site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33222 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The whole idea of non-binary gender seems to me like it's a natural (and probably inevitable) result of the idea that gender is separate from sex. Occasional physical deformities aside, I imagine most people (though probably not all) would agree that we have only two sexes in mankind. So, if you take gender to be a euphemism for sex, then it naturally follows that there can only be two genders.

Decouple those concepts, though, and it's different. If gender is merely something to do with social norms and how you feel you fit into them, then it seems only natural that there can be more than two. There may be different combinations of social norms that one might group together in one package, and you as an individual may feel sometimes strongly drawn to one package, and sometimes to another.

Personally I think that the whole line of thought is nonsense. We have only two sexes, gender (as separate from sex) is not a thing, and so there's no "other" option for gender. But disagree though I do, I do at least think it's understandable how the non binary people are likely thinking about this topic.

I could understand the "I'm non-binary" but the whole "I'm non-binary trans femme" bit is where the confusion sets in. If you're non-binary, where does the trans bit come it? Is trans now meant to be sex not gender, despite all the protestations previously that sex and gender were two separate things? And anyway, how can you be both non-binary and one of the two binary femme/masc or female/male?

It does seem like attention seeking, more than anything else. If being cis het (white, male) is the worst identity in the world because Privilege, Systemic Racism, Oppressor, Colonizer, etc. then non-binary is an easy way to go "I'm not cis het! I'm one of the oppressed queer minority! Don't beat me up, please!" Most of the "I'm non-binary" that I've seen online identifying as such are pretty clearly female, the couple of male are also clearly identifiable as male. So yeah, I'm leaning towards 'fad" (if everyone in your social bubble is some flavour of queer, being the sole cis het is uncomfortable and makes you stand out as behind the times, some dull normie who might as well live in a suburb and vote Republican).

To answer your first question, the "trans" in "non-binary trans femme" is using "trans" as an umbrella term, with "non-binary" as a subset of that.

Personally I think that the whole line of thought is nonsense. We have only two sexes, gender (as separate from sex) is not a thing, and so there's no "other" option for gender. But disagree though I do, I do at least think it's understandable how the non binary people are likely thinking about this topic.

Agreed. As I've said before, I feel like the introduction of "gender" as something entirely different from "sex" is potentially insidious. It'd be like if I went around asking people to treat me as if I were 6'4". When people say "no, you're actually 5'10"", I reply "no, you're referring to my height. That's entirely different from my tallness. My height is 5'10", but my tallness is 6'4"".

I don't understand why you think the separation is nonsense. Social norms about the sexes do exist, and they are clearly separate from sex, since unlike sex, they differ from society to society and, within a given society, they change over time. So, we have given it a name. Moreover, there are always people who do not conform to current social norms (a male nurse in 1950? Crazy!)

i thinkI'd say a couple things to that. Gender roles may be real, but they can be somewhat arbitrary, and tend to be based on sex anyhow. But I think the very arbitraryness of gender roles in different places and times makes me utterly confused about why one's gender identity should matter to me at all, more than, going with the genre comparison, whether you like country music or rock or blues. it's something to know about you, I guess, but there's no need to give it any more attention than that.

On the other hand, sex matters a lot. It matters biologically, medically, it has for most of history mattered legally as well. Rights have historically been granted or denied on the basis of sex. Similarly, from the concept of sex derives the concept of sexual orientation. Most people's orientation is towards the opposite sex, but there are some people whose sexual orientation is towards those of the same sex or towards both sexes. Genderists will thus say that a lesbian is someone who is attracted to people who "identify as female." Meanwhile, lesbians say no, they are attracted to people of the female sex only, and are not attracted to men no matter how men self-identify. And then they get accused of being transphobic by people who want to erase the concept of sex and replace it with this concept of gender.

But I think the very arbitraryness of gender roles in different places and times makes me utterly confused about why one's gender identity should matter to me at all, more than, going with the genre comparison, whether you like country music or rock or blues. it's something to know about you, I guess, but there's no need to give it any more attention than that.

I can't remember who, but someone raised an imo very effective argument against this elevation of gender identity by pointing out that some of the absurd claims made (i.e. you need some medical doctor or unassailable subjective insight to determine who a woman is) lead to a situation where you theoretically can't define women in such a way that it captures American, Saudi and Japanese women at the same time.

Except that nobody - even the most "woke" - acts like this is the case.

Pretty sure there were male "nurses" (caregivers to sick people) all throughout history. There are lots of tasks involved that need physical strength, carrying and lifting patients, restraining aggressive ones, etc.

That is why I referred specifically to 1950, and implicitly to the

USA, when the gender norms deemed nursing to be women's work, and why I said that gender norms often change over time.

1950s USA is this magical reference point for some reason, that justifies introducing a whole new concept called "gender". Actually that's not even surprising, I just wrote a comment on how we are stuck in the 60s on repeat, so yeah I guess comparing ourselves to one decade ago make sense.

So, had I said 1940, instead, when AKAIK the norms were the same, you would agree that gender norms can change? I am really not sure what your position on that is, and of course, that is my entire point. You are picking on the nit that is my admittedly somewhat snarky example, but are not addressing the underlying point.

Just because men and women play different roles, wear different clothes etc at different historical times and technological circumstances doesn't somehow negate that they are men and women. We don't need a new concept (gender) to be able to say that women had lives and jobs like this before but like that after.

Also if gender is merely the difference between the roles in different cultures or times, are transgender people adopting some roles from a different era than today? I thought they transition from male to female etc. and not from 21st century to, I don't know, 8th century.

Come on. I didn’t say that they aren't men and women. I said that norms have changed. My entire point has been that sex and gender mean different things, so how can you believe that I said that?

I don't get the relevance of the transgender question. What transgender people do or feel is not really relevant to what the term "gender" means, nor with whether gender norms are constant or instead change over time and space.

"Gender roles have varied across time and culture" is the motte, "who is male or female has so far been entirely socially constructed to uphold an oppressive patriarchy, but from now on it should actually be decided by everyone themselves based on their inner feelings and this decision is unquestionable" is the bailey.

More comments

Here's an old comment of mine from the old Reddit site:

https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/n8xict/comment/gxmeur8/

People say that gender is a social construct, but I think there is a more traditionally and standard-use word for what is being called "gender" these days ("expression as a person's behavior, mannerisms, interests, and appearance that are associated with gender in a particular cultural context"). Prior to 2010, I think that definition would not be called "gender" but rather "gender roles". I think it would be much less controversial if people said "gender roles are socially constructed" as opposed to "gender is socially constructed. After all, women in India, China, or wherever else do not act like women in the US, Canada, etc, so at least part of gender roles is socially constructed, if not all.

I sort of feel that this playing fast-and-loose with the terms "gender" and "gender-roles" has had implications for the development of the transgender movement. If people say that gender-roles are socially constructed, no biggie, no complaints from almost anyone. If people say that gender is socially-constructed, that would mean that being a man or woman itself is socially constructed; most people don't believe that to be true. After all, a woman in India may dress differently than a woman in the US, but everyone still agrees that they're both women. We don't believe that India-woman is a different gender from US-woman. I feel like the hot-swapping of these terms has been put to questionable and potentially insidious use.

I still have seen no convincing explanation of why people use the term gender these days to describe what used to be called gender roles.

We attach social roles to many attributes of people. For example, there are social roles for old people and young people that can differ between cultures. So do we need a new word for "age" that describes the social role attached to one's age?

I kinda feel like "adulting" looks suspiciously like the genesis of such terminology. And if I'm being pedantic, my high school health textbook in 2002 divided age into things like chronological age and social age, but those feel more like "biological sex" and "gender roles" rather than "sex" Vs "gender", so IDK.

What's wrong with "social expectations" and "social roles"?

Sure, but usually context makes it clear. For example we don't need a fancy academic term that distinguishes the social role of a police officer from the occupation of police a police officer, so I don't see why we need a separate term for the social role of men and women.

If we had an ages-long debate about the social role of police officers, it would be rather useful to have a specific word for that.

I dunno, there are languages that have no equivalent of the word "gender" and seem to be having that conversation just fine.

But on the other hand, it is rather silly to argue against having specific and precise terms.

See, there's the rub. Academia loves jargon because they think it makes their field more serious, but jargon doesn't necessarily mean a word i specific or precise. When you point that out they love to blame Twitter or Tumbler activists, but that's incorrect, a lot of vagueness of different terms comes from academia itself. Just check the usage of the word "neoliberal" if you don't believe me.

If a word is creating more confusion than clarity, I think it's perfectly fine to suggest dropping it's usage.

That would not distinguish social norms around sex from those around everything else.

So? We don't come up with a fancy term for every other type of social norm or role.

I am not sure how fancy "gender" is in comparison to the obvious alternative, "gender norms." I really don't understand what the objection is. People who study this stuff use a particular term. So what? Why does that matter?

This is like left wingers who get all bent out of shape about corporate personhood, and as a result write [pointless, irrelevant articles]{https://theprogressivecynic.com/2013/06/23/if-corporations-are-people-they-are-sociopaths/) because they don't understand that the term "person" has a specific legal meaning which .

I am not sure how fancy "gender" is in comparison to the obvious alternative, "gender norms." I really don't understand what the objection is. People who study this stuff use a particular term. So what? Why does that matter?

It matters a great deal because they are coopting a preexitsing term with preexisting definitions and using it to achieve their preferred outcome. The words are charged with previous connotations, that are inseparable in most people's minds, and as such can have sway on the public. This is, like, the core argument of Scott's brilliant essay Social Justice and Words Words Words which largely popularized the term "Motte and Bailey" from which this forum itself derives its name.

The paper was critiquing post-modernism, an area I don’t know enough about to determine whether or not their critique was fair. It complained that post-modernists sometimes say things like “reality is socially constructed”. There’s an uncontroversial meaning here – we don’t experience the world directly, but through the categories and prejudices implicit to our society. For example, I might view a certain shade of bluish-green as blue, and someone raised in a different culture might view it as green. Okay. Then post-modernists go on to say that if someone in a different culture thinks that the sun is light glinting off the horns of the Sky Ox, that’s just as real as our own culture’s theory that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas a great big nuclear furnace. If you challenge them, they’ll say that you’re denying reality is socially constructed, which means you’re clearly very naive and think you have perfect objectivity and the senses perceive reality directly.

The writers of the paper compare this to a form of medieval castle, where there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along.

By this metaphor, statements like “God is an extremely powerful supernatural being who punishes my enemies” or “The Sky Ox theory and the nuclear furnace theory are equally legitimate” or “Men should not be allowed to participate in discussions about gender” are the bailey – not defensible at all, but if you can manage to hold them you’ve got it made.

Statements like “God is just the order and love in the universe” and “No one perceives reality perfectly directly” and “Men should not interject into safe spaces for women” are the motte – extremely defensible, but useless.

As long as nobody’s challenging you, you spend time in the bailey reaping the rewards of occupying such useful territory. As soon as someone challenges you, you retreat to the impregnable motte and glare at them until they get annoyed and go away. Then you go back to the bailey.

Huh? It was RococoBasilica and you claiming we need the term to talk about social roles, how is saying "not really" getting bent out of shape? If anything, isn't it people who try to get others fired for "misgendering" who are getting bent out of shape?

I was responding to a very specific question, which was why not use the generic term "social norms." My answer was that there are many types of social norms, and the term refers to a specific one. Not sure what that has to do with misgendering. I can believe that 1) gender norms exist; 2) therefore, we need a term to distinguish them from other classes of norms; 3) the term "gender" is reasonable term to use to refer to those norms, even if it is not the one I would have chosen; and 4) left discourse around misgendering is submoronic

Unfortunately re 4 I think you are in a minority on the Anglosphere left. I wish it was otherwise!

My answer was that there are many types of social norms, and the term refers to a specific one

And my answer to that is that doesn't seem to bother us when talking about any other type of social norm, so why should it bother us when talking about social norms imposed on men and women? How is that "getting bent out of shape"?

Not sure what that has to do with misgendering.

I think the term "gender", rather than serving a clarifying role, conflates a whole bunch of things. For example "gender" is also supposed to be some sort of internal feeling, and "misgendering" is some sort of transgression related to that internal feeling. Maybe you don't think that's how the term should be used, but it is.

  1. therefore, we need a term to distinguish them from other classes of norms;

Why? We don't really have so many words for those other classes, why do we need one here?

More comments

Not OP but I would call them "gender roles".

Call them "sex roles" if you prefer, it's all the same to me.

Gender doesn't refer to nothing. It a synonym for sex. We could say sex roles, but that sounds too much like it's referring to something related to the act of sex.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats