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 don’t understand what point you are making. You’re upset Carini gave up too easily and feel this degrades women’s sports. You’re upset people are questioning Khelif’s gender despite evidence that there are legit questions there. You feel that because Khelif has lost to a biological woman that their sex is irrelevant.
Is it that you want the anti-trans side to wait for Prime Mike Tyson to transition and kill a few women before raising any objections?
It's that I'd like both sides to rely less on their political assumptions and priors and actually watch the damn games.
In Track and Field we've been forced to watch dominant male-bodied athletes cruise past their competition and been told nothing to see here. Now we're seeing a mediocre competitor treated as "Prime Mike Tyson" by the anti-trans press, who simply refuse to actually watch the damn fight and examine what is happening. I'm sick of being told "Who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?" Sports questions require answers that come from examining the outcomes of the sport, not from internet shibboleths.
More options
Context Copy link
In the discussion of women's sports, there's a meme that women athletes are overmatched by male athletes: Womens' national soccer team vs 14-year-old boys and Serena Williams vs Male tennis players are two instances that pop up with some frequency here.
In the Trans sports debate, there's a meme that allowing trans athletes in combat sports is a super bad idea, because biological males overmatch females in this way.
It seems relevant to the discussion to ask how dominant a particular trans athlete is. If they've been defeated by biological women, then obviously their particular advantage is not as overwhelming as the standard male vs female athletes meme would suggest. A lot of the description of this event is pretty clearly claiming overmatch. If this competitor has lost to normal female competitors before, then I don't think overmatch is supportable.
This is the wrong standard for combat sports. A contestant being both 40% stronger and objectively bad doesn’t make the event safe!
More options
Context Copy link
Not so simple, a person having advantage in muscle mass, bone density, strength and speed can lose a match if they lack the skill. But they may improve still.
https://boxrec.com/en/box-am/899786?allSports=y
Check her box record - the losses are heavily concentrated in the start of her career. Her last loss is in 2022.
I was thinking about and imagining what it would look like if someone like myself just up and started boxing... but in women's leagues. I'm a decently-trained gym-goer, with regular levels of those various male physical advantages, but I've never boxed in my life. How much training would I want to do before competing? ...would I still get thwacked by some women for the first several matches? It's sort of weird and fascinating to think about.
More options
Context Copy link
That's valuable data. My point is that "this competitor is a man, men have an unfair advantage" should cash out in observable lopsided results, so appealing to the results should trump raw priors. My impression is that it generally does, but more data either way is a good thing for my confidence in that argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link