site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

lists '56 genital surgeries among patients ages 13 to 17 with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2019 to 2021'

One problem with this is that laser-focusing on genital surgeries, and acting like their low amount is an argument against skeptics, is already shifting of the goal-posts by the pro-trans side. Surgeries (not just genital surgeries, surgeries generally) was deemed to be something so absurd that the idea was used as a progressive sneer against anyone raising concerns - "no one is performing surgeries on minors, chud". Well, turns out they are, so even taking the excessively charitable version of the trans movements' arguments still shows them moving the goalposts, but the excessively charitable version was not the argument they were actually using, that's just a retcon.

Their actual claim was that no one is doing irreversible medical procedures on minors. Taking the second most-charitable version of the pro-trans argument, and counting procedures they considered irreversible at the time of making the argument, you'd also have to consider mastectomies and hormones. Doing away with excessive charity altogether, and just taking the argument at face value, you'd also need to include puberty blockers, which were (and still are) sold as reversible, but aren't.

What I do consider shameful is the perfect-hindsight/moving-the-goalposts tactic of bringing up vague memories of how people rejected your bailey in the past, and then going 'see, here is my perfectly reasonable motte, and remember how the other side rejected it back then? They sure have been proven wrong!'

If you consider it shameful, why have you written a long-ass comment doing exactly that, all throughout it?

This is part of why I don't try to keep score and issue recriminations (unless challenged, as here).

Your comment features exactly zero of keeping scores and issuing recriminations, which is a shame, because it would be a marked improvement. I can see how someone like @gattsuru could be characterized this way, and while some people find his habit of linking examples from the past annoying, I find it very helpful. But you are just patting yourself on the back for work you simply did not put in.