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'm aware, but, for a couple of reasons that isn't a position I have a lot of respect for; sorry if the following two-point reply is a bit on the curt side.
First, because it relies on a kind of obtuse definition of "lying" that breaks down completely as soon as you look at, for example, non-binary people. If I'm telling you to call me "ze", there is no sense in which I am telling you to lie about what my junk looks like. "Ze" implies no factual statement about that whatsoever.
Second, because treating that as the genuine crux yields an insane position which only a few contrarians have ever endorsed. Are you seriously saying you're fine with a man getting bottom surgery, breast implants and estrogen shots, renaming himself 'Alice', and wearing dresses - but once he demands to be addressed as 'she', that's where you draw the line? Really? I'm sorry but I just don't believe this could be any serious person's root objection to transgenderism.
Rule of thumb: if something only affects consenting adults, it is no business of mine.
(Sidenote: my actual internal rule of thumb is a little more subtle than this, including the self-referential social contract definition to attempt to address the paradox of tolerance. Not relevant in this particular situation.)
Elaborating on these cases:
[Under the assumption that this] affects only a consenting adult: is no business of mine.
[Under the assumption that this] affects only a consenting adult: is no business of mine.
[n.b. said rule of thumb does not apply about demands to affect those who are not consenting adults]
[Under the assumption that this] affects only a consenting adult: is no business of mine.
[Under the assumption that this] affects only a consenting adult: is no business of mine.
[n.b. said rule of thumb does not apply about demands to affect those who are not consenting adults]
Depends on what precisely is meant by this.
If this means 'private chats between consenting adults refer to said person by the moniker Alice', this affects only consenting adults, and as such is no business of mine.
If this means 'publicly wishes to be known by the moniker Alice', this is on the borderline of said rule of thumb. I tend to lean towards saying this rule of thumb does not apply; I can see arguments either way and so tend to err on the side of stating this is no business of mine regardless.
If this means 'demands to be known only by the moniker Alice', this affects those who are not consenting adults, and as such said rule of thumb does not apply.
This affects those who are not consenting adults, and as such said rule of thumb does not apply.
N.B. Do not conflate 'said rule of thumb does not apply' with ''should not be allowed'.
N.B. Do not conflate 'is no business of mine' with 'is endorsed'.
N.B. Do not conflate 'do not conflate A and B' with 'A implies not B'
N.B. In general, do not conflate A implies B with !A implies !B.
N.B. In general, do not conflate A implies B with B implies A.
I'm curious: what portion of the above axiom and implications thereof do you not believe could be serious, and why?
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, nonbinary is lying, because nonbinary is not real.
More options
Context Copy link
This is essentially every liberal's root objection to (part of) the trans movement. The basis of liberalism (real liberalism, not the recent US perversion of the word) is "you do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt me; I do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt you". All of the first five things fall under "you do what you want"; the last one is denying "I do what I want".
If you think liberalism is insane, well, okay, glad we understand each other. If you think it's in the minority, eh, you're probably right, which is sad, but it's hardly "only a few contrarians".
...I do also have a point to make which is kind of awkward, because I find the entire form of the argument to be invalid and ordinarily assiduously avoid making it, but which might be somewhat more compelling to you.
Specifically, autism.
See, the basic reasoning behind enforcing pronouns on others is that transsexuals would be psychologically damaged by being misgendered, and might have any of various negative outcomes most prominently including but not limited to suicide. Here's the problem: autistics are often psychologically damaged by being forced to say things they think are "wrong", including invalid additions to closed-class words like pronouns, and obviously simple falsehoods. I'm not saying I never lie, but we're talking literally three times in the last fifteen years, and on all three occasions I literally had cause to believe someone could be murdered if I didn't tell the lie. And I remember the effort knocking me around badly on at least one of those occasions - another knocked me around badly in general, as you might expect from a life-and-death situation, but I'm a bit hazy on how much the lie contributed. I am fairly certain that my mental health would go down the toilet if I were forced to do this on a regular basis; the last time I had to suppress my nature (although in a slightly-different way) in the long-term, I literally wound up attacking my mother with a duvet while stark naked (and the split personality took about a decade to fully wither).
So. Now we're at an impasse; the exact rationale for enforcing pronouns also demands that we don't enforce pronouns. I don't see any consistent rule that allows ignoring the autistic problem but not the trans problem; autism is at least as much of an immutable characteristic (NB: I'm ex-trans myself), autistic mental health outcomes also suck horribly, and prevalence rates are similar. SJ prioritises one over the other, but as far as I can tell that's just because at least since GamerGate SJ finds central examples of autists unsympathetic and doesn't care what happens to us.
As I said, I find this argument's entire form objectionable; I reject these sorts of arguments entirely, because they result in paradoxes like this one and more generally cause massive headaches for everyone. I don't ask for special accommodations for being autistic; yes, loud noise bothers the hell out of me, but I solve that with earmuffs rather than requiring others to remove the noise, because it's a me problem and not an everyone problem. But you seem to find these sorts of arguments a bit more compelling than I do, so I might as well point out the issue.
EDIT: Okay, one of the times I lied (and the time I clearly remember being a crying mess afterward), what I was afraid of would AIUI technically have been manslaughter, not murder. I don't think this has much relevance to the point at issue, though.
Not in my experience. Certainly parents tend to admit that they would, if pushed, prefer to have their child switch pronouns without medically transitioning, than medically transition without switching pronouns.
It's not really my basic reasoning for this, FWIW.
But also, at an epistemological level, I simply don't grant that using a trans person's preferred pronouns constitutes "lying". Like I said elsewhere in this thread, it doesn't involve communicating any untrue belief about physical reality. When I say "this trans women is, socially, within the object-class for which we use the pronoun she" I am not telling you she has a uterus any more than I'd be telling you a sailing ship had a uterus if I told you "traditionally, seafaring vessels are referred to with the pronoun she". If calling a wooden floating object anything but an 'it' bothers you for the same reason, well, I'm sorry for you, but so it goes.
I would be interested to see if this was still the case if we had fully-reversible medical transitions.
I would be also interested to see if this was still the case if we had Clarketech-style indistinguishable-except-with-specialized-medical-tech medical transitions.
Here's hoping that I'll be able to see the answer to at least one of these questions within my lifetime...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are telling me to pretend to believe that you are neither man nor woman, when in fact you are obviously one or the other.
If a white person said that they didn't want to be described as "white" but rather "devoid of race", people who indulged them in this would be lying.
More options
Context Copy link
This is untrue. It requires acknowledgement of the ideological concept of non-binary genders, of gender itself, and of an entire sociological theory. How may someone who entirely rejects this concept address this hypothetical you, provided they also don't believe you are owed self declared titles?
Some people believe in:
Lest we are ready to call the adherents of the most popular religion in the world "contrarians", these do not seem like small objections to the concept of introducing mandatory political forms of address in everyday life.
Indeed this was already a point of contention when French and Russian Revolutionaries made similar demands. With similar motivations, I might add.
Then you've just had your fingers in your ears for a decade whilst Jordan Peterson was yelling explanations so loudly he hurt himself. What did you think the opposition to C-16 was about in Canada exactly? Did you care to listen to the opponents at all?
People in the West are generally fine with you doing whatever the fuck you want to yourself and pretty much anything to other consenting adults. Where they tend to object is when you make demands of them.
And well, requiring that someone act against their conscience is generally regarded as a violation of their natural rights.
You can wear all the dresses, have the surgeries and call yourself whatever you want. You just can't demand that your uncle Edward be jailed or lose his job because he disapproves and refuses to engage with the charade in principle. That's all.
I don't think it does, any more than I have to believe in God to address a nun as 'Sister So-and-so' rather than 'Mrs'. Which I guess may be what you meant by "being owed self-declared titles". I guess I bite that bullet. If it doesn't imply lying about actual physical reality then I support a social norm that you should call people what they want to be called, in general, or else not interact with them at all.
Though I also have a more pointed objection. I don't think I have any different beliefs about object-level reality than you do regarding 'gender'. This sort of thing gets very twisty with how self-referential it all is, but genuinely, my only factual belief about the 'ze' person is 'they like it when I call zir ze, and ze doesn't like if I call zir a she'. This is an observable fact about zir behavior, which you can observe as easily as I; and it is literally all I mean if I tell you 'zir gender is non-binary'.
(We might have a value disagreement about whether it's bad to go against zir wishes; we might have a political disagreement about whether it's good for society to have lots of non-binary people in it. But when I say 'that guy over there is non-binary', as a statement about the world, I truly don't think you factually disagree with any part of what I mean by that sentence. So I wouldn't be asking you to lie if I asked you to repeat it.)
Referring to a nun as Sister Mary other saint's name of religious concept does not imply anything about the truth of the Catholic faith. Addressing her as Miss Birthname would probably take some research; addressing her as Mrs would be lying because she is not married.
Yes I do. That guy is a guy. He might not be a man, depending on how rigidly you define it, but he's not 'outside the gender binary' because that is a thing that only exists for severe birth defects and usually prefers the term 'intersex'. He's probably some kind of faggot or squirrelly guy, but he is still a guy. You can't opt out of your gender.
No you don't. Ze is a biological male. I agree with this, you agree with this. When I tell you "ze is non-binary" I am saying "ze dislikes being described as he or a man in social contexts", which is a true fact about this person's behavior, as apparent to you as it is to me. The sentence is only a lie if you interpret "non-binary" as meaning "physically intersex" which is not what I understand the word to mean in that sentence, nor, for that matter, how anybody else defines it.
You might as well say that I'm lying when I say "this person is a red-head" because you insist on only applying that word to someone whose entire head is painted cherry-red, rather than someone with orange hair. You can come up with a strained argument for this being the literal meaning of the phrase if you showed it to a space alien, but it's not what anybody who uses the word means by it. (Or, for an even closer example: if I tell you "this guy is a furry", are you going to insist that this is a lie, because he's only wearing a suit, and doesn't have literal fur? No. Regardless of your opinions on whether either is an advisable lifestyle choice, "nonbinary" is a perfectly good descriptor for a certain type of person as defined by their behavior, just like "furry" is.)
If you've got another non-derogatory descriptive word for "person who dislikes being called a man and wants to be addressed as a ze", I'm all ears. But I think "non-binary" is a perfectly good descriptive term which people are unlikely to misunderstand as being in reference to a hormonal condition.
I can simply call him a guy, which is a true statement. He can dislike being a guy all he wants, but he can't change it, any more than I can change into a redhead by insisting upon it(I could dye my hair of course, but being male/female is rather more fundamental).
I'm not sure what behavior you're referencing- we have a non-derogatory word for males who engage in effeminate behavior: metrosexual. They're still guys.
I'm not arguing that it would be untrue of you to call zir a guy; I'm saying it wouldn't be a lie to call zir non-binary. Very different. (Compare: this guy is a furry/this guy is a Homo sapiens.)
That ze is liable to tell you that ze is non-binary, refer to themself as a "ze" or a "Mx", wave a yellow-white-purple-black flag around, dress ambiguously, not want to hang out with to you if you insist on calling zir "Sir" or "Ma'am", and so on. When I tell you someone "is nonbinary", that is what I am telling you; it's not rocket science, and it's not synonymous with the information I'd be conveying if I told you a guy was metrosexual.
These behaviors are political, they’re not anything to do with gender. Non-binary is a made up identity that doesn’t reflect being outside the gender binary because being outside the gender binary is a set of birth defects which notably are not called nonbinary. You could say ‘so-and-so is very pro-lgbt’ and convey the same information, except for preferred pronouns- and that’s generally not conveyed by a non-binary label, because there is no actual agreement among people who’ve deluded themselves into thinking they’re outside the gender binary as to what pronouns they prefer(ze/see vs they/them vs she/they or xe/xim or whatever other bullshit they’ve made up).
‘Jim is non-binary’ tells me Jim’s political beliefs, but ‘Jim is woke’ does a better job of that. It tells me he’s probably not a macho he-man, but ‘Jim is metrosexual’ is an existing description for an adult male who has many feminine traits. It doesn’t tell me his pronouns or preferred form of address, other than their being wrong. And that is the only information it conveys.
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
So absolutely then.
In countries that recognize a right to Free Speech, you are under no obligation to recognize any Church's titles as legitimate. What addresses are acceptable or appropriate in what context is a relatively common sticking point of inter-faith dialogue, actually.
Well I for one respect the blood of those who fought to abolish that social norm.
I mean I don't believe that gender exists, so I'm not sure that's true. But regardless of our agreement, truth is not limited to such matters. Otherwise freedom of religion would be impossible.
People can want to be called any and all manner of things, that doesn't give them any right to preempt me choosing my own words to think about and describe the world.
The best concession you're going to get is that if it's easier to do something, people may choose to do it out of politeness. But neopronouns have never been easier than anything.
Under no legal obligation. But it would still be the polite thing to do if you ran into a nun at the grocery store. There is a very great difference between laws and social norms. I believe we should have a social norm of using trans people's preferred pronouns; I do not think it should be a crime not to. I am in favor of a world where journalists typically use a trans person's preferred pronouns if they're writing a piece about them, as opposed to a world where they typically do the reverse - I am not saying I want journalists to be legally mandated to write the story either way.
I don't know what sort of 'gender' you don't believe exists, but I promise, I very probably don't believe in it either.
A nun you ran into at the grocery store would be perfectly fine being addressed with 'how do you do ma'am'. Sister is a title replacing 'miss'.
More options
Context Copy link
My grandmother is and always has been a card carrying member of our communist party. She is also very involved in her local community and great friends with the local priest, pastor and rabbi. Yet she has made a point to never use their titles in conversation (opiate of the masses you understand).
Given this has never stopped her from carrying business in good company, I'm not sure I buy the need for such a norm. And frankly it's my belief that politeness is something that is to be negotiated between individuals rather than imposed by some rational rule.
I'm fine with journalists using whatever language they desire, and for people to tell them they are right or wrong to do so either way.
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
Nonbinary people are still either men or women -- he/her. Asking for ze is asking for a lie.
Yes?
None of the other stuff impacts me in the slightest; it's (aspirationally) a free country. "Demands to be addressed as she" is maybe the least sticky of the demands that are being made IRL, but it's still sticky enough.
Only in a very exotic sense that I just can't fathom. No one is asking you to pretend that a single cell in that person's body is arranged differently than you believe it to be. Your beliefs about physical reality are perfectly aligned with the 'ze's. You have a disagreement about social norms but the trans person isn't asking you to lie about what you believe to be the ground-level truth. I brought up the non-binary thing because in the case of e.g. a trans woman, you can kinda sorta argue that you're being asked to act-as-though this person has a vagina, even if you're not being asked to believe that they really physically do. But a non-binary person? There's nothing there.
You can't fathom people believing that there is no such thing as a third gender? I don't know what to tell you; AMA I guess.
I can't fathom that people can only parse "Alice is non-binary" as "Alice belongs to an objectively real third gender that abstractly exists" (a falsifiable claim about the world, and thus, a lie if you don't think it's true) rather than "Alice identifies as non-binary" (an undeniable objective fact about Alice's behavior and therefore not a lie whether or not you think Alice ought to be non-binary).
I don't care what Alice identifies at -- I identify Alice as a woman or a man, and referring to him/her otherwise would be untrue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What if I don't believe in this novel conception of social norms?
What if I asked you to not use any gendered pronouns at all and to use "comrade" instead in every occurence? Would you not have any objection based on your own belief system?
Telling the truth is not limited to truths that pertain to material reality. As it happens.
Drawing your attention to my comment to @WandererintheWilderness here.
More options
Context Copy link
Not really, no. I would find it cumbersome, and, as a result, I'd probably try and avoid having to talk about you at all. But if I absolutely had to write about you, particularly somewhere you or another comradegender person could see it, I'd honor your request.
Language is an adaptive compression and error-correction algorithm on concepts over a lossy channel, give or take.
And indeed there is a lot of overlap between English and an entropy code with a preshared dictionary. (Not perfect by any means - English is complicated!) Pick a number of output symbols, pack your common concepts into short combinations of output symbols and your less common concepts into longer combinations of output symbols, and go from there.
Every input symbol in an entropy encoding has an optimum length of output symbol(s) based on the input symbol probabilities. Pick an output that is longer, and the encoding will be less efficient on average. But also: pick an output that is shorter, and the encoding will be less efficient on average too! This is because making the output encoding for that particular symbol shorter requires making the output encodings for other symbol(s) longer in a way that results in a less efficient encoding overall.
English's error correction and detection is largely in the form of sentence structure and (commonly) using only a relatively small portion of the potential space of all spoken syllables (or letters, in the case of written text. For instance, you were able to reed this sentence regardless of my typo, due to 'reed' being far less likely to refer to the plant in context than to a mis-spelling of 'read').
English speakers tend to adapt their language to channel capacity too, using simpler and more distinct words and concepts when e.g. in the presence of high amounts of background noise. Ditto, English speakers have a tendency to have a reasonable grasp of 'unusual' words, and when one is encountered will often slow down, repeat, or otherwise be careful about saying it as a hint of 'yes, this is in fact what I meant to say, not an inadvertent error'. (The fact that this overlaps substantially with 'unusual words tend to be practiced less' is very helpful here!)
You even have adaptive encoding. Jargon is precisely noting that a concept comes up a lot and so assigning a shorter nickname to it in context. Ditto things like short nicknames and first names versus full names. Use the short form when it is unambiguous in context, and otherwise use the longer (but unambiguous) version. Even pronouns are themselves just shorter references to a particular person (or set of people) when it can be inferred from context as opposed to repeatedly stated.
Now let's come back to names.
If you demand you must be referred to by, oh, the word 'and'. What have you done?
Well, first off you've just decreed that the preshared dictionary for everyone be updated to include you as a definition for the word 'and'. This is a minor cost for the benefit of one, in the classic salami-slicing fashion. At least it is a one-time cost (...it is a one-time cost, right?)
Second, you've just made the handshake process more annoying for everyone. Quick: what happens when I talk to someone who has not heard that you are to now be referred to as 'and'? Answer: confusion & wasted time. This is at least a cost paid no more than once per person (hopefully).
Third, you've make the 'standard' use of the word 'and' marginally more ambiguous. Again, this hurts everyone for the benefit of one, in the classic salami-slicing fashion.
Fourth, you've just decreed people must memorize said moniker in order to refer to you. Trivial in this case; decidedly non-trivial in others. Again, this hurts everyone for the benefit of one, in the classic salami-slicing fashion.
Finally - recall the above discussion re: adaptive encoding. You've decreed that there is no acceptable longer version, and as such you occupy a non-trivial portion of the space of the entire English language. In practice what happens is people ignore this and come up with increasingly convoluted workarounds. Because at the end of the day: you're probably that important to yourself. You may be that important to your closest friends (if so, you have good friends). Beyond that? You - statistically speaking with regards to the preshared dictionary that is English - are not that important. Or, more to the point: not everyone can be that important.
The same sort of thing occurs when a word has overlap with a concept that is used more frequently than your name.
And an analogous sort of thing even occurs when you pick a word that does not exist. Again: Shannon capacity. Adding a symbol does not magically break the channel capacity bound. It just makes the transmission slower, and communication overall - assuming that you are not used in context as often as the symbol length would imply - slower.
So, all of the above being said, if you're still pushing to change your moniker, what can you do?
...and in the context of "use "comrade" instead in every occurrence [of a gendered pronoun]" (@IGI-111):
More options
Context Copy link
In total honesty, I find tolerating that imposition incomprehensible.
Must be a cultural thing.
Right? It wasn't that long ago that asking others to call you by a nickname was cringe. It wasn't that long ago that if your name kind of sucked, people would just choose a different one for you.
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