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 -
Do you particularly think there's likely to be bad faith charlatans that take HRT for years, socially transition, update their legal paperwork, and have surgery? I feel like if you're willing to put that much work into something, we can assume good faith. (I can see how bad faith actors would enjoy "absolutely zero requirements", obviously)
Again, in the "post-surgical" domain, what would even qualify as bad faith? Are we willing to apply that standard to cis-women who behave the same way?
(For the pre-surgical domain, things get complicated; I don't think "zero gatekeeping" is the right answer, at least currently)
I mean, for a medical form, "Which of the following do you have: [ ] breasts, [ ] uterus, [ ] vagina, [ ] penis" doesn't seem particularly unreasonable?
I'm fine calling it "men" and "women's" sports; plenty of words have different definitions in different contexts.
I think dating apps should probably sort "pre-op trans-women" into a different category, because people obviously care about penis -vs- vagina when it comes to dating.
I don't think I'm really the person to ask about post-op; obviously some people care about fertility, but cis-women can also be infertile. So, to me, this mostly depends on whether a surgical vagina is "acceptable" for people who aren't looking for fertility. The general consensus I've seen is that modern surgery does quite well there, but I'm obviously in a giant biased bubble.
Taking HRT for years and getting surgery would be a pretty serious show of commitment. Almost all the bad faith cases I can think of are men who made minimal or no efforts beyond updating their paperwork.
If I, as a man, want to declare myself a woman, what requirements would you place on me to be considered actually a woman?
So you basically want to abolish the distinction between sexes in normal English usage? Or else make "male" and "female" arbitrary labels that can be applied to anyone, according to how they identify? But definitely not words that distinguish between male humans and female humans as understood by biological science?
They care about more than that. See, this is why I question the sincerity of even moderate trans people. I mean, if I am reading you correctly, you don't think someone should be able to filter out post-op trans women. Or if they do, you think that's some sort of irrational bigotry and they need to be identified as the transphobic bigots they are. Do you really, seriously think that a post-op trans woman is indistinguishable from a cis woman? I don't mean "Might pass in social situations." I mean a man who has actually been with women before could get intimate with a trans woman and not know the difference? Even if we stipulate that there might be some .1% of trans girls who could actually pass in that situation, surely you know that the other 99% absolutely will not. But as I understand it, most dating apps now basically don't allow either straight men or lesbians to say "No trans women, sorry," and if you try you will be kicked off. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't used dating apps in forever.)
I mean, me personally? I don't care. Join the club. Self identification 100%
But just because I don't care doesn't mean other people don't have valid concerns, so I figure it's a social negotiation to find a contract that can at least satisfy the majority of people (since, obviously, you're never going to satisfy everyone)
I think if you've gone through the trouble of getting on HRT and consulting a doctor, it's probably safe to let you use the bathroom - the big controversies seem to be about sports and lockers. So not quite "just self identification", but a pretty low bar.
I think once someone has had surgery, the only controversy should be sports (which we've already covered)
I feel like "for a medical form" and "normal English usage" are pretty clearly two different domains.
I think in practice, most everyone uses "female" to mean "person I perceive as female" (or who they're humoring), whether they mean to or not. Lots of transphobic people call me "ma'am". Normal English usage, outside of dating and athletics, is about identifying people - and that's all about gender presentation. If you tell the cops they are looking for a guy, they are not going to find me.
Yes, the empirical observation within the post-op community is that it's not an issue. As good as the real thing! Okay, maybe not exactly as good, on average, but well within the cis range, certainly? Vaginas come in a huge variety and most people only get intimate with a few people in their life.
Possibly the connoisseurs would weigh in and say something different, but Hugh Hefner seemed pretty trans-positive. He put trans women on the Playboy cover multiple times. I feel like if we're good enough for his tastes, then it's at least fair to say the onus is on you to show some evidence that neo-vaginas are sub-par goods?
If you can filter on whatever criteria you like, and exclude Christians and Democrats and Bisexuals, then it would seem crazy to say "oh, but you can't filter based on trans status"
But if you don't require people to actually list their religion, politics, and orientation, it would also seem crazy to say "oh, but you have to tell us if you're trans."
That said, I don't see any harm in putting post-op trans women in the "women" box.
That's rather surprising to me, and it's counter to what I have heard, but since I have never been with a trans woman and am not about to go try one, maybe it's true. I can't help suspecting some self-delusion there, the same sort that I think leads trans women to think they pass better than they do. Of all the trans women I've ever seen, very few would fool me even with their clothes on, and those mostly with perfect lighting and a ton of makeup. ("But what about the ones you didn't notice because they fooled you?" you will ask, and I admit that's possible, but given that even the "really hot, passes well" ones like Blaire White still have a certain uncanny effect about them that you can't unsee once you notice it, I remain skeptical.)
But maybe it's true. Maybe most men wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I suppose eventually the technology will improve to the point where this is true.
I don't think people should be required to state they are trans on dating apps, but I think people should be allowed to say they don't want to date trans people without being called bigots or booted off the app. There are apps just for Christian dating, for various ethnic groups, for conservatives, for Democrats, etc. They can't really keep others out, but it's kind of obnoxious and seems counterproductive to demand attention from people who clearly don't want you. Yet trans women keep doing this. Why? (Yes, that's an Al Jazeera link. I find that amusing.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link