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 -
Sure they do, in that they sympathize with the victims as being misled. Now of course what they see as a cult and what they see as a religion may vary from their own biases. But many of my Christian neighbors think Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are a cult and think most of the people are being taken advantage of. See how they react to people trying to deny blood products to their kids that will kill them. We don't arrest them for attempted murder, we generally just override their decision. We clearly do in fact treat people differently where we think they are making bad choices for what they see as good reasons.
That doesn't mean we don't do anything, we have negligent homicide and the like for a reason. But we do not as a society see it as harmful as a direct planned harm.
Yeah, when the cult drives people towards self-destructive behavior. When it drives them to harm others, you see people's sympathy starting to wear thin.
And to the extent you're right you're only proving my point. This is a lot closer to how we treat real, actual, historical Nazis vs Nazism, and how I argue we should treat progressives vs. progressivism.
Yeah, it's almost like we have a taboo against imposing medical procedures without informed consent, and we only override it in extreme circumstances, let alone imprison people for refusing it. If you didn't go with one of the most milquetoast examples of a cult causing harm, it would become obvious how faulty this logic is.
So you agree that with informed consent then trans people should generally be allowed to have surgeries and we should only step in, in the most unusual situations? I'm confused by your position here.
Your own post pointed out the people writing WPATH were concerned about making sure their patients were aware of the risks and potential outcomes. Given that, then by your own logic above why are you worried about this at all? If the patient gives informed consent then no-one is imposing a medical procedure.
Well, the confusion seems to be that you're taking my point about not imposing a medical treatment on someone unwilling, and applying it to turning medicine into a free-for-all where anyone who asks for a particular treatment should get it. The former is how modern medicine is supposed to work in the West, and the latter very much is not. Otherwise we wouldn't have tons upon tons of regulations, licences, and various limits on who is allowed to do what in that field.
While I'm a bit anxious about turning medicine into a free-for-all, I'm not against it on principle. Even in cases like the trans issue, it would be a marked improvement over the status quo, where currently specialists lie to parents about the accuracy of diagnosis, negative effects of lack of treatment, the reversibility of the treatment, and where alternative treatments are sometimes banned as "conversion therapy".
In private. In public they work very hard to minimize the perception of those risks. Compare the videos I linked to, to the article from (WPATH member) Jack Turban, for example.
Other than what I mentioned above, that the concept is supposed to prevent unwanted treatment, rather than open the doors to any wanted treatment, the problem is that there is no informed consent, as admitted by WPATH itself.
Given that you completely dropped the argument about "good intentions" justifying different treatment of ideologies, and are now changing the subject, I take it you concede it?
Not at all, I don't think you were able to provide a good argument against it. Indeed you conceded it when you said those ideologies only got treated better when the outcome was self-destructive. Trans people wanting surgeries is (assuming you think it is destructive at all), self-destructive! Therefore my point was correct!
And it can't be that spreading the ideology counts as harming others because otherwise Jehovahs Witnesses who are famously aggressive about spreading their faith which then causes people to refuse life saving treatment would fall afoul of it.
So far your arguments seem to come from a place of disliking the trans movement then rationalizing why it is uniquely bad, when it simply does not seem much worse than things we do tolerate when it comes to self-determination, then tying your arguments in knots about it.
Your own post doesn't show there is no informed consent, it says specifically for children (only a subset of trans people!) Informed consent is hard because sometimes parents giving consent don't understand and sometimes kids don't understand. I agree thats a tough issue, but its one that happens in medicine all the time. Do you think young kids understand what death is, and it might happen because their parents are against blood transfusions or the like? Do the parents having been raised into a religion that teaches them weird things really have the ability to give informed consent?
And the answer is we basically shrug our shoulders and say yeah, close enough. And its only in the most dire circumstances where courts sometimes decide to override it. And I think thats reasonable for trans issues too. If going ahead is going to lead to death then sure override the parents and kids choices. Perfectly happy with that.
But we accept that people (or parents on behalf of their children) get to make risky decisions all the time. But it seems an isolated demand for rigor to require people to be (as the WPATH person themselves said would be ideal) "tiny endocrinologists" when we do not demand that for people going through even riskier treatments.
Hell the JW'S have a whole network of people whose job it is to convince the hospital and pressure the parents on behalf of the church to not use blood treatments. And we allow that in 99% of cases with no problem at all. When the outcome is a higher risk of death, we allow parents or patients to make stupid calls all the time, yet for trans issues all of a sudden, it's way too risky?
If the parents disagree then absolutely I am on board with restricting trans care. If the parents and kid are on board, well we don't intervene until their actions are about to cause a high risk of death in most cases (and sometimes not even then!) why should this issue be different?
Then in the future, don't change the topic without further comment, if you don't want to leave the impression you're conceding.
When applied to trans people requesting the surgeries, yes. When it's applied to gender-affirming doctors providing and promoting it, it becomes completely incorrect.
Yes. It's not just spreading the ideology, it's carrying out the actual procedure that is harmful. Also, Jehovah's Witnesses, for all their faults, stay away from other people's children.
False. There are massive qualitative differences between it, and the things we tolerate as self-determination, which you are ignoring.
You know full well this is irrelevant to the argument. I never explicitly argued against "gernder affirming" procedures for adults. I only argue about the scientific accuracy of how they're being sold, but if an adult wants to do it regardless I'm not against it. When it comes to adults, I only oppose the imposition of the trans worldview. The demands to affirm them as women, by allowing them access into female spaces, etc.
"And so I think the more we can normalize that it is okay to not get this right away, it is okay to have questions, the more we're going to actually do a real informed consent process. Then what I think has been currently happening and that I think is frankly, not what we need to be doing ethically."
Is not a statement of "informed consent is hard" it's a statement of admission to failure of getting real informed consent.
No.
Yes.
The funny thing here is that this logic justifies completely banning GAC. You've been trying to catch me on an inconsistency, but you're the only one with inconsistent views.
What gives you the idea that we do not demand it for other treatments? On what grounds are you claiming they're riskier? If you give a kid chemotherapy, and tell them "we're giving you poison hoping that it will kill the thing hurting you. You're going to feel bad for a while, but there's a good chance you will be healthy after that", they will have a far better understanding of the treatment than anything they give related to GAC. These kids are often too young to grasp the first thing about sex, and even when they do, their notion of long-term consequences is still completely warped. This is when parents are supposed to take over, but the ones that are skeptical are often being outright lied to.
Again, there's a massive difference between letting someone opt out of a treatment, and letting them opt in. We have mountains upon mountains of books of regulations preventing arbitrary opt-in for medicine. Why is transgender care supposed to be different?
You're the one advocating for treating it different
I notice none of this addresses the previous topic of the conversation. If you wanted to talk about the substance of my issues with transgender care, that's fine (I'm more interested in that than the ethical calculus applied to ideologies. But you started with the latter, and are moving on to the former, while leaving me with no conclusion. Please concede or come back.
They do not. They attempt to convert them. They even take their own kids along to help. As they attempt to convert adults as well. And if they convert them, then they will refuse blood products and risk death or greater harm than would otherwise befall them. If it is the spread of the trans ideology that is a problem, then JW's also fall afoul of it. Because they try to change you and your children into believing what they believe. That is why they come knocking at your door. Now of course they believe they are saving you. And if they are right, then them spending their time knocking on your door for the 1% chance you might believe them and convert is a great service to you and your children.
No, because i don't think you are understanding my position. If the evidence shows that GAC leads to an increased risk of death then I am perfectly happy for that choice to be overridden parental or not. I don't care enough about it, to be an advocate for it. I am not really for or against GAC, my position is that if the parents and child are all on board then that is up to them and not really my business. What I do care about is how it is used as a pinata when many of the arguments against it are also arguments against many things we do allow and this is conveniently ignored. So my position is not inconsistent, I am just against the perceived hypocrisy. We have established processes for how to deal with potential harm to kids where their parents are behind/ in agreement with it. We can just use those as necessary. Trans ideology is no worse than many others that we currently mostly ignore. That's what annoys me (well a bit, enough to post about it here, but not enough to actually do anything about it, because I don't actually care THAT much). If GAC is harmful then sure ban it, but then I want to be able to be taking a good look at all the other harmful things we allow parents to do, because there is no reason the trans issue should be the only one.
I also don't agree that opting into a treatment or out of one in this context is relevant. We allow parents to make many choices for their kids some of which increase harm by doing something (taking them white water rafting or hiking in the desert, or allowing them to drink enough sugar to float a battleship) and some where they increase harm by not doing something (not giving them blood, not allowing them surgery, turning down chemotherapy, not making them go outside and exercise). And in almost all of those cases we simply allow them to get on with it up to the point of a very serious risk of death (and even then intervention is spotty). And that is regardless of whether they have been influenced by their religion or their belief system in crystals or astrology or veganism or because they are unfamiliar with how risky certain things are. We give parents very broad autonomy to indoctrinate their children into what ever oddball belief system they like, but this is the one all of a sudden where we draw the line? It looks like blatant special pleading.
It does not matter if the parents or kid have been influenced by trans ideology, everyone is influenced by some ideology and it does not generally invalidate their decision making, whether we think their ideology is nonsense or not , and regardless of whether we think the people championing it are talking nonsense or not. This is again special pleading. If Bob and Linda want to tell Gene he can be a girl if he likes, then that is their business not mine. Just as it would be if they want Gene to be raised believing space aliens live in volcanos and how this will cripple his cognition for the rest of his life, or teach him God is always watching him masturbating so that he will have horrible guilt around sex. That is the deal. We all get to try and spread our ideologies then people can act on which ever one they believe.
Either I get to be involved in these decisions or I do not, I just dislike it when people are inconsistent about how much other people's kids belong to them. I am teaching my kids the truth, you are brainwashing your kids into a harmful ideology. Pick one or the other. Either I get to be involved before we are literally talking about kids about to die, or I don't.
Separately, if specific doctors are not explaining the procedures and potential outcomes such that patients/parents cannot give informed consent then those doctors should be subject to whatever local disciplinary measures they have. If they are, but are themselves just wrong about those outcomes then that is sad but again something we tolerate every day. This is not some new thing we just came up with. We already had this conversation as a society and decided the answer was, your kids, your choices, until you are literally about to kill them, then maybe we will stop you. Let's not open that can of worms because that truce is there for a reason.
I regret to inform you that you landed on a topic I have considerable personal familiarity with. Every single time I opened the door for them as a kid, they asked if there is an adult in the house, and did an about-face when the answer was negative. The most they'd dare to do is leave their copies of the Watchtower at the door. I knew 3 Jehovah's Witness kids throughout the different schools I went to. Literally none of them ever tried to convert anyone. Not even with a "come over to my house, me and my special friends are having a party" type of thing. If anything they were at constant risk of being converted away from their parents' faith.
If you go through my arguments on the subject, you'll find that precisely none of them are about parents transing their own kids.
I am not in favor of treating GAC in a special way and you haven't shown any way in which my approach would be special pleading. You or singularly focused on likelihood of harm, which I consider irrelevant, and very strange from someone who started the conversation with "thats because most people are not hard consequentialists".
Among the things we do not allow them to do, is buying whatever medicine fits their fancy. It's completely normal for medicines that are completely mundane by comparison to hormones or blockers (let alone surgeries) to be regulated, and their distribution be limited. Like I said, if you want to move to a system where anyone can buy whatever medicine for whatever purpose they see fit, I have my objections, but I can hear you out. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to allow GAC on self-determination grounds, but are not prepared to turn our medical system upside down. I'm saying if you want one, you must do the other. Self-determination means self-determination for all, not just the magical category of "trans".
Where, in my entire history of posting long-ass posts on the subject here, have I ever objected to parents indoctrinating their own children into gender ideology?
That's fair, but go ahead and show me an inconsistency I actually have, rather than getting angry at something you imagined.
This is exactly what I want. Subject GAC to the same standards of scientific rigor we apply to other forms of medicine, and subject the doctors practicing it to the same ethical standards that other doctors are subject to. This is currently not the case, so to make it happen I have to convince people that scientific / ethical standards are not being applied by means of public debate, and lobbying for regulation, just like we do for every other aspect of our society.
Two things here. A truce where progressive parents get to trans their own kids, but they, and the doctors, stay the hell away from more conservative parents in any medical and/or cultural way, is acceptable to me.
But I do not concede that any such truce, in the broad way you defined it, is in effect. We do not let parents order a doctor to remove their kids' appendix for shits and giggles, female circumcision is completely banned in Europe, you'd probably end up in a ton of trouble for off-label use of prescription medicine on your children. You say GAC must be legal, or else we should look at all the other harmful things we let parents do. I say it's the opposite, there's nothing wrong with regulating it, or else we must abolish every single instance of the government standing in the way of self-determination. Right now testosterone is considered so dangerous that an aging low-T man must jump through considerable hoops to convince his doctor to allow him to have some, but an adolescent girl can get it in a 15 minute appointment. If we're regulating adult's access to hormones, we sure as hell can regulate children's access.
As do I, which is how I know. My wife was an ex-Jehovah's Witness and her family all still are, so I have considerable familiarity with how they operate and have been to multiple JW events. JW's do not baptize until adulthood, but they absolutely will attempt to convert children, they don't typically do that on a door to door visit with no adults around, because that looks very shady. But they absolutely will given the chance, my wife as a kid, had classes on how to talk to other kids about it. What do you think the point of leaving the Watchtower with you was about? I disagree with them fundamentally on almost everything, but the vast majority of them are good hearted people who truly believe what they are doing is for our own good and I think that does count for something.
That isn't the truce though. We have accepted it is ok to try and convert other people to our belief systems. Do conservatives try to stay away from say regulating abortion for other people, and persuading them it is wrong? No. There is no reason that trans advocates should be prevented from trying to spread their ideology. And you of course can spread yours, and I can spread mine and then the people we convert can choose to do what they like within that framework. Hell, the fact that I am here, means I accept Nazis and communists and antisemites and age of consent people should all be able to do that. And if that convinces doctors and parents that giving blood is harmful, or that GAC is good, then those are the results of our competing ideologies. We have to give people some level of agency. I accept a limit on significant amounts of harm should be imposed by the state. I don't stand in the way of JW's coming to your house and I won't stand in the way of trans advocates doing it either, whether it is in person, through TV shows, or whatever. If they win and change the culture they will deserve to have done so, just as the JW's would if they managed to convert 90% of the US. If you don't want to let them in your house that is entirely up to you. And if your kid decides they are JW or trans and you want to stop them then you should be allowed to try to stop them. And they can then go to the courts and try to emancipate themselves or argue you are harming them or whatever and then that decision can be made. I repeat, this is not a new thing, we have been dealing with how much control have over kids and where that balance lies either when parents want to do something dumb or the kids do. And if the trans advocates have managed to convince the judges then that too should be reflected in the outcomes. Just as elections have consequences so do to cultural changes. Christianity won for a long time, and was able to set and create a culture based upon it. And other ideologies should get the same chance. If they fail, they fail, it won't be the end of the world. If they succeed, it will also not be the end of the world.
I am fine with making getting testosterone easier for men sure, seems entirely reasonable. I accept the medical system in many countries is way too restrictive in allowing people access to drugs/treatments. But let's build on this victory not try to roll it back! This can be a template for how to persuade the medical community. Why nerf trans people's ability to get the treatment they want rather than buff everyone else's? If you want to give your son testosterone and they want it too, I'd suggest you find a doctor who can try to do it as safely as possible, but sure give it a whirl.
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
More options
Context Copy link