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 -
If we were to follow this logic to its ultimate conclusion, seemingly it would mean we should consider anyone who mimics the outward appearance and behavioural standards of a group to be a part of that group. Is that something you'd endorse?
Correct me if I'm wrong though, but mainstream progressives don't appear to accept this line of argument in regards to any social construct besides gender. When white college professors are exposed as having falsely claimed to be Amerindian despite lacking any Native DNA or cultural background, they're typically considered to have committed a grave act of cultural appropriation and transgressed against a marginalised group, even though evidently they quacked and looked enough like a duck to convincingly pass as one for several years in some cases.
If we were to apply the current trans self-ID paradigm to the situation, they needn't even have done that; just claiming to be Native should have been enough for them to be considered valid, even if they made no changes to their appearance or behaviour at all. Likewise, an American weeb who claims to be Japanese shouldn't be a valid target of mockery, but every bit as Japanese as an actual born-and-raised Japanese, who has no right to object.
If we're going to so strictly police the boundaries of every other social construct, and say that there is an actual essentialist element or at least one of lived experience required to qualify as part of it, why are we expected to make an exception for gender?
Maybe you think mainstream progressives just don't go far enough and follow their logic to its conclusion here, or maybe the idea is that there are good political reasons to police the boundaries of race; in practice a white man who self-IDs as black isn't going to be perceived as such and so won't be subject to the same struggles actual black people face. But people who object to trans ideology might say the same, that the struggles of a transwoman are not those of a cis woman and so this is a valid reason to police the boundaries of womanhood, too.
That said, personally I am sympathetic to the idea that it may ultimately not matter much if transwomen are granted access to women's changing rooms, sports and prisons, provided they've undergone full medical transition at least. But if this is the reasoning as to why trans self-ID is valid, then fundamentally there is no philosophical reason full ethnic self-ID shouldn't be valid too; it's simply politically inconvenient currently where trans self-ID isn't.
Ultimately though I think if we take this radical self-ID paradigm seriously, it implies people should be able to adopt absolutely any identity they like and be considered valid immediately, no questions asked. But socially constructed identities are an extremely helpful method used to distinguish between categories of people who have salient material differences from one another, so we can't just cease to police all their boundaries.
I think there's a large contingent of mixed-race people who "pass" as one race or another without any real controversy. No one seems particularly concerned that light-skinned black people might "pass" as white, and no one seems to object to calling Italians white anymore.
I think, outside that category, you mostly only find "bad actors" who are looking to abuse the system.
If it turns out that 1% of the population really does, in good faith, identify as "trans-racial" and undergoes permanent surgical alteration to achieve that... I mean, wild, didn't see that coming, but... okay, we probably should accept that. And maybe we were being dicks for mocking those "drop of Native American blood" types. But when it's a handful of people who are pretty clearly just trying to gain an advantage... I don't see any particular reason we need to accept that?
I also think on a systemic level, we give advantages to women because they are currently threatened, and the best good comes from extending those protections to trans women. Conversely, racial affirmative action is meant to adjust for inequalities from the past: an unequal starting position. So extending those protections to someone who did not actually have that unequal starting position doesn't make any sense. (I'm totally open to the idea that racial affirmative action is a failure, and we should focus on things like "actually born in poverty" instead. Racial justice isn't my area of expertise.)
It's worth noting that I'm focusing on a more moderate trans agenda here: I expect trans women to go on HRT, try to pass as female socially, and eventually undergo surgery. I think there's benefits to protecting people who are only partway through that process, but the goal is to protect people who are actually undergoing the process. You can't just stop at "self identifying" if you want society to accept you; you've got to meet people halfway.
Apologies for the late reply. It's true of course that there are mixed-race people who pass as one side of their ancestry or another without controversy, but even in many trans-friendly spaces the notion that an unambiguously white man could become black or vice versa is very much not accepted. I think this indicates that for race at least people feel there is an essentialist component based on ancestry, just as many believe gender has an essentialist component based on sex, which is the sticking point.
I do agree that if people want to have surgery to look like another race or ethnicity, this should be allowed, but I wouldn't consider them to truly be of that ethnicity nor begrudge members of that ethnic group for not accepting them as such based on lack of ancestry or similar experiences, which I think is similar to the view many have on transgender issues, too. When you reject the need for sex as a component of gender, it can feel as if you're undermining a useful method of categorisation for distinguishing between materially different kinds of people, who have different needs based on that material distinction.
That said while I definitely believe private sex-segregated spaces should exist, I'm open to the idea that full medical transition may make it viable to segregate by gender instead in some cases, if the data shows it can mostly close the physical gaps between cis and trans people. Segregation is also based partly on cultural/psychological differences between men and women, though, and anecdotally it does appear as if many transwomen retain some masculine cultural/psychological traits. To be clear I don't think transwomen are any more perverted compared to cis men or anything like that, possibly less due to oestrogen's effect, but if they retain aspects of male sexuality and the male gaze you can see how women might object to that in changing rooms and the like.
For what it's worth I think the more moderate trans agenda you mention was one society was broadly on board with, but whatever your personal views we're obviously past that paradigm now, which has spurred a backlash. From what I recall about a decade ago there was a bit more casual transphobia, i.e. people would casually refer to transwomen as men, but many people didn't care a great deal about the issue and were willing to be basically tolerant. I don't know if you'd consider that better or worse than what we have today, with greater trans visibility alongside a larger culture war around the issue.
That all seems quite fair to me. I think a lot of what I've been curious about is whether the backlash is "really" about more permissive laws, or if it's just that we've become a lot more visible. It's not an easy question to explore in most spaces! TERFs mostly seem disgusted by our very existence and don't want to compromise at all. The trans community is unfortunately dominated by a lot of extremists yelling everyone else down. And of course, it's the sort of conversation where society likes to yell and scream at anyone who dares express the "wrong" opinion, so most people are just unwilling to actually speak their mind.
So, thanks for being part of a cool community where I could actually hold this conversation, and find it productive :)
Thank you as well, I was a little worried it'd come across as harsh. I do sympathise with the reservations many have about the trans issue obviously but the hysteria over trans people supposedly all being paedo groomers is really disgusting, and probably does more to move me in a more trans-friendly direction than any actual pro-trans argument. I'm sure many people feel the same way. All the best.
More options
Context Copy link
I think TERFs are actually an example of the strained tolerance that @Spez1alEd spoke of. Most TERFs, if you actually talk to them, will tell you a story of having once been a pro-trans liberal or radical feminist who accepted trans womens' claims at face value and even thought they were "breaking the gender binary" and thus defying the Patriarchy. Then, for various reasons (many of which have been discussed here) they hit "peak trans" (a phrase they use akin to their "redpill moment") and started seeing trans women as men appropriating women's spaces.
Historically there may have been some TERFs who were always vehemently anti-trans, but radical feminists were (and to some degree still are) pretty divided on the trans issue. It's not as simple as "They're just disgusted by us and won't compromise."
I would argue JK Rowling (not really a TERF but for some reason now held up as the TERF Queen) falls into this category -- she was tolerant of trans people until she started questioning the ideology, and even after her infamous letter she was still clearly supportive of the right of trans women to live as women - just not the right to be legally considered women. To the degree she's become hardened and more belligerent in her stance now, it's probably from years of relentless attacks online - trans activists seem disgusted by her very existence and don't want to compromise at all.
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