site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37978 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 8, 2024

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've encountered this a few times in medical contexts, such as being asked about my gender when in a hospital, about to give birth, and "birthing parent" language. I think also on some insurance documents. It seemed pretty dumb, I would expect a dedicated trans man to avoid giving birth. That was over two years ago.

I mean, trans men don’t seem to want to actually be, you know, men. They seem to want to not be women.

That makes it less likely that they’d give birth even compared to, say, lesbians, but for someone who really drank the gender kool aid- which by definition these people are prone too- it’s probably not too much of a stretch. And progressives in general are not shy about catering to tiny subsets of a tiny subset of the population.

I don't think that the actual intent is as much serving trans men as it is serving lesbian couples who, presumably, would have two parents who want to be called mothers.

In that case one of them could be referred to as the "birthing mother": two mothers, only one of whom actually gestated the child in question.

I guess that the fluent use of IT systems would then require applying the designation of "birthing mother" to everyone who has given birth, which would mean that presumably you'd then have a lot of form with "father" and "birthing mother".

IF(parent1.sex = "female" AND parent2.sex = "female")

{set "parent1" to "Birthing mother",set "parent2" to "Mother"}

ELSE{set "parent1" to "Mother", set "parent2" to "Father}

Add the designation of "siring father" while we're at it.

"I'm not the siring father, I'm the father that stepped up."

Although, now that you mention it, I could see it having something to do with the rise of surrogacy, where the surrogate mother is sidelined. I remember some uncomfortable pictures a while back with gay men celebrating their upcoming baby, and the surrogate mother standing awkwardly behind them like some Handmaid's Tale character.

Why would a lesbian be bothered by just listing two mothers, and identifying which is the biological mother for medical history reasons? That seems very easy, like it would involve more use of "mother," not less.

I would expect a dedicated trans man to avoid giving birth.

Think again.

Huh. Hadn't heard of... um... him.

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