site banner
PaperclipPerfector  24d ago (text post)   29189 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If you're measuring by gametes, then post-menopausal women are a third gender, and the same gender as a eunuch. Does that really seem like it cleaves reality at the joints?

That seems to be an attempt to make others adopt your frame that it is possible to change genders. If it is not assumed that it is possible to change genders, then it explains quite handily why a pre-pubescent or post- menopausal female is still considered a woman, and a post- castration male a man.

In biology there is always a "when functioning properly" attached to descriptions. A heart pumps blood "when functioning properly." A kidney filters waste "when functioning properly." A female organism produces large gametes at the species-appropriate point in the life cycle "when organs are functioning properly." Reproduction is generally only applicable at certain times in an organism's life cycle, but a bitch that isn't in heat is still a bitch.

I mean, you can change heart conditions and kidney conditions, why not everything else? We treat "people who have heart problems" as a discrete category regardless of whether it's congenital or not. No one sane is going around saying "well, your heart USED to function properly, so it's ridiculous to suggest you can transition into not functioning properly"

Also, really, "bitch"? C'mon, try to have some manners :)

The equivalent to changing heart conditions would be to go from a infertile to fertile, which happens all the time without changing sex. I'm not convinced you understand me and I don't know any way to be clearer.

We do have categories for female too young to be fertile - girl. But going from girl to woman is not a change in sex/gender, just a change in age. And going from infertile to fertile is not a change in sex/gender, just a change in health.

Do you not know what a bitch is or are you being cute? I would never call a woman a bitch, we are different species.

Edit: it's like you are claiming that someone with heart disease isn't in the phylum Chordata. A disease does not change a classification.

Edit: it's like you are claiming that someone with heart disease isn't in the phylum Chordata. A disease does not change a classification.

Do you think trans people are a different phylum? Do you think trans people are claiming to be a different phylum, or able to transition between phylums?

Like, if we're just talking general biology, hermaphroditism is hardly a controversial idea. Biology obviously supports the idea that individuals can change sexes. (And in case you're particularly bad at reading: no, I'm not claiming humans can do that yet; we're obviously still a few years away from an artificial uterus - which, hey, it's amusing that no one in this debate is willing to bite the bullet and discuss whether that'd be sufficient to qualify)

I'm not convinced you understand me and I don't know any way to be clearer.

I mean, you have the category of "was/will be fertile at some point", and the category of "never fertile at any point."

You then want me to take someone who was born XX but never developed a uterus, and put them in the... first category? That's a "woman" even though they don't have a uterus, will never produce gametes, and so on? But a trans woman, who also never developed a uterus, also has a vagina, also has breasts... that person is "male". And this is a totally consistent, natural, intuitive way to split people up?

Do you think trans people are a different phylum?

No, but a phylum is one biological classification. Sex is another.

A human whose heart has stopped working does not change phylums.

A human whose sexual organs have stopped functioning does not change sexes.

A human embryo that does not yet have a heart is in the phylum chordata.

A human child who does not yet have the capacity to bear a child is still female.

An imagined bionic human who no longer has a heart would still be in the phylum chordata.

A post-menopausal woman who no longer has a functioning uterus is still female.

The idea that someone can change classification is a Trans idea. It is not universal. I am specifically countering your objections that a woman with a hysterectomy or a post-menopausal woman is a different gender. They are not because sex/gender does not change. They have the qualities of their sex at some point in their lifecycle.

You are making a mistake that you think everyone thinks like you. You believe that you have changed sex/gender, and therefore whatever definition someone has for sex/gender allows for change.

In humans, there are four potential sexual categories (though only three in reality.)

  • Body produces large gametes in reality, or would have produced large gametes if health was obtained.

  • Body produces small gametes in reality, or would have produced small gametes if health was obtained.

  • Body produces neither small gametes or big gametes, and there is no obvious direction where health would go, even if Miracle Healer Jesus touched them. (Happens, though much rarer than the intersex statistics show, even a person with CAIS and XY chromosomes can become pregnant.)

  • (This category has never happened in a human) Body produces both small gametes and big gametes at the same time or at different times in the lifecycle.

What's funny is that there is a tradition of intersex people naturally transitioning and this being accepted in Christianity (below is a repost of a previous AAQC):

...Emperor Justinian's Digest of Roman law incorporated the statement of Ulpian, "The question has been asked:—according to which sex are hermaphrodites to be treated? but I should say on the whole that they ought to be treated as having the sex which predominates in them."

...The theologians of the School of Salamanca consider the case of a predominantly male hermaphrodite who has been ordained to the priesthood, licitly or illicitly, in whom the female sex has begun to predominate on account of ageing. They say "by reason of the changed sex" this person could no longer validly consecrate the Eucharist; the priestly character would remain in the soul, but would now be in the soul of a person not capable of exercising orders, just as a priest who has died can no longer consecrate the Eucharist. Considering the case of a woman who, "nature itself breaking out," is spontaneously transformed into a man, which they say Pliny the Elder testifies is not only possible but has in fact happened, the Salmanticenses say this man could be validly ordained, but unless the matter can be hidden, it cannot be done on account of the astonishment and scandal to those who would see someone they had known as a woman ministering at the altar.

So there is some discussion where someone who can perform the male role in sex can be a priest, even if they haven't always been able to perform the male role in intercourse.

However, that's a natural development of an intersex person's body. It's interesting that they talk about "nature itself breaking out." I don't think orthodox Christians will ever encourage someone to artificially change their sex, or believe that artificial changes are sufficient to actually change sex. If gender is in the soul, than it is the form of the body - the blueprint for what a body does on its own power.

I am perhaps more open than some of your interlocutors, at the least my philosophical and biological assumptions are very different. I still think you're a man, one that has become very sick. Restoring you to health would not involve you growing large gametes naturally and bearing children, it would involve you creating sperm and a mechanism to impregnate a woman. That is what is written into your body, the form of your body which you struggle against.

I know you believe that one day we will have control over these things, and there will be no difference. I believe that your sex is written into every cell of your body and is impossible to change, wherever medicine goes in the next century. Maybe through very artificial and mechanical methods will you approximate what my body does as easily as breathing, but that would not be the same as changing the powers of your body, you would be relying on a power outside you. The Abolition of Man and all that.

I know you wish it was one specific thing that defines sex, and then it would be something you could obtain for yourself (even theoretically, in some distant future) and then you have it. But sex isn't a thing a person possesses. It is one of the things a human person is.

In humans, there are four potential sexual categories (though only three in reality.)

The bit that confuses me here is this weird counterfactual: if someone "would have" developed large gametes, they're a woman. But, I mean, there's a counterfactual world where I got dealt XX chromosomes instead - in that world I "would have" been female. There are plenty of people who "would have" lived if we'd eradicated Polio sooner - are we counting them as "alive" because of that?

What other natural category has this weird counterfactuality about it? The group of people who X, and "would have" X if not for Y? Surely "People who are blind, and would have gone blind if not for medical treatment" doesn't make any sense. People who are born blind and people who get blinded by an accident are both "blind", right? Even though one of those groups has a sighted soul, and the other apparently has a blind soul?

We use this way of classification all the time, you are swapping disease with biological classification willy-nilly and that is what is confusing you.

Blindness is a disease, not a biological classification. A blind person still belongs to the human species, which is a sighted-species. A blind person still belongs to a sighted-species. Their blindness is not a sign they are a member of a different species, it is evidence they have a health problem.

A woman is a human who, if her body is not producing large gametes, has a health problem that requires explanation. A male body does not require a disease to explain why it's not producing large gametes.

Your counterfactual world where you have XX chromosomes requires you to not exist. It requires a completely different person to have been conceived and born.

The counterfactual worlds that I am using are all, "if the same organism was healthy." It is something that happens every day, some organism in a disease state becomes healthier.

Your counterfactual world where you have XX chromosomes requires you to not exist. It requires a completely different person to have been conceived and born.

Okay, so if a person has Magic XX Genetic Defect Syndrome, and is born with XX chromosomes, a vagina, etc. but no large gametes, they're... third gender? To be clear: there is no world where this person produces large gametes, since as you said, changing their genetics results in a completely different person.

More comments

some organism in a disease state becomes healthier.

Pre-transition I was miserable, and now I'm happy. Surely that means healthier? Is there some health risk associated with transition that you're particularly concerned about?

If my genetics gave me depression, would you be opposed to me taking anti-depressants?

Are you equally opposed to cis people getting cosmetic surgery?

More comments

Copy-pasting from my other comment:

Menopausal women's bodies once produced large gametes, but no longer do. That is a historical fact about their bodies. Just because someone has one of their legs amputated doesn't change the historical fact that they were bipedal from birth. Just as we consider prepubescent girls female because in most cases their bodies eventually will be capable of producing large gametes, we consider menopausal women female because their bodies once did produce large gametes: the arrow of time points both forwards and backwards. Likewise for eunuchs and prepubescent boys.

So, wait, you think people who lost their legs should still be considered bipedal? Like, you think they don't need a wheelchair, and we should laugh at them when they insist they've "transitioned" to needing a wheelchair?

How in the world is this cleaving reality in a coherent way, but "people who get treated as women" and "people who experience misogynistic sexism" are somehow radical ideas?

To reiterate: "Just because someone has one of their legs amputated doesn't change the historical fact that they were bipedal from birth." They are not currently bipedal, but they once were. A menopausal women is not currently producing large gametes, but she once did.

but "people who get treated as women" and "people who experience misogynistic sexism" are somehow radical ideas?

So your definition of "woman" is "anyone who gets treated as a woman" or "anyone who experiences misogynistic sexism"? Well, I can think of a number of objections that make your definition vastly less precise and meaningful than mine.

  1. "Treated by" whom? Do you have to be "treated as a woman" by everyone you meet to be considered a member of the category "women"? Is it sufficient if just one person "treats you as a woman" for you to call yourself a woman for ever and for always? Or is it democratic: if 100% of the people you meet "treat you as a woman" you are 100% woman, if 0% of them do you are a man, if you're androgynous enough that 50% of people think you're a woman and treat you accordingly, then you're neither man nor woman?
  2. This definition implies that any trans woman who doesn't pass (and indeed any cis woman with a masculine appearance) is not a woman. Fair enough, but probably not what you intended?
  3. What does it even mean to "treat someone as a woman"? You gave the example of people addressing people as either "sir" or "ma'am". When I meet a trans woman (and it's usually obvious), I'll refer to them using their preferred name or pronouns not because I literally believe they are a woman, but in an effort to keep the peace and avoid causing needless upset (in the worst case scenario, to avoid getting "cancelled"). This is quite distinct from "treating them as a woman".
  4. What does it even mean to "treat someone as a woman"?
  5. The definition of the latter category is circular and tautological, as all definitions used by trans activists inevitably turn out to be. "A woman is a person who experiences misogynistic sexism". Well, "misogyny" means "hatred of women", so everyone who experiences misogyny is a woman by default - one literally can't be the victim of misogyny without being a woman. "A woman is a person who experiences sexism rooted in hatred of people who experience sexism rooted in hatred of people who experience..." Outstanding.

Alright, fair enough, too advanced.

Let's try a simple definition as a thought exercise: women have vaginas, men have penises, and non-binary for everyone else. What's the flaw with that?

So, wait, you think people who lost their legs should still be considered bipedal?

No, but just as the existence of such people doesn't invalidate the definition of 'human' as 'a bipedal mammal', the existence of various edge cases does not invalidate the definition of 'woman' as 'producer of large gametes'.

If someone loses their legs, you don't call them bipedal, though. So why are you calling someone who loses their gametes a "woman"?

Does it really make sense to say "well, but you USED to be able to walk, so I'm still going to call you able-bodied"?

For basically everything else, we care about what a person's current condition is: we don't draw a huge distinction between people who were born needing a wheelchair -vs- people who were in an accident. Why does reality "cleave at the joints" differently for gametes vs legs?

If someone loses their legs, you don't call them bipedal, though.

You call them 'handicapped', or something else if there's enough of them that a more specific new category would be useful -- you wouldn't call such a person a serpent, though. Are you sure this is the route you'd like to take?

My point was that we don't bother to differentiate between "born" handicapped versus "became" handicapped. They're both just handicapped/disabled/legless/need a wheelchair. The idea of "transitioning" between able-bodied and disabled is not terribly controversial. So why is it that when it comes to "female", you're suddenly against the very possibility that someone could change categories?

The idea of "transitioning" between able-bodied and disabled is not terribly controversial.

No, it's not -- but the analogous transition for cutting your dick off would be 'eunuch', not woman. I'm fine if you'd like some other category ('trans person' or something), but like I say this doesn't seem to me the road you'd like to go down.

But it's not cutting off your dick, it's turning it into a vagina. If the end state was a Ken doll, it'd be a very different conversation.

More comments

Yes. They even exhibit the same kind of stereotypical behaviors, such as disproportionate use of the care/harm moral foundation and loyalty to established political order.

The energetic economics of reproduction are really quite enough to explain sex and sex stereotypes.

Veering into metaphysics can have merit, and there too I think the gnostic approach of gender theory is quite terrible, but that's not really necessary.

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