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 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