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 -
Well said.
I think there’s room for a stable equilibrium, and it probably involves distinguishing sex from gender. I don’t know if that’s enough to do right by people who experience the world so differently from me. But it would be better than the strategic ambiguity of the current discourse.
Except that's been used as a trojan horse for eliminating biological sex entirely (or rather pretending it doesn't exist). See bathroom access arguments (bathrooms are sex segregated) or the use of phrases like "assigned male at birth."
More options
Context Copy link
What benefit is derived from distinguishing sex from gender?
Given that I believe they’re two separate clusters of traits? Accuracy.
Most of today’s trans culture warring involves a motte and bailey between the two. It’s the Trojan horse @ChickenOverlord mentioned. You want to be polite and accommodating and not rock the boat, and next thing you know, there’s a spate of pregnancies in the women’s prison.
I think a lot of that goes away if people admit that, hey, some of these traits don’t go away if you ask nicely. Make it clear when a decision (prisons, bathrooms, story hour) is based on the gametes and the BRUTE STRENGTH. That’s the best way to avoid empowering people who do want to ignore biology.
Also, I know it’s wishful thinking, but I want off the euphemism treadmill. “Assigned male at birth” is a mouthful.
We already have words for masculine women (butch, tomboy...) and feminine men (there's a lot!) though -- unless you want to argue (as somebody downthread seems to be) that "being a machinist" makes a woman a man, why would you want to invent/bend this concept of 'gender' into some new categories?
It's possible I'm not understanding you here though -- do you mean literal trans people? In that case we also have a word for them: trans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this was the equilibrium 10-25 years ago when I was growing up/young adult, and it's been proven to be unstable. I think the only stable equilibrium at this point would be far future scifi where literal sex change is possible.
I have a similar impression.
The bleeding edge of teenage identity politics was calling people gay. A statement about gender roles, no doubt, but not sex. Er. You know what I mean.
What do you think happened? Was there some technological development in medicine or information? Do we blame tumblr?
I have no great overarching theory, but a couple of thoughts. One is that, at least since the 90s, and I'm guessing earlier, the idea that "separate is not equal" was taught as dogma to kids due to the history of the US, i.e. Plessy vs Ferguson & Brown vs Board of Education. We took that to heart. That meant that any difference at all in how people were treated - i.e. being "separate" - was, definitionally, unequal. So treating transwomen as literally indistinguishable from women in every single way, i.e. in their sex and not just in their "gender identity," became a moral prerogative.
Another is the success of the gay rights/gay marriage movement on the idea that it was an innate "born this way" thing. I remember back in high school, a friend of mine dated a girl who came out as gay after they broke up; when I talked about how he dated her back when she was straight, my friend "corrected" me by telling me that she was already gay when she dated him, she just didn't know it yet (I bought it at the time, but now I wonder how I could have taken this on faith when it's obvious that such a definitive statement about how sexual orientation works would require absolute mountains of empirical evidence to prove - I was very good at coming up with epicycles for this kind of stuff, I think). The movement to normalize trans people took the same tactic, hence the claim that, say, Bruce Jenner was a woman when "she" won the men's decathlon gold medal or Ellen Page was a man when "he" was nominated for best actress for Juno. This reinforced the idea that someone's "transness" is not tied to anything in physical reality but rather entirely up to the individual's personal judgment, which meant that autogynephiles were encouraged to and celebrated for transitioning, and such people absolutely want access to female-only spaces, and so discriminating against them on the basis that their sex was male despite their gender being otherwise became verboten.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link