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 -
How do you ensure that a piece of information is simultaneously public and secret? I have no idea, but I hope that someone can explain a reliable strategy because this story makes no sense in its absence.
EDIT: link to the policy in question.
TL;DR: The government of Saskatchewan just enacted a new policy that affects "preferred names" and pronouns for younger students (along with some other changes, which I'll skip over). It requires that teachers obtain parental consent before using new names/pronouns for students under 16 years old. The criticism is focused on two claims: First, being "out" is important. Second, it can be unsafe if a parent learns that their child is transgender.
The first claim has already been argued to death, and there's nothing new in this story.
The second claim is just bizarre in this context. What do they expect would happen in the absence of the new policy? Everybody starts using the child's new names/pronouns in everything from casual conversations to official reports...and the parents don't notice for >2 years?
If I knew that a child had information that could be dangerous if it got into the wrong hands, I wouldn't encourage them to spread it far and wide. In fact, I'd direct them to a professional that would help them to develop a strategy that minimized the damage from its release, or else cope with maintaining the burden of secrecy.
But maybe I'm missing something, so I'll repeat my question: how do you ensure that a piece of information is simultaneously public and secret?
The unsafe part makes little sense to me, because the argument is that the parents are inclined to be abusive, so if the child comes out as transgender this would trigger abuse. But then what about the rest of the time? Is the child not at risk of abuse for other reasons (parents are neglectful, parents put too much pressure on to achieve academic or sporting success, parents are emotionally cruel)?
It only makes sense in the context of "the parents are fine except that they will be upset to learn this and will deny that the child is transgender and will use the deadname and try and force the child to conform to natal gender", and that "not affirming that Johnny is now Susie" is abuse of a serious kind.
Then you're asking the child and everybody else to hide this for however many years (from the age of 12 to 18 until Susie is legally an adult? that will never have any slip-up about it or it won't come out some other way) and I don't think that's workable.
It's difficult because yeah, probably are some genuinely transgender kids out there and yeah, parents who would lose it and try and force the kid to be Johnny not Susie, so you have to do what is in the best interests of the child. But on the other hand - the school committing to lie to the parents that 'Johnny' is doing okay in 'his' maths class, while at school they refer to Susie as 'she' and 'her' and help her change into her girl clothes and use the girls' bathroom - like I said, some kid is going to mention this to their parents and then the cat is out of the bag and now the parents can't trust a word from the school ever again because what else were they doing? Were they going to hook Susie up with a doctor to prescribe puberty blockers without parental knowledge or consent? What?
There is the obligation on teachers to be mandatory reporters if they suspect child abuse; I don't think you can manage to have "I think the parents would be abusive so we'll keep it all hush-hush but we won't report to the authorities as we are supposed to do, either" as a workable solution.
I strenuously deny this assertion. There are gender non-conforming children, gay children, those who struggle to develop a gendered identity in a social world, and ultimately those who struggle with body or gender dysphoria but there is no evidence that there are 'trans-children'.
The blind acceptance of this frame by both sides is something we need to challenge if we want medical professionals to start caring about child-safeguarding.
The idea of a trans child was unknown 20 years ago when trans(sexual) identification was the domain of adult males with autogynephilia
Who is providing the language and ideas for these children to use?
I'm confused by this. Would you mind elaborating a bit?
Are you saying trans adults exist? If so, when does the transition from non-trans child to trans adult occur?
Even if you argue that being transexual is a mental illness - why would only adults have this illness?
You can argue that the trans status only materialises when puberty finishes and the feelings of dysphoria haven't desisted -- since the majority of children expressing that they feel dysphoria successfully desist by going through puberty, only those who endure can be said to be truly transgender, and this cannot happen before adulthood.
Again, why use the term 'truly transgender', and not trans identified due to body dysphoria, or autogynephilic if they fulfil that criteria. They can be known as trans people but why the metaphysical backstory of 'truly trans'?
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