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 -
The gender ideology movement sort of feels out of the news cycle where I live, but remains very top of mind for me.
As I see it, the whole umbrella is actually multiple, almost unrelated strands, queerying category activists, social engineering progressives, AGPs, internet cults, all underpinned by unthinking legal activism and of course corporate profiteering. Did I mention an overtly political and enabling media environment bereft of any journalistic values?
I am fascinated by all these things but mainly I want to talk about the social mania aspect. I'm very interested in how smart people, who would inevitably class themselves as above-average in rationality and morality, are able to brush off child-safeguarding concerns, discarding the previous medical ethics consensus (first do no harm, evidence based medicine) in favour of ideas that barely existed even 15-20 years ago.
I have been looking into previous social manias such as the satanic panic and the child care workers given wrongful convictions and it's shocking how difficult it is to reverse the tide of mania once it's begun. Parents, police, the justice system, and media all fall into lockstep and condemn innocent people to terrible fates they and their families bear in almost total isolation, with only a few supporters able to parse the information in front of them and figure out what is going on.
I mean this is just human behaviour - we make movies about the Salem witch trials, we are modern people and have access to perspectives of humans across evolutionary time. Is it really true that people still don't know who we are, how we behave in herds?
I understand apathy, I understand things moving out of the news cycles, but I can't understand how people can maintain a neutral view on unnecessary surgeries on minors. When institutions such as medical bodies fail in their basic safeguarding responsibilities, suppressing dissent within their ranks, it is not hard to work out what is going on. How many manias does history need to present before people learn what we are?
A failure of courage I understand in any given context but the neutral middle doesn't even seem curious in private.
Can anybody enlighten me why people aren't more curious, why they're happy for children to be groomed into lifelong medicalisation, with their life choices pre-emptively narrowed before they even understand what consent means? The true-believers I understand, it's supposedly smart, moral people that aren't engaged that I'm confused about. Are they secretly true believers but just don't want to say?
Plain old cognitive dissonance?
Among normies who are aware of the problem, I think most suffer from Jessie Singal syndrome. Jessie Singal has been covering the trans-insanity beat for a long, long time from the left. He has correctly identified much that is ethically horrifying about the current trans movement. He has correctly identified institutional problems that need to be stopped. But he's so locked into "Republicans bad, Democrats good", that when Republicans literally stop the things he has written extensively about, he is horrified that Republicans are "making the problem worse". He's convinced that if Republicans would just lay off, now, after 10 years of his side ignoring him and actively promoting all the problems he complains about, he could convince them to reverse course. But those darned evil, bigoted Republicans just won't stop making his side crazy.
The institutional sterilization and mutilation of children is a crime against humanity, the scale of which is difficult for the average normie to honestly contemplate. And especially the average normie Democrat. My extremely normie MSNBC consuming in laws just straight up disbelieve it. There side only does good things, and the way we describe it sounds like a bad thing, therefore it's not happening. It's right wing misinformation. We must have heard it from Fox News, always the boogie man, despite the fact that we don't even have cable. When we describe the things happening in our own state, they just mutter "Well I never heard about that." It doesn't help that the whole debate is shrouded in euphemisms like "trans healthcare", and lies about it being "fully reversible".
Among the true believers, charitably you have trans activist who mistakenly view every child through the lens of their own experiences growing up. Uncharitably, they've been horribly mutilated with no way back, and the only way to justify what was done to them is to perpetuate it. Otherwise they'd have to face the stark reality that their entire miserable existence was based on a lie. It's no wonder so many kill themselves.
And then you have the child castration fetishist in the medical community who write the standards of care.
Like circumcision, except they don’t stop at the tip. If you have your daughter’s genitals mutilated because of your weird-ass sexual beliefs, you’re either the worst most cruel backwards reactionary or a brave progressive fighter against that same oppression.
I am glad that you bring up circumcision because, while it probably does not cause as much damage to the individual as full-on transitioning, it also affects vastly more people. Yet I rarely see anyone here inveigh against it. Not sure why. Is it just because it has been around for so long that people are used to it?
Circumcision is an interesting example of a practice that would be viewed as horrifying by probably most of society if it came out of nowhere and suddenly started to become popular. But because it has been around for thousands of years, it gets a pass. In one way it is actually much worse than the trans kids thing. Infant circumcision is done without any consent at all from the person that it is done to, whereas kids who transition are significantly older and often the motivation to transition at least in part comes from the kids themselves, rather than entirely from the parents.
This framing is kind of pants-on-head, just so you know -- source: am circumcised, and am not convinced that there's any significant ill-effects, much less within orders of magnitude of lifetime sterilization and pharma dependency. (plus whatever surgical and social side-effects)
The problem that always comes up in this debate is that very few people are actually qualified to comment on what difference it makes to sexual pleasure or whatnot, but have strong opinions on it anyways for reasons that are unclear to me.
There has actually been the odd adult-circumcisee wander into these conversations; mostly on the reddit site IIRC. My recollection is inconclusive, but what I remember was one guy who said 'pretty much no difference', another who agreed, and one who chimed in to say 'somewhat worse'.
I personally can't know how much better sex might be if I weren't circumcised -- but, like -- it's pretty great? I'm not exactly some coomer connoisseur, but I struggle to think of a situation in which I've felt like *more *sensitivity would have been helpful? BJs with a condom on are lame I guess, but I'm not sure circumcision is the main problem there.
In short, to me this is like you are comparing tonsillectomies to kidney harvesting or something -- can you say what makes you think that the two things are even in the same ballpark?
Well, I figure that the people who deeply regret having transitioned as teenagers are balanced out by the people who are happy with it. On the other hand, almost no-one is actually made happy by having been circumcised, most people just feel neutral about it and a significant though small minority is unhappy about it.
My statistics could be off, though.
Something to consider I guess is that this is an irreversible procedure taking place in and around puberty -- a time when many people are unhappy regardless. So the set one should be interested in is not 'people who are happy with their trans interventions' rather 'people who would have been happy anyways, and without the burdens associated with the interventions'.
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