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 -
Indeed this problem seems almost intractable -- I have an idea though!
What if the government were to issue some sort of document confirming the sex of an individual? A certificate or something. Obviously it wouldn't be practical to check all the time, but at least there'd be some kind of ground truth, and complaints could be quickly and easily resolved without anyone needing to check AOC or Nancy Mace's genitals.
Having government officials observe peoples' genitalia in order to produce this document in the first place, I admit has privacy implications and would be open to abuse -- but hear me out -- babies don't really care about being seen naked, and doctors see naked babies all the time. Maybe the doctor attending a baby's birth could note this information, and provide it to the government? He/she could even note as well the date and location of birth, which could be useful down the road for proving age and/or citizenship.
I think with the proper marketing this idea could really catch on -- thing is I can't think of a catchy name for such a document! Does anyone have any ideas as to what we might call it?
Yes, yes, a birth certificate, an identify document that can be altered to reflect transgender individuals’ gender identity in all but five states. So as long as a person has a birth certificate with his or her gender of choice, he should be able to use the restroom of his choosing as well?
Birth Certificate, perfect! They won't really work if people can change them all the time though -- teenagers would change them so they could buy beer, and foreigners might take advantage of the opportunity to apply for a passport or run for President. I think these Birth Certificates would need to be written in ink, on paper at or around the time of birth -- that way people wouldn't be able to use them to defraud others.
If people are issuing other sorts of certificates that muddy the waters and track 'gender' rather than 'sex' -- you should ask yourself why those people would do that, and further why they would then proceed to complain ('complain' i guess -- AOC is not actually complaining here) that it's impossible to keep track of what sex people are without subjecting them to genital inspections.
So your answer is people have to carry their birth certificate with them to prove which bathroom they can go into? I know the UK gets a bad rap for having licenses for everything, but I've never had to show one to go to the bathroom. So in the spirit of your query:
What happened to the free market solutions in the freest country in the world? Why are you jumping straight to a government solution? If you want a female (or male) only bathroom, you can pay for a subscription and the private company will demand proof (DNA perhaps, they can buy out 23andMe, I hear that is going cheap) before you get put on the access list, for their chain of male/female/unisex W.C.s across the nation.
The free market, not the government is the best way of determining what the value of a bathroom free from the opposite sex really is, by finding out what people are willing to pay. Who wants unelected government bureaucrats making these kinds of decisions? Have you heard how much the army pays for toilet seats? These birth certificates will be printed by equipment sourced from the lowest bidder, and will be easily falsifiable. No, let's let the invisible hand of the free market deal with it, that is what America is about. That way, as the amount people are willing to pay rises, companies will convert shops into toilets and perhaps the incentives will lead to exciting new developments in toilet security technology, as they will want to ensure people do not take advantage. Let's see the Russkies keep up with the unleashed might of the American bathroom dollar! If they thought Western supermarkets were startling, once the toilet boom takes off, all we will have to do is install a few American toilets in Ukrainian towns about to be overrun, and Putin will be out on his ear in no time.
I agree, the Civil Right Act is unconstitutional and unamerican and should be abolished to restore basic rights to freedom of association.
Well free association means anyone can use any bathroom, otherwise someones right of free bathroom association is being infringed, but if thats your position that is ok.
Aren't you just trolling at this point? If this is how freedom of association worked, there'd be no point in a Civil Rights Act to begin with, and there's no way you don't know this.
I'm not trolling, I am pointing out a mistake in the argument. Free association has a positive and negative right. If you have a whites only bathroom (or space in general) then a white and black friend group have their right to associate infringed. (Like pre Civil rights times) Likewise if you have a mixed bathroom a black guy who does not want to associate with white people has his right to not associate with people he does not want to infringed when he walks in and finds Bill Clinton (like post Civil rights times).
So yes prior to the Civil rights act some people had their rights to free association infringed, and afterwards a different group does. There is no way for both parties to have a universal right at the same time. They are contradictory. And this logically maps onto the trans issue here.
Just to point out, it is ok to infringe rights, we have to do it all the time. Its just as both sides have free association arguments, THAT particular reasoning can't be used as a deciding factor. You have to have some other argument. Of which there are lots of course, but thats beyond the scope of my point.
If you wanted to do only that, starting off by saying you find freedom of association contradictory, rather than by saying it means something you don't even believe yourself, would be a much more productive approach to the conversation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is certainly untrue. Under free association anyone can use any bathroom if they are authorized by the owner of the premises.
And yes I think that's a lot better than the status quo. If people want to have unisex bathrooms, strict bio separation, "no homers club" or whatever arrangement they desire, let them. It's a free country.
But public bathrooms are a thing. If you have a whites only bathroom and a blacks only, and I am black and you are white, our right to free association is infringed. Because we can't as so many women do go to the bathroom together.
Whether thats the owners choice or not is irrelevant, one way or another someones right to free association IS infringed. Either black and white friends can't use the same bathroom, or a white guy who doesn't want to associate with black people has his rights ti not associate infringed when he walks in and finds P Diddy there.
Its impossible for someones right not to be infringed because they are conflicting. Thats different as to whether that should be legal. You can certainly argue people should be able to pick whose rights they want to infringe, but they are certainly going to be infringing someones, ergo we are admitting there is no general right to free association. We're just picking and choosing. It can't be a free country in this regard. The US has roughly chosen that the positive right to free association is of greater value than the negative right for historical reasons but don't get it twisted, thete is no option that preserves everyones right to free association. Its a logical impossibility.
I mean, I have no trouble sharing a bathroom with most blacks, but would find it very concerning to have to share one with P Diddy.
More options
Context Copy link
Americans are the proud inheritors of the British tradition of government by consent. As with every social institution in such a society, the rules can be set by the most local institution according to the local custom. And can be changed if the custom changes.
Rights are a lot less messy when you give up on the destructive idea that they can be positive and restrict them to the specific traditions of Englishmen. As Clarence Thomas is fond of explaining tersely.
No, you're just unhappy with the English tradition and would like a more ideal and logically consistent form of Liberalism that is untenable.
You are sick of the malady of the French Revolution and will only dissolve any society you get control of in a futile attempt to reconcile equality and liberty.
This is not possible, and it is not desirable.
The idea that one should shrug and accept tyranny in the face of such contradictions is not American. The American way is to embrace an optimistic negotiated compromise and entrust the future to make good on the spirit of that compromise.
It is certainly not to have the State figure out the rational answer to a problem and have people conform. That's the Continental way of doing things, with its managerial demands for universal standardization and its enforcement at the point of bayonets. One must ask: what the fuck is a kilometer?
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
Sarcastic guns n glory American exceptionalism is kind of transparent man. I liked where you took it though.
Well to be fair I was trying to make sure, people would get it, what with Poe's law and all, so i wanted it to be transparent. My first draft was more subtle!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So it's not so much that there isn't a solution and more that some people ruined the perfectly fine solution and are now pretending that this is an intractable problem?
Lacks the same rhetorical force I fear.
More options
Context Copy link
If these "birth certificates" are being altered years after the birth has happened, then it doesn't sound like that's what @jkf wants to implement. The name is catchy though, and I can see how it would mislead you into thinking it implements the idea, even though it doesn't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link