site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   33896 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The answer to this question just goes back to the reason women's leagues were made in the first place. I personally don't really care that much what women do with their league, include or exclude trans people, none of my business. But the reason these leagues exist at all is because women want to be able to compete and know that in an open league none of them would rise to the top because men at just much stronger. If it's true that trans women being introduced into these leagues would make it so that women can not make it to the top then it's perfectly reasonable to draw the line such that women are on one side and trans women are on the other.

How far do you take this? Would a league be justified in excluding black women, on the grounds they would be too dominant? What if Russian women were really good at some sport? Should they be excluded for being too good? I expect the rejoinder here is that black women and Russian women are women in a way trans women are not, but that is precisely the point I and others dispute!

  • -11

justified in excluding black women, on the grounds they would be too dominant

If there was some racial group of women that somehow had man equivalent strength then I think and argument could be made. I'd imagine such a thing would have a lot of trouble practically because racial lines have a bad history of being drawn with malicious intent but in the hypothetical space I don't have a fundamental issue with it. Natal women is a naturally category and drawing it there rather than a genderless weight class has obvious winners in losers, natal women win, very light natal men lose and this is fine.

You would be perfectly justified in setting up a basketball league for only Asian women(insert other sports league for a group that's almost definitionally going to have trouble getting to the top in it).

Do you believe that there is no difference between trans and cis women? Like how is 'cis women only' dependent on 'trans women are not women'? I certainly don't believe that trans women are women, but I also don't think that that's the basic issue in 'no trans women in women's sports'- whether trans women have physical advantages as a class is. And it doesn't seem in dispute that they do.

And it doesn't seem in dispute that they do.

Certain commenters on this site absolutely do dispute the claim that trans women as a class have a major physical advantage over cis women.

I expect the rejoinder here is that black women and Russian women are women in a way trans women are not, but that is precisely the point I and others dispute!

My definition of "woman" is "adult human female", a standard that black women and Russian women obviously meet and that trans women just as obviously don't. I'm curious what definition of "woman" you're operating on, and how circular it is.

I think if you could actually demonstrate, with evidence, that black women or Russian women dominate other women in all sports to the degree that men dominate women in all sports, then maybe there would be a good argument that they should be in their own league. But I doubt that this is the case, and I doubt you think this is the case.

Do you think leagues should be sex-segregated at all? Or should men and women compete in the same league?

If you believe that leagues should be sex-segregated, then why?

Let me ask another question: right now, because of the relative rarity of trans women, evidence that trans women have a "male advantage" in sports is statistically inconclusive (though the anecdotal examples keep piling up). So for now, defenders of trans women in sports can say "There isn't any proof that trans women have an advantage," and point at trans athletes who don't win every single competition.

But suppose in 20 years time, we do have conclusive, statistically compelling evidence that trans women do, in fact, have a significant advantage over women in sports. Would that change your position at all? Or do you think women just need to accept that trans women can enter their leagues and thrash them?

How far do you take this? Would a league be justified in excluding black women, on the grounds they would be too dominant?

If the sport was competitive suntanning.

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