "look at those delusional people happily making babies." Oh no, the horror. Our happy heterosexual existence is just the lil kid who points out the emperor is naked.

When you say "a trans woman is a man" you are denying their identity exists. My whole point is to say "what if society denied your identity (straight) exists?"

See, the issue is I don't "identify as" a heterosexual male. I am a male who is attracted to women ( a subset of them, at least). If some people denied this phenomenon existed they would be living a delusion. As opposed to the situation we are in where the trans person is living a delusion.

When you say you as a man want to be with a woman, people treat you like a liar, deviant, or delusional. Institutions and the law are openly hostile towards you because of your stated identity and may criminalize acting upon it.

They could indeed do that. That would be bad for me. Perhaps they have made this decision because they are one of those climate cultists that think making babies is immoral. IDK. There are many ways to make the actions associated with heterosexual difficult. This has little bearing on "identity." These people clearly recognize heterosexuality exists, they just think it is evil.

There is a course of conduct you could take that fits the expected role you have in society. But I think you'd find it extremely difficult to actually do that, because of what you identify as.

No. It would be hard because my preferred actions would be banned. Nothing to do with identity. This is the whole issue with the trans activists, they think the world is all about clever wordplay and rules-lawyering. "Assigned male at birth." Well assigned by who? God? Biology? "Identifies as a woman." But what are they identifying as? "A woman." But what is that? So we come to see that in this context "identity" is not a useful concept.

Here is where you err:

In situation A, heterosexual people exist. They date, sex, and procreate. The people denying that heterosexuality exists have their entire worldview shattered.

In situation B, Trans people exist. They are men, dressing like women. Nothing unexpected happens for people who think these men are actually men.

You may assert you'd have a "happy heterosexual existence" in the face of broad social and legal hostility.

I do not think that. I think that an anti-heterosexual society would be bad for me, IFFFFFF, it was all about banning heterosexual activities. If, instead, they denied our existence I think we would thrive, probably moreso than in the current sexual enviroment.

What you have done is confused identity with reality. If I "identify as a heterosexual" in your theoretical society, but let men sodomize me on the reg, I'm not affected at all. In that scenario I would just be a gay man that has an eccentricity.

So, if we dig down to the real objections, it is that I think there is a subset of unethical medical procedures that the trans advocacy movement promotes. They also have an unethical propaganda wing. I oppose both. There are few people in this world who are in favor of state sponsorship/subsidy of unethical medical procedures. Or, perhaps, you are one of the people who is in favor of the return of the lobotomy.

The reason lobotomies were / are objectionable is that (1) they are a treatment for severe mental illnesses that make the patient fundamentally incapable of consenting, and (2) they don't generally achieve any goal that the patient wants. Basically nobody is out there requesting lobotomy.

And no one would be out there requesting to be chemically castrated if they didn't have a severe mental illness they were indoctrinated into fostering by a large medical-industrial propaganda complex.

Gender treatments for adults are able to be accurately described and consented to and can achieve outcomes that the patient wants.

They really can't achieve what the patient wants, and basically every description of them I've seen online by clinics that perform them is fundamentally dishonest.

Your objections to medical treatments and unspecified "propaganda" also don't relate to what you are talking about in regard to treating someone who has transitioned as their original gender. Let's say you encounter someone who hasn't as far as you know had a surgery and who just wears opposite gender clothing or other such markers, but says nothing about it.

This person doesn't violate any of the things you say are bad: do you call them by the name and pronouns they use for themself?

So just a regular tomboy/male crossdresser? I call them by the name their parents gave them until they legally change it. I use the pronouns appropriate for their sex. Gender is for languages.

Why aren't medical malpractice suits sufficient to address your concerns?

Because they don't recognize failed transition as a cause of action when they obviously fail and detransitioners come a calling.

Again, medical malpractice would seem to be the recourse here. We let people get cosmetic surgery all the time. If the doctor is lying about it, then sue em. I don't think you've shown any reason to treat this differently under the law from any cosmetic procedure or medicine.

You seem to be intentionally ignoring the capture of institutions. Gay conversion therapy generates more functional heterosexuals than MTF and FTM therapy creates functional females and males, respectively. Of course, this follows, because removal of homosexuality from the DSM was a purely political decision in the first place, not one based on their first principles.

If courts were routinely awarding multimillion dollar awards to detransitioners, your argument here would make sense. Instead, transition clinics are profit centers that liberal courts protect.

Why? I tend to call people the name they asked to be called absent very good reason otherwise. Your reason otherwise seems to just be spiteful.

Because it is better for them. If I don't know a person is actually named Jude when he tells me it is Xerxes, I'd probably call him Xerxes. But if I knew him as John and he started claiming to be Xerxes I'd resist until he took sufficient steps for me to accept such a silly change. For a name, going through a boring and paperwork heavy legal process satisfies me. For more than that, I demand more.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats