site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33194 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 point reiterated across the conversation is that there is strategic equivocation between the "gender identity" and "gender roles" definitions of gender used by trans-activists. (Both in what definitions is explicitly stated and what definitions are implicit in how they use the word.) I have no idea how you think that point is contradicted by them sometimes saying one of the two definitions being equivocated. What it does contradict is your claim that "Gender is not used to mean gender identity."

she is saying that gender identity is the determinant of what sexual organs doctors should give to patients who are transgender or who were given surgery as infants because they had both types of primary sexual characteristics.

No, the classification of which sex someone is by gender identity is regardless of having had surgery or any other traits besides gender identity.

It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female. Gender identity does and should control when there is a need to classify an individual as a particular sex.

Again, she seems to me to be clearly talking purely in the context of deciding whether or not to perform gender-reassignment surgery.

The point reiterated across the conversation is that there is strategic equivocation between the "gender identity" and "gender roles" definitions of gender used by trans-activists.

Not in the original post. The original post, IIRC at this point, claimed or implied that sex and gender mean the same thing. And see my previous post, in which I said:

Once again, the claim I am defending is not that someone "becomes male." It that they identify as male. A concomitant claim often is that society should treat those people the same as those born with penises (ie, of the male sex), but that does not necessarily follow. In other words, there are two claims: 1) sex and gender are different things; and 2) society should, in many instances, treat them as if they are the same. I am discussing only #1, which is true by the definition of "gender"

In other words, the original post seemed to say, not trans activists engage in strategic equivocation, but rather that their claims are wrong or even nonsensical, even when read in the most sympathetic way possible. And, as I read that post, that argument was based on a conflation of "gender" and "gender identity." (or perhaps it was "sex" and "gender'). Hence, I merely pointed out that the claims of trans-activlsts are not intrinsically wrong; they are intrinsically wrong only under the vernacular understanding of "gender," one which is not normally used in sociology, nor by the many pro-trans sources I have cited. Is it possible that you are correct that some trans activists sometimes use the term differently, as part of a rhetorical strategy? Sure. But, again, that is not the original claim that I took issue with.

So, basically, I think we are arguing about two different things.

Again, she seems to me to be clearly talking purely in the context of deciding whether or not to perform gender-reassignment surgery.

It is an expert declaration to a court regarding H.B. 2, the North Carolina "bathroom bill" which prohibited municipal governments from mandating that organizations segregate their bathrooms according to gender identity, and further required schools and government facilities segregate them according to physical sex. It is not about gender-reassignment surgery. It is about categorizing which sex someone is for the purpose of segregating bathroom usage by sex, and argues that according to medical science the only valid determinant of someone's sex is gender identity.

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