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 -
So when you meet someone new, do you treat them as some sort of third gender until you've had a chance to confirm whether they have a uterus or not? Like, in practice, how does this function socially? How many people's uteruses have you actually confirmed?
Trans, intersex, extremely androgynous people and people lacking in reproductive organs are such small minorities that if you meet someone and they look like a female person (meaning they have ovaries, a uterus etc.), you will be correct 90+% of the time. It's an extremely reliable heuristic, more reliable than any medical protocol ever designed. I acknowledge that this heuristic may not be quite as reliable in the specific subcultures and circles in which you move, but across the human race as a whole, 90+% sounds about right.
True. And if you assume everyone is bipedal, you'll be even more "accurate"! You might get extremely confused by people in wheelchairs, but hey, what are 80 million categorization errors between friends?
(Because, you do realize, 1% of the population is... 80 million people?)
Do you actually stand by that claim? That seems like an extraordinary claim. If "they look female" is more reliable than medical tests, why are we going around checking for uteruses and gametes? Why not just say "if they look female, they should use the women's bathroom"? Like, again, this test you're proposing, "they look female", is MORE reliable than even the best test on the market! So... why rely on anything else at that point?
You're putting words in my mouth, trying to act as if "assume that everyone you meet possesses this trait unless given good reason to believe otherwise" and "deny the existence of people who don't possess this trait" are synonymous and interchangeable. It's obnoxious, tiresome and you should know better.
In point of fact, we do already assume that everyone we meet is bipedal and able-bodied: that's why when (for example when making a job application) many employers will ask if you require any special accomodations because of your disability status. The default assumption (borne out by statistics) is that the standard job applicant is bipedal, able-bodied, sighted, able to hear etc. The reason these accomodations are "special" is because, by definition, most people don't need them.
If we didn't assume that almost everyone is bipedal and able-bodied, when building new houses and office blocks, why would we bother building stairs as part of the new construction?
We check uteruses and gametes only when we are presented with strong evidence to suggest that a specific person who looks female or claims to be female may not in fact be a typical member of the female sex (or may not be a member at all). If a couple wants to have a baby, they just start trying to get pregnant right away: they don't go to the hospital first to get an MRI to confirm that the female partner has a full complement of functioning reproductive organs. They only go to a fertility doctor if they are facing difficulties getting pregnant i.e. once they are presented with evidence that might point to at least one partner in the couple not possessing a full complement of fully functioning reproductive organs. The tests to determine whether or not this is true are intended to provide more information than can be gleaned from the naked eye (e.g. you can't just glance at someone and determine that they have an irregularity in one of their fallopian tubes), but are subject to false negatives and false positives just like any other medical test. And yes, I absolutely would believe that the rate of false results (categorisation errors) associated with these tests is higher than the rate associated with the informal heuristic in which we assume that anyone who looks female has a full set of reproductive organs.
In fact, now that I think about it, this is just extremely basic Bayesian reasoning. Employers assume that all applicants are bipedal, able-bodied, sighted etc. unless given relevant information (walks with a cane; disabled sticker on their car) which suggests otherwise, at which point they update their priors. The medical establishment assumes that a given female-looking person of a certain age has a full complement of functioning reproductive organs, unless given relevant information (has been trying to get pregnant for a year without success; looks female, but in fact has a penis) which suggests otherwise, at which point they update their priors.
Um... you might want to read some building codes? If you assume everyone is bipedal and able-bodied, why all these requirements for elevators, and curb ramps for wheelchairs?
Okay, we're going around in linguistic circles here. If you see someone in a wheelchair, you don't demand any further proof that they can't walk unless there's some sort of extraordinary situation. I'm asking that if you see me and think I'm female, that's also sufficient proof, and you let me go pee in the women's bathroom.
Word games aside, can I pee in the bathroom? I've got a vagina, which locker room do you want me in?
Jesus Christ, you know exactly what I'm getting at, stop playing dumb. I'm not saying "assume that everyone you meet is bipedal and able-bodied (and deny the existence of people who don't meet that description)"; I'm saying "assume that any given individual is bipedal and able-bodied, unless you have strong evidence suggesting they aren't". And likewise with a person's sex. What is so complicated about this?
Bathrooms are probably the part of trans activism I find least objectionable, so I personally am not going to get terribly bent out of shape about an emasculated male who looks passably female going into the ladies' bathroom or locker room. A few gender-critical people presented me with sources suggesting that abolishing sex segregation in bathrooms in a particular jurisdiction caused a spike in women being sexually assaulted, but I didn't look into it too deeply.
Alright, that seems fair. I do think there's some important semantics, but at the end of the day the thing I actually care about is bathrooms and such, not whether everyone thinks like me.
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
I generally believe people’s claims about their anatomy, I generally disbelieve people’s claims that their existence contradicts their anatomy, it’s not that difficult of a concept to grasp- and nor is it a contradiction.
Alright, so I guess: what does it matter? People treat me like a woman, and I'm happy with that. There's clearly a category of "people who pass as female" and I'm in it. The vast majority of society finds it easiest to just call that category "women". It turns out that language is flexible and words have multiple definitions.
Do you go around insisting that people who dye their hair don't "really" have green hair, they're just disguising themselves? Would you find it easier to locate someone, knowing they currently have green hair, or knowing that they were born blonde?
Note that I've not made any claims about my anatomy. All I've said is that I get grouped in as a woman, and if you want to pick me out of a crowd you'd be wasting a lot of time looking through all the male-presenting people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link