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 -
Never said otherwise. I just don't like when points are left unfinished. I try to respond to your questions, so please respond to mine before moving on.
And while tangents are not my favorite thing, but more or less acceptable, the appealing to principles that you do not actually hold, while using the first person plural is not.
Sure, the claim that puberty blockers are fully reversible is a straight-up lie. So was the claim that minors are required to undergo a thorough diagnostic process before they are prescribed hormones or surgeries. "Would you rather have a dead daughter or a happy son" is not a lie per-se, since it's not making a claim, but it is heavily implying something they knew for a fact that was exaggerated.
What about the doctor who didn't really look at all the research, possibly because what he's prescribing is new and exciting, and there isn't even all that much research to begin with, but he's still convinced that what he's prescribing is what the patient needs? How about a doctor that commissioned research to prove he's right, but buried the results when he didn't like them, but is still convinced future research will vindicate him?
I'd say he has some responsibility to look into the subject himself. The WPATH is a self-declared authority, they have no special knowledge here, and a trained clinician should be able to pick up on the nonsense (which they tend to do, once they actually look at it). If nothing else, when parents express doubts, he has an obligation to state the level of his actual knowledge, and not oversell his confidence. That said, I kind of agree. Do like they did at Nurenberg, the chain of responsibility starts at the top, and is being progressively diminished as your work your way down.
But note that this is separate from the question of whether it is possible to be well-intentioned but unethical. I assign the biggest culpability to WPATH, but I maintain that they are well-intentioned.
More options
Context Copy link