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 -
In the Culture Series by the sadly departed Iain M. Banks (not to be confused with his more mundane doppelganger Iain Banks) humans can decide to change sex entirely and actually become the opposite sex in a very real sense, they are exactly like someone born that sex including womb or sperm etc... Often couples that want 2 kids will take turns doing the gestating.
If humans go on long enough a perfect sex change will indeed be possible at a genetic level. Would anyone living hard in the trans debate still have a problem with it then? How could they?
I say this as someone that thinks it is ridiculous that a man can DECLARE FEMALE Michael Scott BANKRUPTCY style and crush swimming records and smackdown college girls in basketball.
Radical feminists would have a major problem with this, based on one of their stated reasons for rejecting MTF transwomen. Which is that transwomen do not have the experience and thus memories (and/or trauma) of living childhood as a girl. They see this as an important shared experience that connects all women for having been oppressed by the patriarchy as girls, which transwomen are trying to encroach upon.
Now, if we were to develop memory alteration technology such that transwomen had memories perfectly indistinguishable from that of a female, then perhaps that might change? I don't think radical feminists would particularly buy into that, though.
But what if we tacked on literal time travel, manipulating the genes of the sperm that led to you so that it produced a female instead of male (or vice versa, though people care much less about this one), a la Luka Urushibara from Steins;Gate? I wonder.
Me, personally, I would agree with everyone who says that the concept of "trans" would be largely incoherent in this world. If you can switch sex perfectly with as little trouble as switching a tee-shirt is now, how does it make sense to identify someone as whatever sex they are at the moment? They're not transitioning from something to something else, they're just selecting something.
I think this proves too much: would radical feminists consider someone born with female parts in a non-patriarchal society to be a woman?
I don't know nearly as much about radical feminists as I do third wave feminists due to not knowing as many and not being one of them at any point, but from what I can tell from them, the concept of a society that isn't patriarchal might exist in fiction or fantasy, but one hasn't existed yet. At least, in the sense that, for any real society they talk about, they can find SOME source of patriarchal oppression. And if asked to speculate, the answer is usually some variation of "But I did eat breakfast this morning."
I was thinking of the society postulated in the pre-Indo-European--matriarchal-society hypotheses....
...and the radical feminists' ideal future.
"Assuming the ancient-European Mother-Goddess worship hypothesis to be true, would someone born with female parts in such a society be a woman?"
"If you succeed in your goals and remove the patriarchy, would your great-great-granddaughters be women?"
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