site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   30019 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trans issues were never going to be a permanent part of the Dem ideological setup because it’s precisely the children of PMC urban Democrats (ie NYT readers, DNC and associated think tank / lobbyist staffers etc) who are at increasing risk of coming out as trans. Nice upper middle class Democrats often don’t like it when their own kids want to transition and the result is something inherently unstable. The same thing is happening to center-left parties across the West. Stuff that primarily affects poor people like crime is one thing. This is another.

I’ve made this point before- even socially liberal reds are at a fairly low risk from gender lunacy. It’s the blue tribe that loses their children to it, and eventually, blue tribe parents winning over to supporting republicans will cause a change in political support.

eventually, blue tribe parents winning over to supporting republicans will cause a change in political support.

Meet Mr. Eventually.

Trans issues were never going to be a permanent part of the Dem ideological setup

If it was so obvious, howcome you never said anything about it? The only thing I remember from you was you saying how the issue was played out by the Bush era.

because it’s precisely the children of PMC urban Democrats (ie NYT readers, DNC and associated think tank / lobbyist staffers etc) who are at increasing risk of coming out as trans

Didn't stop the from still being pro-gay. If there was nothing wrong with transition, the concept of "at risk" would make no sense.

Because homosexuality has always existed and it’s easy for blues to believe that their kid can be gay when they had a transparent “committed bachelor” uncle or a spinster great aunt who lived with her “best friend” or whatever (both t happened in my own family). Their daughter going on hormones, chopping off her breasts, growing a beard and having a rudimentary penis fashioned out of skin from her forearm, however, is a new development.

So how was the conversation "played out" if progressive PMCs were yet to realize that?

Trans issues were never going to be a permanent part of the Dem ideological setup because it’s precisely the children of PMC urban Democrats (ie NYT readers, DNC and associated think tank / lobbyist staffers etc) who are at increasing risk of coming out as trans.

I'd argue that this is incorrect because, as far as I can tell based on my ideological prejudices (yeah), the children most likely to want to transition are the children, especially male children, of left-leaning single mothers (mostly stressed-out and miserable ones), and single motherhood is rather rare among the demographic you described.

Anyway, do you think this is something they're aware of themselves? If yes, when did that realization set in? There has already been ample time for that. The trans culture war has started more than a decade ago.

Yeah I see it more happening to girls in unstable home environments, where the kid is also socially unpopular and spends a lot of time on social media especially tik tok

Also, single mothers are probably rather susceptible to liberal trans propaganda on average.

I've seen some really interesting commentary that it seems to have displaced anorexia, and in many cases the resulting recommended treatment looks a lot like affirming anorexia. Testosterone is really effective at reducing those feminine features (adipose tissues in all the right places) that anorexics often obsess over reducing or eliminating. Both seem in practice to be strongly correlated with abuse survivors.

I'm not going to say that's the whole story, but the anecdote from a trans-questioning feminist recovering from an eating disorder I remember seemed to justify at least some concern.

as far as I can tell based on my ideological prejudices (yeah), the children most likely to want to transition are the children, especially male children, of left-leaning single mothers

Your ideological prejudices are wrong, the increase in trans youth has been concentrated mostly in females:

Adolescents assigned female at birth initiate transgender care 2.5 to 7.1 times more frequently than those assigned male at birth

(...)

In October, researchers at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine published a paper showing a 389% increase in gender-affirming chest surgeries performed nationally from 2016 to 2019 on patients under age 18. The total of 1,130 procedures during the period, nearly all of them for chest masculinization, represents a weighted estimate based on records from more than 2,000 U.S. medical facilities.

(...)

The predominance of patients assigned female at birth is a reversal from the past. For years, when very few minors sought gender care, those assigned male at birth accounted for the majority. But about 15 years ago, that began to change as care became more accessible and the overall number of patients started climbing, according to studies and interviews with gender-care specialists.

For example, at Amsterdam University Medical Center’s gender clinic, a pioneer in adolescent gender care, the proportions flipped. From 1989 to 2005, 59% of its adolescent patients were assigned male at birth, the Dutch clinic reported in a 2015 study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. Since 2016, about 75% of the clinic’s patients have been youths who were assigned female at birth.

Fair enough. The part about sons is wrong then. But the rest of my argument stands, I think.

Any information on whether these females are disproportionately children of divorce?

Obligatory observation that this wouldn't imply causation.

Of course not.

Yeah, I'm operating on no sleep atm and think I was stating that for myself as much as anyone else.

I think that your comment would work equally well if one replaced 'trans' with 'gay', and I don't see the Dems rolling back gay rights so that the urbanites have more grandkids or something.

Personally, I think that we should treat gender dysphoria as a medical condition and leave the treatment options (from getting over it to full transition) up to the medical establishment. Kids should learn that the condition exists, just like other psychiatric conditions such as depression, but we should not bestow special status on trans kids. No 'she is so courageous for coming out', more 'I am sorry that she is suffering from GD'.

The woke victimhood totem pole is not helping here. Going from straight cis-male to lesbian trans-female turns you from the evil oppressor to the blameless victim.

Personally, I think that we should treat gender dysphoria as a medical condition and leave the treatment options (from getting over it to full transition) up to the medical establishment. Kids should learn that the condition exists, just like other psychiatric conditions such as depression, but we should not bestow special status on trans kids. No 'she is so courageous for coming out', more 'I am sorry that she is suffering from GD'.

Doesnt work. Politics + Medicine = Politics. The medical establishment has demonstrated it cannot be trusted on politically fraught issues multiple times in the last decade.

For reasons I don't understand, sexuality seems far less susceptible to social contagion than gender identity. Sure, the proportion of Gen Zs identifying as "bisexual" or "queer" has skyrocketed, but this hasn't translated into elevated levels of same-sex sexual activity in that generation. If anything the opposite is true and Gen Z are the most sexless generation probably ever. Hence, Dem staffers and activists can promote homosexuality to their heart's content without fear of the leopards biting their face.

And even beyond that, I genuinely believe that the median Democrat would be far more chill with having a gay son or lesbian daughter than a thot daughter trans child.

For reasons I don't understand, sexuality seems far less susceptible to social contagion than gender identity. Sure, the proportion of Gen Zs identifying as "bisexual" or "queer" has skyrocketed, but hasn't translated into elevated levels of same-sex sexual activity in that generation.

I can't do the math now, but you could probably say the same about "gender identity". It only appears otherwise because we're comparing different things.

"Gender identity" is to "medical transition" what "identifying as 'queer" is to actual homosexuality.

Plenty of people can get a buzz cut or change names without actually going through with the procedure. Meanwhile, unlike gay sex, even a small amount of people in absolute terms getting "medical treatments" can set off alarm bells in sensible organizations if the rise is high in percent terms. Which is what happened in Europe.

I know what you mean, but there's two different things going on here.

Over the last twenty years, the proportion of young people identifying as something other than heterosexual has shot up. But the proportion of young people actually engaging in same-sex sexual activity has plummeted (as part of a secular trend towards sexlessness which is also visible in trends in opposite-sex sexual behaviour in that generation). This is a negative correlation (and not causally linked: the increase in sexlessness is largely caused by technology, social atomisation, smaller family sizes and so on; the increase in LGB identification is driven by fashion and social contagion).

Over the last twenty years, the proportion of young people identifying as transgender (or related terms like non-binary) has shot up. The proportion of young people pursuing medical transition has also increased dramatically. Not at the same rate, of course: only a minority of people identifying as trans will even take hormones, never mind undergo surgery. But the two trends are positively correlated.

Part of the issue is that it happens so young that it raises serious consent problems. I saw a video of a mom taking her crying 9 year old son to get a puberty blocking implant from Dr. Olson-Kennedy. If the boy were going to have a gay tryst at 9 years old, while his mom got him ready for the date, that would set off every alarm bell.

And even beyond that, I genuinely believe that the median Democrat would be far more chill with having a gay son or lesbian daughter than a thot daughter trans child.

I've got an infant daughter right now and I'd much much prefer that she came out as a lesbian than transitioned. One's a lifetime of medical procedures and massively heightened suicide rate, plus has far more issues around reversability if it turns out to just be a phase.

I guess a young woman who identifies as queer or bisexual doesn't have to actually do anything. She doesn't even have to dress any differently. All she does is collect a cool new identity label that her peers will praise her for. Combine that with the fact that most women are a little bisexual anyway (but usually don't act on it) and I can see why these labels are popular. For a young man, it's similarly easy to pick up one of the many bespoke identity labels and not actually change anything about his behaviour or even dress.

By contrast, actually acting on a minority sexuality actually requires them to, you know, act. For straight men (of whom I think most are instinctively repulsed by the idea of sex with a man) this isn't going to happen. And for bi-curious women, this requires her to either take the initiative (which women hate) or wait on a lesbian to come and try to convert her (many such cases, but I doubt there are enough lesbians to make a difference in the stats).

Modern people don't seem to care much about the grandkids question, and even that has modern solutions for gays.

But the difference between your son being gay or trans is about on par between being a juggalo and having cancer. Only one of these comes with a lifelong medical issue and major drop in life expectancy and outcomes.

Being gay, maybe, but for being trans? cross sex hormones have some been devastating effects on health. The female body was never designed for such high level of steroid testosterone abuse. Heart attacks in mid life is going to be a huge issue amongst the trans community in a decade or so

That's my point, being gay is not exactly great for you, but it's nowhere near the same ballpark of life shattering as being trans.

Well... there is a significant drop in life expectancy associated with being gay vs. straight, although it's narrowing year-on-year since the nightmare of the AIDS epidemic.

I don't think the native blue tribers I have met in the US would actually be bothered by their kids being gay; to the extent this sentiment still existed it was confined to first-generation immigrants. Any objection to their own kids going trans is probably not about not getting grandkids either, considering that this is a culture that increasingly isn't even convinced to have kids of their own. Rather, the crux is that people are not actually convinced that transitioning is predetermined and makes their kids happy, despite outwards pressure to subscribe to this view. Few people have nagging doubts that gays are at least as happy as straights.

I don't think that is true, as much as I wish it was.

From what I see, elite democrats and their followers often support policies that are directly detrimental to them and their children. White PMC urban Democrats support racial ideologies and policies that give their white children disadvantages, both psychological and scholastic. Why would this be any different?

Progressivism is not a business. It has religious characteristics. True believers don't follow rational self interest. The more ardent believers will happily make choices that are bad for them and their children, because they see those choices as holy. I know people from the urban PMC class who would happily let the mob burn down their house and apologize for owning property while it happened.

But you could be right. The PMC urban democrats I am exposed to may not be representative of the group in general.

White PMC urban Democrats support racial ideologies and policies that give their white children disadvantages, both psychological and scholastic.

In practice these policies are directed against the children of republicans.

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