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 -
That’s not…look, the different service was never on the table. The patient didn’t request it. The diagnosis didn’t suggest it.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02868/latest/text
“Less favourably.” There’s nothing less favourable about giving the medically correct treatment. No discrimination.
The patient was unconscious, so that was never on the table.
It sure was, and it sure did, if the chosen method of identifying sex was reversed.
...we're all the way back to, "What is correct?" Are you saying that the sex listed on the authoritative document is "incorrect"?
My brother in Christ—you chose the method. If the patient can’t demand anything, why does the license?
You keep saying the document is authoritative. I’m saying it’s not, because there isn’t a medical procedure in the world that cares about driver-license-sex, correct or not. So the mere presence of that license doesn’t create an obligation.
My brother in Christ—the entire question of this thread is about the government designation creating a government-enforced legal requirement on third-party service providers to respect the drivers-license-sex. If you'd like to say that the government designation creates no legal requirement for doctors, then it should equally make no legal requirement for this digital app.
Otherwise, you have to make a distinction - from the law - for why it creates a legal requirement for some private service providers and not for others.
I don’t think the license itself never created a legal requirement for anyone. The 1984 SDA did, but only by criminalizing “less favourable” treatment. In social media, that means access to your app. In medicine, though, it means some combination of desired and correct care.
I could imagine why waving your license would get you back into an app. It was harder to figure out how doing so would get you a particular treatment.
I think it’s kind of a moot point, because I misunderstood how the license was actually used in this case.
I think you're resting a lot on this, but the court document only mentions this once, with reference to CEDAW (not SDA), saying that it
They don't really say anything about SDA having some form of "less favorable" test; they talk about "disadvantaging", and they don't really grapple how that would really work WRT a claim of gender identity. What is the set of possible "gender identities" in question? What is the reference class? It's a conceptual mush. I know it's approaching a reductio, but what if someone gender identified as an attack helicopter (substitute less ridiculous, but still nonbinary or whatever), but appeared male, then tried to access Giggle. Indirect gender identity discrimination?
Perhaps @Gillitrut was completely barking up the wrong tree when claiming that the 'authoritative document' had anything to do with it, but we're still left with a different kind of mess... and one that I point out, still leaves yardsticks on the table. You can fit almost anything into "other status".
It also reopens your hypo:
I don't see why, with this ruling, it would be considered frivolous or allow an opt out. Could even have one with implants or just barely large enough 'moobs'. The only way would be to say, "Mammograms are for the female sex," but then we're exactly back in the same position Giggle is. There's no reason to disadvantage MtFs in terms of getting to see imagery of their chest, if that's what they want. We don't actually have a reference class to compare them to, anyway. In order to show that Tickle was disadvantaged in comparison to some other reference class, I'd want to know what that reference class is, and once we know that, then maybe we can check to see if denying MtFs mammograms does/doesn't disadvantage them WRT the same reference class.
If there's anything I've learned from learning about BIID, it's that people can be very very serious about demanding a treatment that others may see as kind of silly or potentially even harmful. Are you going to import some "someone might think it's actually silly/harmful" exemption? Like, if a doctor simply asserts, "I think this would actually be silly/harmful, for whatever reason," then they're okay? Well, sure, Giggle can simply say that they think that someone who looks that much like a man is being silly or actually going to harm themselves, because they're gonna like get made fun of or something. I don't think it's easy at all to surgically (heh) slice out the cases that you personally think are silly/unlikely, because that's a ridiculous ad hoc test where the rule is that every time something comes up, we have to ask you whether it's silly or not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think the law let's you draw a distinction between "sex" and "drivers-license-sex". And why would "drivers-license-sex" create an obligation for a SocMed app, but not for medical services?
After further reading of the (summary) opinion, it doesn’t actually create the obligation there, either!
The crux is that sex and license-sex only mismatch when the subject is trans. Therefore, anything that only penalizes such a mismatch is unlawful discrimination.
Yes, you can ban any man or woman for being too masculine, so long as they haven’t specifically disavowed it at the QLD state level. If they have, they’re trans and protected.
Is this goofy? Maybe. Does it make the medical analogies fall apart? Oh yeah.
Giggle was not penalizing the mismatch. A trans man would be welcomed with open arms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link