site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29554 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.

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.

If Blofeld gets cosmetic surgery to look just like 007, that doesn't mean he is Bond.

If that surgery involved cutting off his arm, it does still put him in the category 'crippled'.

Granted, cutting off your dick and undergoing bottom surgery are meaningfully different concepts, but referring to the latter as "turning your penis into a vagina" might be putting things a bit generously. A more accurate description might be "turning your penis into a decidedly crude approximation of what a vagina looks and feels like, and which is markedly different from real natal vaginas in numerous ways - most notably in that a) it never undergoes menstruation and b) the immune system will treat it as an open wound, so it must be continually dilated for several hours every day, for the rest of the recipient's life, to prevent it from closing up".

a) it never undergoes menstruation

There's plenty of biological women in that category, so it doesn't really seem relevant

b) it must be continually dilated for several hours every day, for the rest of the recipient's life

"dilation must continue regularly for at least one year postoperatively." I would hardly call that "the rest of their life." It's not even daily after the first six months.

There's also improved techniques being researched to improve recovery time even further. And in many cases already, dilation is just a precaution against a 10-20% chance of stenosis, not a situation where stenosis is guaranteed to occur.

Not to mention that vaginal stenosis is potentially congenital: https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/conditions/vaginal-stenosis

More comments

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