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 -
I do not think that describing trans women as 'men with a cross dressing fetish' is very close to reality.
There is a small fraction of people who are genuinely very uncomfortable with their biological gender. They sometimes take hormones, get surgery and go through byzantine legal processes to change their legal gender. They kill themselves at elevated rates when forced to conform to their biological gender. This is not just some kink.
Different cultures have dealt differently with non-conformists of all sorts. Killing them at the earliest opportunity is certainly a popular choice.
Modern liberal democracies generally frown on that and try to do better than just applying whatever solution would suit the majority of people. We don't accept "most straight men would prefer if they knew for certain that the man peeing next to them was not sexually attracted to them" as an excuse to kill all the gays and bisexuals, or even kick them out of the military.
The bathroom issue is simply an issue of trade-offs. Having to use a gendered bathroom which belongs to a gender one does not identify as clearly can be humiliating. Imagine getting told that you are too small or weak to qualify for the men's bathroom, or that you are too large, ugly or flat-chested to qualify for the women's bathroom.
On the other hand, there is both a perception of danger if people who are not cis-women are allowed in women's bathroom as well as possibly some actual danger.
I think that the actual danger is over-rated. With the possible exception of Hogwarts, gender restrictions in bathrooms are not strictly enforced. Someone who is entering a women's bathroom to commit rape is unlikely to care that he will also break some trivial statute about not going to the women's bathroom. Nor would punishing someone who disregards the gender sign on a bathroom (for example, to avoid waiting time) with a lengthy prison sentence be proportionate.
There will probably be some sick fucks who like to jerk off in the women's bathroom who can use the excuse 'but you see, I actually identify as a woman' if they are seen entering or exiting, but this is a lesser concern.
At the end of the day, it is a numbers game. If half of the rapes are committed by men in women's bathrooms who had previously invoked their gender identity as an excuse to be there, then I would agree that this was a huge fucking problem and we should restrict access to improve women's safety.
As things stand, I don't think it is a huge practical issue. At the risk of sounding like some woke, I think most women I know would very much prefer having to share their bathrooms with trans women to losing access to abortions.
A decade ago, Scott argued for drawing a more complex gender boundary than 'has Y-chromosome' as a cheap and easy way to improve outcomes for a lot of people. I think that his article is still spot on.
I think that the bathroom safety argument frequently is used by anti-trans people not because preventing rapes is their first and foremost concern, but because it is one of the few issues with trans rights that the average person will care about.
But the point habitually made by gender-critical feminists is that, once these policies are in place, a bad actor doesn't even need to invoke the concept of gender identity as an excuse to enter the ladies' room. Once you've established a precedent that certain male people are allowed to use the ladies' room, and you're not allowed to kick up a stink about it even if they have fully intact male genitalia (because not all trans women want to undergo bottom surgery - indeed, the overwhelming majority haven't) or if they're making zero effort to pass (because "trans women don't owe you femininity"), it is inevitable that bad actors (many of whom don't even consider themselves trans) will exploit this ostensibly well-meaning policy for their own ends.
A policy of allowing certain male people to enter the ladies' room presents obvious risks for female safeguarding even if literally 100% of people who call themselves trans women are perfectly pure angels who would never hurt a fly. (It need hardly be said that many are not.)
More options
Context Copy link
I addressed this here.
More options
Context Copy link
I see this asserted all the time, but would love to see some hard data backing it up. I have seen the results of one study from Sweden which found that trans people who underwent sex reassignment surgery had higher suicide rates than trans people who didn't.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it's an issue of just humiliation. A trans woman who is on estrogen for a substantial amount of time and has developed breasts or had bottom surgery is likely to be at risk of sexual assault if she is forced to use a men's bathroom or a men's locker room. There's also the risk of regular non-sexual assault by transphobic men against someone who has had the hormone profile of a cis woman for years and has the accompanying muscle mass. I agree that bathroom assault risk is pretty low for each individual use, but a trans woman in a space where 99% of the other people are cis men has two orders of magnitude more encounters with potential assailants than a cis woman in a woman's room where 1% of the users are a trans women.
I have a trans friend, she passes pretty well now but a thing I witnessed happen a couple times when we were hanging out in bars earlier in her transition was men hitting on her without realizing she was trans, realizing she was trans as the encounter went on, and getting aggressive once they figured that out. I would fear deeply for her safety if that encounter was playing out in private in a men's room and not in a crowded bar where she had friends around. To say she's forced to use men's restrooms is to force her to take on a substantial risk of assault (sexual or otherwise) to exist in public, and frankly for some people I think that's the point, to exclude trans people from public life.
I mean, the solution for this poor unfortunate is to work through whatever issues drive interest in transgenderism rather than transitioning. Make your bed and now lie it, I suppose- using the men’s locker room is a risk for some biologically male transgenders, but society oughtn’t to be in the business of protecting individuals from the consequences of their own bad decisions at the expense of people who haven’t made such bad decisions.
This proves too much¹; your argument could be adapted to defend either cancel culture or Jim Crow laws!
or
Your argument also begs the question² of whether transitioning is a bad decision; furthermore, even if it were, if the 'consequences of a bad decision' include extralegal violence, protecting people from it is one of the most fundamental functions of society, and protects you from somebody else deciding that some aspect of your life-style is a 'bad decision' that they are entitled to assault people over. (You still Kant dismiss univeralisability.)
¹Proving too much: an argument which, if valid, would also prove something known to be false; elaborated here.
²In its older sense of 'a proof of P that assumes P'.
This question, on a fundamental level, resolves to postulates, and postulates are unfalsifiable so this turns into idiotic definitional debates.
Transgenders larping as women should learn self-defense, I guess. Society has to pick and choose whose safety to prioritize in this instance and it should come down hard on the side that's doing what its supposed to do.
Prioritise the safety of whoever is in more danger.
And where will you stand when the leopards eat your face? When someone bigger and stronger than you decides that something about your life, that contravenes no legal code in the jurisdiction, is 'not doing what you are supposed to do', and that he is entitled to suppress it by force?
Consider Thomas More:
A transwoman, in existing publicly while appearing as the gender opposite that associated with her genitals at birth, has broken no law of Man (at least in North America or Western Europe); do not cut down Man's laws against assault, lest you call up that which you cannot put down.
This is just slave morality.
The strongest argument for it, actually. If the only proposition made by Sklavenmoral were that 'the weak ought to be protected from the strong', and the only proposition made by Herrenmoral were that 'the strong ought to be able to do to the weak whatever they feel like', the former would be called 'morality' and the latter by the sort of words discussed in the 'Taboo vocabulary' category on Language Log.
The strongest argument in the other direction, on the other hand, is their respective attitudes towards those who Accomplish things, such as ending the almost-nine-year gap during which America Could Not Into Space.
(cf. Matt Yglesias Considered As The Nietzschean Superman, Astral Codex Ten, July 2024).
More options
Context Copy link
Calling it "just slave morality" is not enough to be able to dismiss the argument out of hand.
I feel like invoking the name of a well known characterization of this position from one of the most influential philosophers of all time, one that explicitly explains why it's vacuous, self serving, and ultimately ill fated for both its advocates and targets; if feel like that's enough to dismiss the argument actually.
Which is to say. Self serving moralism of this kind has never and will never be an argument. And in as much as it is, it can be easily refuted by opposing to it the no less vacuous statement that the weak should fear the strong.
Now when can we move past these childish power games and attempt to integrate people in a mutually beneficial compact?
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
Donno man, there are a million 'bad decisions' a guy can make in a bar that will 100% get him beat up -- wearing a dress probably isn't even top 50.
And yet somehow society, while it will sometimes intervene if the aggressor is too hard to ignore -- mostly treats barfights over dumb shit as plus-or-minus consentual, and the response trends in the direction of 'even less than if you report your bike stolen'.
That seems incompatible with 'fundamental function of society' -- maybe you meant to say 'protecting women from extralegal violence?'
Yes, I am aware that there are many ways in which our society falls short of perfection.
If Adam and Bob get into a bar fight, with Adam being the first to escalate to physical attack, then Adam not being charged with assault does not mean that Bob was not wronged, any more than a lack of response to Charles stealing David's bicycle means that the bicycle in question was Charles' property all along.
(Although I could see the case for dismissing charges against Adam if Bob had referred to Adam's ethnic group as 'cockroaches', or called Adam's disabled relative a 'useless eater' or a 'life unworthy of living', or accused Adam of some grave act of moral turpitude such as sexual assault against an infant; but anything short of that....)
...which includes any instance in which the aggressor is substantially stronger, or arranges to have a half-dozen friends when the victim is alone. (If it is two people of approximately equal strength inflicting approximately equal damage on each other, one could make the case for limiting the societal response to a sternly-worded "Don't. Do. It. Again.".)
No, when I said 'people' I meant 'human beings.' The principle¹ that Alex should not be obligated to follow the demands of Bob the Random Nobody merely because Bob happens to be stronger than Alex does not depend on Alex's gender.
¹A principle originally dating back to at least the Bronze Age, even if inconsistently applied.
-- Code of Hammurabi.
So it's all who/whom after all. If Bob does something you find offensive, Adam is excused for hitting him.
No, I was merely acknowledging the circumstances in which the argument for an absolute never-respond-to-words-with-violence-never-ever-never-forever policy is at its weakest. (They are also circumstances in which it would be reasonable for Adam to fear that Bob, if not deterred, might escalate to violence against Adam or his relatives. Prior to the genocide in Rwanda, certain Hutu radio broadcasters regularly referred to Tutsi as 'cockroaches' (inyenzi); 'Useless eaters' (Nutzlose Fresser) and 'Life unworthy of life' (Lebensunwertes Leben) were terms used to refer to disabled people by the Nazis prior to murdering them in 'Aktion T4'.)
If Bob said to Adam "Your mum threw herself at me and ten of my friends last night.", or "You can't $OCCUPATION worth beans, they just promote you because you're golf buddies with half the C-Suite and have pictures of the other half in flagrante.", or "It looks like you have a dead rodent glued to your scalp.", Adam would be justified in being upset, but would not be justified in escalating to assault.
"Acknowledging" is the wrong word. You were advocating for or choosing those circumstances based on your own principles of what is most offensive. These do not turn out to be universal. For instance, insulting someone's mother's the way you mentioned is often considered sufficient provocation, to the point where you'd only expect Bob to do it if he WANTED a physical fight.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure doesn't -- first-hand observation here. I'm talking about 'kicking a guy in the head just a cop happens to round the corner' or something -- I've seen both of your examples happen IRL (first one way more than once) and if anything there's even less sympathy for the 'victim' who did something (non-violent) that everyone knew would spiral into a fight with somebody way way bigger and tougher than him.
You moron. Why would you do that?
is the approximate response of everyone from bouncers to cops.
That's not what we're talking about here though -- we're talking about Alex doing something dumb, which he knows will insult or otherwise rouse Bob's personal ire. And doing so in a masculine environment.
This has consequences -- every man knows it, whether or not he will admit it and/or try to hide behind other dudes with guns.
(interesting principle though -- does it also apply to the actions of crybullies who are much weaker than their victims, and yet still issue demands expecting compliance?)
I doubt it, actually -- men fight each other over slights real and imaginary, whether you like it or not -- it dates well before and after the Bronze Age, and up until very recently if they punished everyone guilty of that there'd be nobody left to bring the grain in and whatnot.
And then the poltergeist shows up and plates start flying out of the cabinet!
Fights start when someone chooses to attack someone who has not attacked them. Society has an interest in getting them to make better choices.
And it is every bit as insensitive as asking a woman who has survived a sexual assault 'why she was dressed that way'.
Which, if taken as licence for Bob to assault Alex, allows Bob to impose demands on Alex by becoming personally irate if his demands are not followed.
Which is why 'masculine environments' are increasingly frowned upon by many of the institutions of society.
Yes. We have a system for establishing a policy of "Do not do $THING or There Will Be Consequences." The Legislative Branch passes a law against $THING; the Executive Branch takes necessary action if someone does $THING anyway; the Judicial Branch makes sure that $THING isn't something one has a right to do (such as 'voting while black' or 'printing a column questioning Professor What's-Xir-Face of the Department of Oppressed People Studies's opinion on the best way to oppose racism').
If the government votes that $THING should remain legal, or the courts find that $THING is a civil right, it is not generally appropriate to turn around attempt to impose Consequences for $THING on one's own initiative, especially if $THING, to quote Jefferson, "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", because that way lies madness.
People have spent thousands of years moving us up the entropy-slope, from a world in which the strong can do whatever they feel like and expect the weak to cater to their whims, towards a world where The Rules Are The Same For Everyone; they do not appreciate attempts to shove us back down into the abyss.
--Jon Stewart
Which is why we have laws against it. Seldom do people make laws against things that nobody does anyway.
In which case one approaches the problem by degrees -- prosecute the man who becomes violent over a tiny slight before the man responding to a more serious insult; prosecute the man who attacks someone smaller than himself before the man who picks on someone his own size, &c.
As the more egregious incidents decrease in frequency, one can establish stronger standards, and move the Overton Window in the direction of "use your words, not your fists.", or in some cases (things which don't affect anyone else) towards Tim Walz' Golden Rule.
Laws which in practice aren't really enforced when a man is perceived to have gotten himself in over his head -- that's the point.
Where $THING <> "force other people to pretend that you've changed your gender" I guess -- y'know, the topic of this thread? Then it's the opposite, right?
No, people have spent about 20 years convincing people like you that resort to violence is not a part of the masculine story -- to the extent that anything's actually changed if you step outside of your coddled environment, it's been at the earliest since after I went to high school.
Who's this 'one'? Nobody does that.
What does Tim Walz being a huge hypocrite have to do with anything?
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
More options
Context Copy link
They also kill themselves at elevated rates after transition.
Like, ‘it’s entirely a kink’ is legitimately a bad argument, but it doesn’t mean transgenderism is valid. We can just… not accommodate crazy delusional people.
Yes, but that raises Overton window concerns among the people first in line to accommodate this brand of crazy. If we stopped accommodating obviously crazy delusional people then it becomes more rhetorically difficult for the less-obviously crazy but still delusional people to maintain those delusions.
As far as which delusions they are... well, the modal champion of trans rights is an unmarried college-educated white woman in a education or managerial career. Surely that demographic has no delusions surrounding gender, and even if they did, surely it wouldn't threaten their socioeconomic standing if we started reconsidering our accommodation of those delusions?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've been arguing for something similar elsewhere in the thread so it's only fair that I push back gently on this too.
First, pedantic point, you mean "biological sex". The people who get suicidal are uncomfortable with their bodies. That aside:
A large fraction of MtFs have autogynephilia. Even before the recent (20 yrs) runup, it was most likely more than half; now, it's probably more like 90%. This is even when you include only the people who get some form of medical transition; if you include all the "dude shaves his legs and wears a skirt" crowd it's probably even higher (though at that point you probably just start getting general weirdos who aren't in the same clade as people who seek medical transition).
Do the AGP MtFs who seek medical transition and official name changes fit your description? Maybe! Depending on exactly how you cash out terms like "dysphoria" (or your "very uncomfortable"), possibly the vast majority of them! But also.... AGP has a sexual element. Almost nobody medically transitions because it gets them off to do so, that's completely crazy (and sometimes they get surgeries to remove their genitals or reconstruct them as pseudo-female-genitals, come on; and sometimes they find that cross-sex hormones prevent them from getting off and still continue to transition). But at the same time... if you've got AGP, then you do have an arousal response to the idea of being female, and for many AGPs, this is especially triggered by cross-dressing. So there's a sense in which a lot of MtFs... do, in fact, have a cross-dressing fetish, if you look at it that way. It's not why they're transitioning, in the sense that they wouldn't be doing it if it was just a fetish, but it's there. I've heard it becomes less... stimulating... once they've been doing it for a long time, though. It's complicated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link