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 -
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!
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Certain commenters on this site absolutely do dispute the claim that trans women as a class have a major physical advantage over cis women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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?
More options
Context Copy link
If the sport was competitive suntanning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link