site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025

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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

However, I don't think a person having a penis or vagina is a valid reason to stop them from competing against someone with a penis or vagina in competitive sports. I think what should stop them is weight classes, a principle I understand to already be understood in wrestling, and that has nothing to do with being a woman or man.

https://boysvswomen.com/

Like, I'm sorry, if you want to insist men and women are exactly the same except for plumbing, I probably can't convince you otherwise, but the evidence is overwhelming that this is not the case. A man will almost always absolutely dominate a woman in the same weight class in every sport, if they have even remotely comparable levels of training.

And I don't think there's a problem housing them together for the same reason. Women beat the shit out of eachother in prison just as much as men do

For this I don't have a quick link to dispute the assertion, but I am extremely doubtful of this and wonder if you have any evidence besides that one episode of Orange is the New Black? I have read enough stories recently of convicted male sex offenders who conveniently announced their new gender identity and desire to be housed in a women's facility (frequently taking absolutely no steps to "transition" beyond maybe wearing a wig), as well as trans women who have assaulted female inmates in prison, that I think there are pretty good reasons not to incarcerate penis-havers with women, even if some of them might be sincere about their gender identification. I hate to use that word again, but you seem shockingly naive to just take at face value a convicted rapist's assertion that he's now a woman house him with women please?

house a buff woman with a scrawny man together and I'd see the same result if you reversed the weight class.

You might be surprised just how much you'd have to skew that scenario to give the woman even odds. Like, yes, if he's a sickly 98-pound weakling who's never thrown a punch in his life up against 200-pound Berthilda the Gang-Banger, sure, she might be able to whup him. But otherwise? Not likely.

I dunno, I see a whole lot more of "trans women are freaks in the head for being trans, trans women are clearly much uglier being trans and therefore must hate themselves, trans women are just horny men who want to peep at women pissing in the bathroom, trans women want to convince your kid they're trans to mutilate themselves because deep down they're insecure, xyz" than "trans women are unfairly advantaged in sports and trans women pose a safety threat to their fellow inmates".

This is probably true, but the fact that many people are motivated primarily by disgust or moral condemnation does not make the very real physical concerns invalid.

I've never seen Orange is The New Black actually. I think it's unacceptable to house sexual convicts with non-sexual convicts regardless of gender. If a convicted rapist asserts that he's now a woman, then he's a woman. She still shouldn't be housed with anyone due to the nature of her crime, but if she's going to be, she's especially not going to be house with someone who is clearly physically unable to fight back against her.

I think it's unacceptable to house sexual convicts with non-sexual convicts regardless of gender. If a convicted rapist asserts that he's now a woman, then he's a woman. She still shouldn't be housed with anyone due to the nature of her crime

Okay, but given the limited resources available to the prison service, in which it isn't practical to sequester all criminals convicted of sexual offenses away from the general population, where should a convicted rapist with an intact penis who claims to identify as a woman be housed? In the male prison, or the female prison?

Well, I can't agree with any of this, but I believe you believe it.

Getting back to the original topic, do I understand you correctly that you consider anyone who does not believe this to be definitionally not a feminist?