site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34133 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.

There'd be no problem allowing CAIS women to compete as women, because androgen insensitivity means despite the presence of testosterone, there's no male-like enhancement of performance. I strongly doubt Khelif has CAIS.

Hmm. I think I read that she had high test but no DHT. I guess that's totally the opposite of CAIS.

Khelif likely has 5-alpha reductase deficiency. This enzyme turns testosterone into dihydrotestosterone which is required to produce male external genitalia.

This doesn't; however, prevent the body from producing and using testosterone to otherwise masculinize the body and brain. People with this disorder are often raised as girls; then, when they undergo male puberty, with it's massive surge of testosterone, they usually realize the truth of their biology and start identifying as men.

Someone with this disorder still has actual testicles that produce male levels of testosterone and is by any reasonable definition of maleness or manliness a male/man.

I'd guess Khelif grew up in a backwards environment where people didn't know about such things and Khelif and those around them didn't want to admit to the incongruence between the assumed sex and the reality in front of them.

My understanding is that DHT is critical for the development of many traits that are strongly associated with men, including baldness, body hair, and penis and testicles. If you want to claim that having a penis and functioning testicles are not essential parts of maleness you may certainly try, but I would find it very unconvincing. There is a reason we call it a "manhood"!

5αR2D is an intersex condition. People with it have some parts of maleness but not others. They do have functioning (though often not sperm-producing) testes, which produce the testosterone which (partially) masculinizes them.

Note that people with CAIS also have functional (but not sperm-producing) testes. But in their case, the testosterone does not masculinize them. Neither chromosomes nor testosterone tell you everything.

Male pattern baldness, BTW, isn't at all essential.

If this theory is true, there is a penis and there are testicles, the testicles are certainly functional in producing testosterone, they might even produce sperm.

I'm not really sure your point here?

Khelif isn't as manly as most men, but still manlier than plenty of men I've met.

I don't get what you're not getting. There's a pretty good case for not letting Khelif compete, since she has highly elevated testosterone levels, leaving aside this stupidity about how "manly" she is or whether "I have a penis, you just can't see it" is actually a convincing argument.

The argument is that Khelif is a male with a DSD; XY chromosome and male testosterone levels. Due to the DSD, he was raised as a girl, but this should not imply he ought to compete in competitions reserved for women.

The presence or lack of an external male sex organ is relevant to his DSD but not his competitive classification.

That's the argument you should engage with.

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