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 -
I actually think the Wikipedia page on women walks a fair line on the topic. The very first sentence uses "adult female human" as its core definition, and the second paragraph starts:
I don't view the use of the word "typically" here the way you do. I think it is an appropriate amount of nuance for a reference work, since it makes room for discussion of intersex women. Now, I acknowledge that there's various decisions about how and when to include references to atypical examples in an encyclopedia, but I maintain that including mention of intersex women somewhere in the article about women is appropriate. Given the article's sections:
I could see the argument for keeping discussion of intersex women to the biology section, and creating a subsection for trans women under Culture and gender roles or something. But I don't really think that the Wikipedia article on the whole screams "captured by trans activists" to me.
Does it whisper?
Does it wink?
Is it, in fact, captured, silently or with thunderous pronouncement?
The whole point of Reliable Sources is that they provide plausible deniability to smuggle your assumptions into the article, then engage in bureaucratic warfare to keep it that way.
Considered fringe by who, and whose sources?
I don't think ROGD is fringe at all, and I don't trust Wikipedia when they say it is. I think it's an obvious explanation for some very baffling behavior, but that explanation isn't allowed on Wikipedia.
More options
Context Copy link
Gonna have to disagree with you. While you're correct that the article is right to acknowledge the existence of intersex women, the language around trans women screams ideological capture to me, such as the use of the phrase "assigned male at birth". Sex is not "assigned". A male baby born in an unsupervised natural birth in which the mother (excuse me, "birthing person") dies in childbirth without ever laying eyes on her child remains male, in spite of the fact that no sex was ever "assigned" to him by anyone. Humans are not subject to Schrödinger's chromosomes, both male and female until directly observed, and it takes a remarkable level of Butlerian solipsism to even consider the possibility.
This demonstrates the motte-and-bailey fallacy at the heart of the trans movement. They insist that they're not trying to collapse the distinction between male and female people, of course they recognise that sex exists, they're just arguing that something called gender identity also exists. But if that's the case, why are they so keen to insist that males are not "male" but simply "assigned male at birth"? Is "this baby is male" not a factually and uncontroversially true statement about a baby born with a penis, Y chromosome etc.? Why are you trying to water this definition down by using language that implies a mistake was made somewhere?
I believe that was originally a term used for intersex people; the transgender activists appropriated it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link