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 German supreme court has ruled in favor of a biological father who was denied legal fatherhood due to the current German law:
While this is obviously a good move, I am kind of disappointed in the state of German civil law with regard to gender in it.
A proposed system by me:
I am a fan of legal genderblindness. Unless there is a solid reason to put an if-branch in a computer program because you have to treat different cases differently, try to get away with staying as general and abstract as you can. This has the additional advantage that you don't have to think about corner cases: if you can stick to "riding animal" instead of explicitly having a branch for "horse" and "donkey", it is likely that your code will be well-behaved when the unexpected llama comes along, as well as being shorter and more elegant.
Now some might claim that there are important biological categorical differences between people with different biological capabilities with regard to procreation, but I don't the any reason for an if condition here.
Of course the biological paternity of a child will be in question a lot more often than the biological maternity, but why treat that case specially? After all, the maternity could be in question in case of IVF, and what is good for the gander is likely good for the goose. Just call it "rules for the determination of biological parenthood" and be done with it.
Taboo the words father and mother. A child has two legal parents. In most cases, anyone who contributed at least 35% of the DNA to a child is a legal parent. (+exception for sperm and egg donations).
Whenever a child has a single legal parent, the single parent can have a contract with an adult human conferring parenthood to them. This can happen before implantation. Whenever a child has no parents, a court of law can appoint one or preferably two with their mutual consent.
In the case the two parents separate (or just for the heck of it), either one can assign a partner who has a close relationship to the child as a co-parent. In the case of separation, child support, primary care and visitation rights are determined by a court of law with no regard to any gender identities of the parents.
Parenthood can be renounced at birth, or after initial notification of the parent. (This is already the case for women who give birth, except from my understanding these babies become orphans and no effort is made to determine their father.) Unless the parents contract to exclude that possibility. Later, parenthood can be transferred to third parties with the consent of both parents.
Children older than five get to veto any changes in (co-)parenthood, all changes in (co-)parenthood get reviewed by the court.
Whenever a parent finds out to their surprise that they are not a biological parent they can unilaterally renounce parenthood. They can claim back alimony or damages from the other parent for some time if that other parent intentionally or negligently mislead them about their biological parenthood. (The silly rule in Germany is that the non-father who paid has a claim against the biological father, not against the partner they paid alimony to.)
Anyone convicted of stealing DNA against the consens of the donor (e.g. cutting open used condoms, breaking into fertility clinics, cloning somatic cells), causing an impregnation through deception during sex ('stealthing', lying about being on birth control, etc) or implanting a fertilized egg into a surrogacy without their consent loses all their parental rights and goes directly to jail and is on the hook for child support. If the guilty party is carrying the pregnancy then the victim can force them to undergo an abortion using the normal time limits, otherwise it is up to the pregnant person (as usual). Of course, proving any of this will be typically hard in many cases.
This could cover all the intricacies of parenthood law without ever referring to the sex of a parent, be robust in the face of new fertility technologies (cloning, CRISPR, artificial wombs, whatever). It would also be less discriminatory with regard to gender and be a boon to LGBTI parents. (Suppose that the new partner of the mother in the court case was cis-female. Could she have been become the legal father of the child? Under my rules, she could become a co-parent.) You would think that something like this (More gender equality! Gender is just a social construct! Makes life easier for LGBTI!) would obviously be a woke cause, but as it would strengthen the rights of cis-het males (by removing a present discrimination), so of course they will not go for it.
I used to value equality in the same way as you do, but I changed my worldview. I think that genders are equal like how Ying and Yang are equal, which is equal in value but different. I'm extremely good at generalizing and jumping on the abstraction-ladder, but I no longer believe that one can solve the problems of the world by abstracting details away. The details are as important as the general.
If you make a strategy guide for a game with 4 classes, then a guide for any class seems like it would necessarily be worse than a specific guide for said class. Unless the guide contains branches like "if warrior, elseif mage, elseif.. " so that it deals with these details. If you disallow knowledge of these details I think you end up with a worse guide with mathematical certainty.
I used to go for general correctness, thinking that specific correctness was a kind of overfitting. What ended up happening instead is that I removed any advantage I had from knowledge of the specifics. This reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. In terms of the coast-line paradox, I limited my level of detail thinking that this was "better". You are free to think however you want, I just hope that you won't put yourself at a disadvantage in life as I did. General rules never seem to perform better than context-aware judgement in every specific moment. The legal system requires general rules, but in our own personal lives, we're not bound by such restrictions. If your system is a suggestion for the country, and not a personal morality that you follow as a kind of categorical imperative, then I've possibly misunderstood you.
I very much meant it as a system for a country. In my personal life, I try to maintain some minimum standard of decency regardless of the gender, race and personality of the person I interact with, but do not delude myself into thinking I treat everyone the same. Like, people would totally get a bonus to their dice roll to interact with me if I find them attractive or share their interests.
If I had to decide on prison sentences for defendants, I would have to work hard on counteracting such biases, because everyone should get a fair trial. By contrast, everyone is not entitled to a fair portion of my attention.
I am fine with any particular person (including myself) being into men or women or being dom or sub and whatever, and also fine with their being statistical correlations between all of these things within broader society.
I do not want society to try to put their fingers on the scale to enforce equality of outcomes. Prescribing that 50% of heterosexual divorces should end up with the father being the primary guardian of the kids sounds abhorrent to me. If 80% of divorcee kids stay with their mothers because women are willing to commit to making greater concessions to raising their kids on average that would be an outcome I am fine with. But if the same 80% are reached because the law systematically favors women instead that would seem wrong to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The US's nonprofit Uniform Law Commission has developed a Uniform Parentage Act, which many states have adopted in some form. You may want to use it as a starting point.
What I really like about it is the Bayesian reasoning for parenthood. They even thought of identical twins. (Of course, requiring posterior odds of 0.99 with prior odds of 0.5 will mean a lot of false positives. Especially as most labs will probably not say "ok, p=0.98, so that is a negative", but instead do more tests to get over 0.99. Or it might be that modern genetic tests have much higher predictive power and this is moot.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link