site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   32180 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 24, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Your last paragraph doesn't follow from the rest of your post - indeed, it seems at odds with it. The transableism guys are claiming they deserve accommodation because their wacky desire is a mental condition isomorphic to gender dysphoria. The problem very much isn't that we've become unwilling to call these things mental illness! I say that neither should be classified as mental illness. Gender reassignment should be classified as elective plastic surgery, not treatment for an illness. This is what a principled stance for personal autonomy should yield, and cuts through all the bullshitting about suicide risks.

The model of transsexuals is exactly that. It’s medical, social and even political accommodation to a reality that exists only in a person’s brain. There is nothing physical about being a transsexual. If no biological or social intervention happens, a trans woman will develop into a man from the baby boy he was born as. A trans abled person is in exactly that position of wanting society and especially the medical establishment to not only accept them, but work to make the vision of themselves a reality in the real world.

My question is with so many of these issues — where and how do you stop the creeping of the concept into more related concepts? If we accept transgender, and force everyone to play along and force doctors to do surgery and insurance companies to cover it, why not trans-canines who want a tail, why not the trans-abled who want the doctor to cut off their legs? Why not allow for transracial people to live as their desired race?

I think a good working model of mental illness must naturally include deviation from observed reality, and the best option for treatment shouter accepting the reality that exists. I am not a Korean in a white American body. I can have all the surgery and act as Korean as I want. I’m still not Korean. And if I persist in that delusion then the problem lies between my ears, not with the reality that made me German American.

why not trans-canines who want a tail, why not the trans-abled who want the doctor to cut off their legs?

Why not indeed? I don't think you understood my position, which is happy with neither the mainstream trans or anti-trans positions. I'm a transhumanist, I have libertarian leanings on at least this particular issue, and I do in fact consider it a grown man's right to get an artificial tail if he wants, just as much as artificial breasts or a nose piercing. Or some sort of melanin injection that changes your skin color, if it existed. Bodily autonomy means bodily autonomy. I fully bite that bullet.

However, treating all these things as personal desires should also logically mean that we stop medicalizing them. I think it's disingenuous of the trans movement that they simultaneously go for the bodily-autonomy line, which I respect, and want to keep "gender dysphoria" classified as a mental illness. You really can't have both. Wanting-sex-reassigment-surgery should not be classified as a mental illness any more than wanting-a-tattoo-really-bad. (You could certainly find biological women with self-image issues who were suicidal before getting cosmetic plastic surgery, but that doesn't make the surgery a medical intervention then, just an expense she has decided on of her own free will in pursuit of her happiness. We shouldn't treat the matter any differently if it's a biological man who elects to get the same procedure.)

There is, of course, a separate conversation about whether someone who makes himself disabled on purpose should get the same unemployment benefits etc. as someone who lost an arm by accident. But if a millionaire wants to cripple himself at his own expense, and can demonstrate that he's making that choice of his own free will after careful consideration, rather than in a fit of psychosis - then I don't see why that should be a crime. Hella weird, but it's not my business.

The problem very much isn't that we've become unwilling to call these things mental illness! I say that neither should be classified as mental illness.

You have four healthy limbs. You feel really, really sad about that and believe you should only have three. Yes, that is mental illness, every bit as much as if you believed your neighbours were breaking into your house to smear shit on the kitchen walls.

You have healthy external and internal sexual characteristics. You feel really, really sad about that and want to undergo surgery to change what can be changed to those of the opposite sex. The only difference I see is that so far we have agreed to go along with the latter and not the former, as yet, though I wonder how long that distinction will hold. Somebody is going to do "limb reassignment surgery" (and apparently already has), there will be a movement and activism, there will be "studies show that after getting the amputation suicidality goes down and self-reported happiness goes up", there will be "what harm does it do? besides, it doesn't affect you anyway" and the rest of it.

Mental health is a part of medicine. The treatments we have in this area are less effective, less evidence-based, even controversial but part of current medicine nevertheless.

Some issues are clearly related to biologic disorders like autism or schizophrenia. Sometimes we are not even sure what it is.

You're a biological woman. You have healthy but pretty small breasts. You feel really, really sad about that and want to undergo surgery to make them larger. Is that mental illness?

I don't think desires should be pathologized, except in extremely rare cases. My belief is that legal adults should be able to get whatever elective surgery they damn well want, so long as they demonstrate informed, lasting consent. If it's kosher for a cis woman to get breast enhancements if she sees fit, I see no reason why the same right shouldn't apply to a biological male. Contrariwise, if we recognize that a woman who gets plastic surgery (or her ears carved to look pointy, or whatever non-gendered body modification) is just exercising her rights as a free individual, not responding to some all-important mental illness which it would obviously make her suicidal to deny - then the current classification of "gender dysphoria" as a mental illness becomes obviously nonsensical. It becomes a cheap and dirty hack to convince people to support transition, in minors and others, Because Psychiatrists Say So Suicide Risk Suicide Risk Suicide Risk Do You Want Their Deaths On Your Conscience. I think that is the great lie of the trans movement, and while I understand how they got there, I would like them to get rid of it and revert to a principled stance of "people can do what they want".

You feel really, really sad about that and want to undergo surgery to make them larger. Is that mental illness?

No real dog in the rest of this fight but I should point out that some of the plastic surgeons I've met believe that ANY desire for their services is fundamentally body dysmorphia (and therefore mental illness).

Even things as simple as nose jobs.

I really don't think that's enough for them. If it was just about body modification, then appeals to autonomy would be fine and a sensible position. But they want more than that. They want the right to do want they want, and make everyone else approve of it. They seek self validation from external sources and are sad at not getting it. Hence the moral blackmail.

I agree! See "while I understand how they got there, I would like them to get rid of it and revert to a principled stance". I have more common ground with the pro- than anti-trans movement at the end of the day, but I am very happy to criticize the current Standard Trans Message, which has been optimized for winning PR battles, not for truth.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats