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 -
Okay, well now it seems like you're just flipping between definitions according to the needs of the moment. This time yesterday you said "a woman is someone with a vagina" (or neovagina). Now you're saying a woman is someone you refer to as she/her, even if you know for a fact that that person doesn't have a vagina (or neovagina). I find this inconsistent. Maybe the idea is that the word can have multiple meanings, e.g. a woman is anyone who has a vagina, or anyone who has a neovagina, or anyone who has expressed a desire to be referred to with female pronouns.
But now we're right back to circular definitions! A woman is anyone who has expressed a desire to be referred to with female pronouns. What are female pronouns? The pronouns we use to refer to women and girls.
Well I'm glad to know we agree on that much at least.
Words have multiple definitions, yeah. I think one can draw a reasonable consensus at "a woman is someone with a vagina", but I personally, in my head, use it to mean "someone in the ma'am cluster." If we are arguing about how you categorize people, I feel unreasonable imposing my personal definition. But if you ask me how I personally categorize people, I want to be honest about the system I'm actually using.
I don't think there's anything invalid with the category "people who want to use female pronouns". We can talk semantics about circular reasoning and all of that, but at the end of the day it seems very obvious that some people are delighted by "ma'am" and some people are extremely offended by it. Do you have some problem with me, personally, calling Samantha a woman and saying she/her?
Frankly, I think the two definitions of "woman" you're using (one commonsense and straightforward, the other postmodern and controversial) amount to a motte-and-bailey fallacy, and I don't like motte-and-bailey fallacies on general principle.
If you said "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman", I would think that definition was incoherent and circular - but at least I'd know exactly what you meant when you used the term "woman" in conversation. If you said "a woman is a person with female reproductive organs", I would likewise know exactly what you meant whenever you used that term.
But if the single word means both of those things, then that gives you a blank cheque to jump back and forth between the definitions on a whim according to the needs of the moment, depending on who you're trying to persuade and what rhetorical point you're trying to make.
It also makes the basic act of communicating a nightmare, because if I want to communicate honestly without misleading anyone, I have to laboriously explain exactly which definition of "woman" I'm using whenever I make a statement like "women cannot impregnate people" (true according to the second definition, false according to the first), "all women should undergo regular breast cancer screenings from the age of X onwards" (true according to the second definition, except for the minority of women who have already undergone a mastectomy; a complete waste of time and medical resources for many people if we're using the first), "in post-pubescent pre-menopausal women, amennorhea is a cause for medical concern" (true according to the second definition; false according to the first, as that set includes many perfectly healthy members who are physically incapable of menstruating), "women are dramatically less physically strong than the strongest men" (true according to the second definition; if using the first definition it would be false, because that set includes many members who would be competitive in tests of strength against men, by virtue of being male). And if someone were to insist that both definitions are equally valid, but refused to specify which definition they were using at any particular moment, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that, at best, they hadn't really considered the implications of using a single word with two such radically different definitions (as the examples above illustrate); at worst, that they had considered this and were knowingly trying to sneak something past me.
Compare with some of Scott's examples when he popularised the concept: does "God" refer to a specific Abrahamic deity, or is it just another word for the order and beauty in the universe? Is "racism" just an unconscious bias which can't be fully controlled and which everyone is guilty of to one extent or another; or is it prejudice + power (ergo anyone who's not white conveniently can't be guilty of it, except Asians for some reason)? I dunno, maybe for all of the above examples you'd say "it means both of those things", but at some point I think you'd have to acknowledge that there's something a bit underhanded about the whole rhetorical technique, regardless of to what end it is aimed.
You asked me what I personally thought, and I assumed that meant you wanted to know how I use language in practice. When I am off in trans spaces, everyone uses "woman" to mean one thing, and I'm trying to be honest and open about that. That's it. I am explicitly acknowledging that "gender is a feeling" is a bailey: it is not a defensible position. I am explicitly acknowledging that "women are people who have/want a vagina" is my motte; it's the position I can actually defend.
I believe in something I can't defend: I can't prove that I "feel like a woman" but it doesn't mean that I don't. It would be dishonest to hide the fact that I do feel like a woman. But it would also be a different sort of intellectually dishonest to act like that's a defensible motte that I can reasonably expect other people to respect. All you have is my word, and there's certainly at least a few bad actors out there who are happy to parrot the same words.
I'm not even sure how I could pull a motte-and-bailey when I've got them marked out for your convenience like that?
I think I've been pretty clear about what definitions I'm asking about in any given conversation thus far. If I do slip up, I'm happy to clarify.
(Unlike a lot of trans activists, I also think we can use a little common sense and assume "only women can get pregnant" obviously refers to people with uteruses, even if I disagree and think we should call people women once they've got a vagina. I don't want to get bogged down in stupid semantic games when it's absolutely obvious what you mean by that sentence. I do not think we have any disagreement over who has large gametes, who has a uterus, or who can get pregnant.)
Okay, thanks for clarifying, I see where you're coming from. I apologise if I came off as hard-headed or combative, that wasn't my intention and people tell me that's how I tend to come off when discussing all sorts of topics, not just politics.
I appreciate the response and I'm glad I could clear stuff up. I don't mind a bit of combative when people are still willing to listen and continue the dialogue in good faith like you :)
Likewise!
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
More options
Context Copy link