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 -
I'd consider it pretty weird to spend any amount of time thinking about whether a stranger has a uterus or not. I've gone this entire conversation without once wondering whether you have a uterus or not. Whether or not you have a uterus is entirely irrelevant to my life.
Whether I have a uterus has zero impact on your life, too - so why are you spending so much time thinking about it?
And, given how often I meet people who look female and don't, in fact, have a uterus, I maintain some basic epistemological grace and acknowledge the uncertainty - especially since in my social circle, it's definitely less than 99%.
I think a lot of cis women would disagree with you on this score. From speaking to my loved ones who are cis women, I understand that they are generally aware of how vulnerable they are to being assaulted (particularly sexually assaulted) and are constantly carrying out risk calculations regarding the people in their immediate vicinity. Male people (not "people who are treated as men" or "people who strangers address as 'sir'" or "people who experience misandrist sexism" - male people) are vastly more likely to assault or rape a female person than female people are, and are overwhelmingly stronger than female people. Thus, to a cis woman, "is the person walking twenty paces behind me male or female?" is a very pertinent question indeed.
"Well yeah because men are socialised to be violent and trans men are just as likely to-" no, I'm gonna stop you right there, it's bollocks. Even males who have undergone SRS retain the offending patterns of their natal sex and are 6 times more likely than cis women to be convicted of a crime (and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime). This rather succinctly demonstrates how vapid a theory gender ideology is - if trans women are exactly as likely to assault a stranger as cis men, and trans men are exactly as likely to assault a stranger as cis women, knowing a stranger's "gender identity" provides a woman walking down the street with zero actionable information. As soon as she knows their sex, her risk calculation is complete: knowing their gender identity doesn't tell her anything additional which is useful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link