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 -
J. K. Rowling challenges new Scottish hate speech legislation, openly challenging them to arrest her for calling trans criminals men who pretend to be women:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1774747068944265615
#ArrestMe is, dare I say it, brave and powerful. At least she's putting skin in the game. It's also pretty well calculated in my opinion.
They can't really attack her for being a right wing extremist when her world famous books are a pretty clear allegory of Racism Bad. She even makes sure to target India Willoughby, who is apparently anti-black. Rowling has an enormous pot of money for expensive litigation and automatic worldwide attention on her. It's hard to righteously defend people such as
It's very practical politics to fish out the worst of the enemy milieu to preface one's normative statements. I think Rowling has a good shot at tactical victory - either the govt won't charge her or she'll win in court. On the other hand, only systemic change is going to change the progressive-leaning status quo. You need an Orban or some similar force to drag out the weed by the roots, rather than just pruning away when it grows particularly egregious. Rowling is no Orban, that's probably far too extreme for her.
The legislation is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents
Crimes include 'stirring up hate' by 'behaving in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting' to select groups. Looks like it allows nigh-limitless opportunities for selective enforcement. And a huge drain on police resources, given they can't even investigate all crimes:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68703684
'Rich person flaunts the law, confident they will never face consequences' is not a very unique or interesting story. It's certainly not 'brave' or anything... if no one rich or powerful is going to face any legal consequences of any kind over Epstein connections, you can be damn sure she's not going to pay for anything relating to this, either.
But I don't see why conservatives would think this is supporting any of their claims? The conservative claim has always been that they are oppressed for their views, living in constant danger of being cancelled or arrested by the woke mobs and captured government institutions.
Someone blatantly pointing out in the most public way possible that this has always been a fiction, that governments may make figleaf declarations about opposing these types of slander but will never actually enforce them because they actually are inherently conservative entities that are on the side of the privileged and the default, that anyone can make the most vile comments they want and always could without fearing legal reprisals, that the whole Petersonian rhetoric about free speech crackdowns was and always has been a charade... why is that good for her side, exactly?
I mean, I guess the truth is that I'm being too simplistic in considering it one 'side'.
The Peterson/'free speech absolutist' wing points at 'cancel culture' and the specter of government censorship as a general bludgeon against the left, but they're actually committed to a much more broad model of conservatism and just using that to stir up their base.
Whereas people like Rowling aren't fully committed to that broader conservative project, they just want to slander and eradicate trans people, and they're annoyed that people like Peterson have scared some of their supporters into thinking they might ever face consequences for spewing vile slander 24/7, thereby mildly restricting the spigot.
So while the two have been default bedfellows up till now, it seems like JK has recognized the conflict of interest there and is ready to abandon the pretense of being oppressed in favor of proving that it's safe for everyone to start spewing as publicly and loudly as possible.
I don't know if you're an American, but this is just not true. In non-US countries, people have been prosecuted for saying that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin in Canada and I think Finland, for saying that Muhammed was a pedophile, for telling jokes, for saying that Muslims girls are raped by their family members, for saying that Muslim girls are murdered by their family members in honor killings, for saying that Muslims want to kill us, for quoting someone else saying that Islam is a defective and misanthropic religion, for comparing Muslims to Nazis, for saying "Well, when one, like Bwalya Sørensen, and most black people in South Africa, is too unintelligent to see the true state of things, then it is much easier to only see in black and white, and, as said, blame the white."
More: For saying that white people pretend to be indigenous for political or career clout. etc etc etc
Not referring to all hate speech and similar types of laws, just narrowly to the misgendering stuff.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canadian-tribunal-transgender-nonbinary-restaurant-worker-pronouns-b1931972.html
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/resources/professional-regulation/law-society-of-bc-tribunal-decides-in-closed-prehearing-to-hold-full-hearing-away-from-public-eye/366594
Off the top of my head -- Peterson himself of course is also facing legal reprisals.
Can anyone explain to me what the heck is going on in Canada? Seemingly there's someone who wants to turn themselves into an actual hermaphrodite, and instead of going "here's the contact details of a good psychiatrist", they are solemnly debating whether public healthcare should pay for such an operation.
Also, there's a clinic in Texas which will do this operation if it gets paid for? Texas??? When did Mad Science become something in the real world?
@guesswho is doing a valiant job of trying to present the steelman version of all this, especially as we're all lining up to rebut them, but then with my own lying eyes I read a genuine news story of this sort, and blow me down, I find it very hard to believe that there's anything sane at all in the trans activism movement that is going after Rowling.
Surgeons and cosmetic surgeons aren't really regulated in the same way as drugs or other forms of medicine - if a surgeon and patient are willing to try something, they're allowed to do it.
More options
Context Copy link
Literally a mix? Why'd they need doctors when any old kitchen appliance or garden power tool would do?
More options
Context Copy link
Texas has loose regulations just in general and Austin is extremely progressive.
Still, though, I thought "Sure, I'll turn you into Fragoletta" was the province of "The Island of Dr. Moreau", or at least Classical sculpture, and not something that has an entire clinic set up for it.
Swinburne seems to have been enchanted by the topic, as he wrote another poem, Hermaphroditus. I wonder if this verse is a warning about not to have too many expectations about the outcome of such surgery?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is what we call 'an anecdote'.
Lots of crazy people out there, anyone can appeal a decision and ask for a hearing, let me know if anything actually happens. This individual was already ruled against twice, I'll be surprised if the third time's the charm here.
The Telegraph writing an article about this doesn't suddenly make it the central issue of the whole trans rights debate.
Agree that trans women are women and deserve all the rights and respect of any other woman, and I'll happily agree that we should shelve the question of hermtaur surgeries for the next 50 years or so.
But if you're not ready to grant the first thing, which is what everyone actually cares about, then don't pretend the conversation has 'moved on' to stuff like this. The conversation is still very much about the first thing.
Unanimously approved.
More options
Context Copy link
Why should anyone agree to something you don't even believe yourself?
To be fair, he could well have changed his mind in the intervening two years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Coming back to this, and trying to make my point clearer: years back, over on Ozy Brennan's blog at the time, we were having the first debates as the first rumblings around 'bathroom laws' were being made. To be fair to Ozy, they were as neutral as they could manage, permitting the criminal bad-thinkers like me and other anti-trans enthusiasm types to engage in argument.
But I was assured over and over, and indeed rather condescended to, that "No no no, things like this will never happen, that's just tinfoil hat conspiracy fever dreams of really right-wing fears".
And then things like the case of Demi Minor happened (and believe me, I'm as sick of bringing this up as you are of hearing it). Why do I bring it up, then? Because cases like that are not an aberration or an anomaly, they're the logical outcome of the "no objections entertained, any hesitance is gatekeeping and transphobia" activism.
How did Minor get into a women's prison in the first place? Lawsuits.
Minor claims to be a Real Woman, so by that logic, and your demand to me, I must agree that Minor is a trans woman and that "trans women are women and deserve all the rights and respect of any other woman".
Which means that you want me to accept and not alone accept, but agree that this woman, via her feminine penis, impregnated two other inmates of the women's prison with her feminine sperm and is now the baby-momma (can't say daddy, that would be misgendering!) of their children. Because "Trans women are women like other women". Do you see why I don't go along with your call to agree that?
Back then, as I said, we were told things like this would never happen. And then they happened. All in accordance with the principles being imposed on society by lawsuits and legislation and activism for trans rights.
A year or two ago, if anyone had said that there would be someone suing to force health insurers to pay for their hermaphrodite surgery, they would have been told "No no no, that's tinfoil hat fever dreams of the extreme right".
But now the 'hermtaur surgeries' as you phrased it (thanks for the term!) are out there and being brought to court with the same language around "forced conversion therapy". And even worse, while this may be a case that will end up being dismissed, there is a clinic up and running and happy to perform whatever slicing and dicing you want so long as you can pay for it. So plainly there must be other such cases of people wanting such surgeries.
At this point, if anyone says "Oh come on, nobody is going to try to graft a second head onto a human body, that's just tinfoil hat crazy talk", I'm expecting that within six months we'll get a news report out of China or somewhere about how this very thing was done.
More options
Context Copy link
The first thing, or at least the earliest thing that comes to mind right now, was the gays. Slippery was the slope, and here we are with men pretending to be women and political activists wanting to force people to validate these delusions.
It's not much of an extrapolation to see where the wind is blowing from, and where to.
I reject the idea of a history of civil rights where you draw the 'first' line at the last thing you feel conflicted about, and then draws a slope starting there.
if you want to go that far back into the history of civil rights to try to draw a slopeand calim it slippery, then the 'first' thing is repealing miscegenation laws, or slavery abolition, or like challenging the right of prima nocta or w/ethefuck.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The justification for "trans women are women" is the same as the justification for hermaphrodite surgery.
It's really, really not. 'Hermaphrodite' is not a social category, outside of furry porn.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Absolutely I'm not ready. What do we mean by a woman? A biological woman, because they're dosed up on hormones and maybe had surgery, too? No. The same as a cis woman, totally the same? No. Legally a woman? Well, if the law permits it, sure. Now you can call yourself Yolanda Désirée Ladyfingers and have "F" on your driving licence and be referred to as "she/her".
But the movement towards "drop the trans, just say woman"? No, I'm not giving in on that. All the rights of any other woman? And what rights are those? To retain male characteristics and still be able to go into women-only spaces? To declare that a lesbian who doesn't want sex with your feminine penis is not a real lesbian?
EDIT: And in fact, it's the very demands around "the first thing" that enable the crazy people. Or where do you think the rhetoric about "This is conversion therapy which is illegal in Canada" came from?
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
More options
Context Copy link